Our Isle of Wight Council?
Mike
"We trained hard to meet our challenges but it seemed as if every time we
were
beginning to form into teams we would be re-organised. I was to learn later
in
life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organising; and a
wonderful
method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing
confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
Gaius Petronius (ca. 27-66)
--
Mike
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk
kj
> "We trained hard to meet our challenges but it seemed as if every time we
> were
> beginning to form into teams we would be re-organised. I was to learn later
> in
> life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organising; and a
> wonderful
> method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing
> confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
>
> Gaius Petronius (ca. 27-66)
>
>
before a vote of 'no confidence' can save us from in-efficienct, over
spending, lying and cover up..before we know it we'll be calling them Whigs
Richard
Local government is totally corrupt at pretty much all
levels................and like racism in the police, this corruption
is
institutionalised and not likely to change................
Mike
"kj" <vforven...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:OYydnUBvqdu8qaPW...@bt.com...
Be interesting to know how the vote goes on the 19th. Regret I won't be
there as I have been called back into Southampton Hospital on that day
-
Richard
> "kj" <vforvendetta...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
What possible difference can voting make?..............you either
support tweedle dee or alternatively tweedle dum..............other
than the name being different they are both the same!
RG
>
> Too cynical by half......
> We have a system and it may, or may not be the best, but that's what we
> have. However, there are different political policies at work, locally
> and
> nationally, even if it is difficult to distinguish at times.
> You may be referring to *professional* politicians who at an early
> moment in
> their adult life had already chosen Politics as a career path and apart
> from
> extreme right or left wingers, it gets difficult to tell 'em apart at
> times
> as they struggle to keep onside with either their current party thinking
> or
> smoozing up to a fickle public attitude.
> The interesting thing over the past year has been the disgraceful antics
> of
> Politicians who have abused the expenses system like pigs to a trough. I
> havn't got the actual figures and can't be bothered to go get them but it
> did appear that the offenders came from both sides of the political
> divide
> at the time.
> However, back to the IOW. This council is in financial crisis and they
> appear not to be able to steer a course out of it.
> Here's one example of how their attempts backfire. The council decided
> that they would stop paying expenses (well, not entirely stop, but alter
> the
> scheme around a total annual mileage usage..) for those people using
> their
> own cars in the course of their jobs. Get that? You have a job, get
> employed by the Council and the nature of the job you do is one that
> requires moving around the Island a fair bit. You use your own vehicle
> because the Council does/cannot/won't provide vehicles for the work to be
> carried out but agrees to pay a milage allowance. The allowance was
> around
> 65p a mile. The council then decide to change the criteria and not pay
> most
> of their employees in Social Services the allowance for using their own
> cars. So far so good...?
> What happens next? The Care Managers, for it is they that travel around
> the most, visiting clients, providers and other area offices during
> their
> working day, say .."fine, we will now use public transport and our own
> legs
> to get around to carry out our duties".
> Chaos is now approaching rapidly as Older Vulnerable people, some with
> learning difficulties some with memory loss problems are beginning to be
> unable to get a Care Manger to visit them at home as the inevitable
> backload
> of visits builds up. Problem is, of course, the visits don't just 'back
> up'
> they bring with them a myriad of problems that require emergency
> responses
> to deal with.... all at a cost, of course that gets ignored as the
> council
> work out how much (..or little!) they have saved by not paying travel
> allowance...
> Here's another.
> The pioneering move, lauded, believe it or not around the UK of giving
> *free* care to anyone over 80 years of age on the Island. Sounds great
> doesn't it..? A real social compassion and recognition of those people
> who
> contributed much during their working lives. Sound bites abound.
> Trumpets
> fanfare! What a fantastic ground breaking initiative they say.....
> Except......... those people over 80 who had no personal wealth or
> resources
> (under national guidelanes that is), no savings over £23,000 etc. ALREADY
> received free care!
> Guess what? All those over 80 who didn't receive free care before the
> scheme started were paying for their care BECAUSE they could afford to.
> What happened was that the 'wealthy' just switched from paying for their
> care.. to the Council picking up the bill often, if not entirely, staying
> with the same Care Providers and same Care Worker throughout. Result, a
> net cost to the Council budget. And it cost millions.
> Meanwhile, the Council enter into two contracts for Care Provision across
> the Island (they also pay on a spot contract to other Island providers).
> One provider is enticed from the mainland to commence care provision and
> one
> provider is an Island based company. Guess what? They pay the company
> from the mainland between £2 - £4 (depending on volume factors) MORE for
> exactly the same job, exactly the same provision than the Island based
> company! Since 2005, this council has paid that mainland company around
> £1
> million MORE than the Island company for exactly the same care provision.
> Hello.....
> But then you are being made privy to information here that most people
> cannot find out about (short of a FOI request) and something the Council
> do
> not want you to know about... (oh, they fired within a few weeks the
> Head
> of Adult Services in 2005 after this little *contractual* mishap..)
> ...and there's much more.
>
A sad story but not unique to the IoW. Look in any issue of Private Eye
and you will see similar stories (and worse) for just about every other
local Council.
HNY to everyone on the Island!
kj
>> received free care!
>> Guess what? All those over 80 who didn't receive free care before the
>> scheme started were paying for their care BECAUSE they could afford to.
>> What happened was that the 'wealthy' just switched from paying for their
>> care.. to the Council picking up the bill often, if not entirely, staying
>> with the same Care Providers and same Care Worker throughout. Result, a
>> net cost to the Council budget. And it cost millions.
>> Meanwhile, the Council enter into two contracts for Care Provision across
>> the Island (they also pay on a spot contract to other Island providers).
>> One provider is enticed from the mainland to commence care provision
>> and one
>> provider is an Island based company. Guess what? They pay the company
>> exactly the same job, exactly the same provision than the Island based
>> company! Since 2005, this council has paid that mainland company
>> million MORE than the Island company for exactly the same care provision.
>> Hello.....
>> But then you are being made privy to information here that most people
>> cannot find out about (short of a FOI request) and something the
>> Council do
>> not want you to know about... (oh, they fired within a few weeks the
>> Head
>> of Adult Services in 2005 after this little *contractual* mishap..)
>> ...and there's much more.
>>
>
> A sad story but not unique to the IoW. Look in any issue of Private Eye
> and you will see similar stories (and worse) for just about every other
> local Council.
>
> HNY to everyone on the Island!
doesn't seem to have a clue about what to do about it, except get into
deaper trouble....utter utter amateurs
Mike
"kj" <vforven...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:Zu-dndqvAr1d6KLW...@bt.com...
>>> (under national guidelanes that is), no savings over �23,000 etc.
>>> ALREADY
>>> received free care!
>>> Guess what? All those over 80 who didn't receive free care before the
>>> scheme started were paying for their care BECAUSE they could afford to.
>>> What happened was that the 'wealthy' just switched from paying for their
>>> care.. to the Council picking up the bill often, if not entirely,
>>> staying
>>> with the same Care Providers and same Care Worker throughout. Result,
>>> a
>>> net cost to the Council budget. And it cost millions.
>>> Meanwhile, the Council enter into two contracts for Care Provision
>>> across
>>> the Island (they also pay on a spot contract to other Island providers).
>>> One provider is enticed from the mainland to commence care provision and
>>> one
>>> provider is an Island based company. Guess what? They pay the company
>>> from the mainland between �2 - �4 (depending on volume factors) MORE for
>>> exactly the same job, exactly the same provision than the Island based
>>> company! Since 2005, this council has paid that mainland company around
>>> �1
>>> million MORE than the Island company for exactly the same care
>>> provision.
>>> Hello.....
>>> But then you are being made privy to information here that most people
>>> cannot find out about (short of a FOI request) and something the Council
>>> do
>>> not want you to know about... (oh, they fired within a few weeks the
>>> Head
>>> of Adult Services in 2005 after this little *contractual* mishap..)
>>> ...and there's much more.
>>>
>>
>> A sad story but not unique to the IoW. Look in any issue of Private Eye
>> and you will see similar stories (and worse) for just about every other
>> local Council.
>>
>> HNY to everyone on the Island!
> In my varied experience, this council is far worse than others, and just
> doesn't seem to have a clue about what to do about it, except get into
> deaper trouble....utter utter amateurs
I think it was Maggie Thatcher who was said to .... 'Know the price of
everything and the value of nothing' and I feel that this Council is the
same, ...... selling the Family Silver, and as such, the vote on the 19th
will go against so as to raise 'a few bucks' :-((
--
Watchman
> carried out but agrees to pay a milage allowance. The allowance was around
> 65p a mile. The council then decide to change the criteria and not pay most
> of their employees in Social Services the allowance for using their own
> cars. So far so good...?
Good points Mark,
but the allowance was a lump sum of £900 per annum plus 39p per mile.
The council scrapped the £900 and increased the mileage rate to 49p.
Therefore the employee would need to do 9000 miles per year (approx 40
miles every working day, not including travelling to and from home and
office) to not lose out.
The council got it so wrong this time especially as the big shots all
kept their (much larger) allowances.
Richard
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 6:43 pm, "'Mike'" <'All.finish...@woolies.com> wrote:
> >> "kj" <vforvendetta...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> "We trained hard to meet our challenges but it seemed as if every
> >>>> time we were
> >>>> beginning to form into teams we would be re-organised. I was to
> >>>> learn later in
> >>>> life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organising; and a
> >>>> wonderful
> >>>> method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while
> >>>> producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
> >>> long before a vote of 'no confidence' can save us from
> >>> in-efficienct, over spending, lying and cover up..before we know it
> >>> we'll be calling them Whigs
> >> Be interesting to know how the vote goes on the 19th. Regret I won't
> >> be there as I have been called back into Southampton Hospital on
> >> that day
> > support tweedle dee or alternatively tweedle dum..............other
> > than the name being different they are both the same!
>
> We have a system and it may, or may not be the best, but that's what we
> have. However, there are different political policies at work, locally and
> nationally, even if it is difficult to distinguish at times.
> You may be referring to *professional* politicians who at an early moment in
> their adult life had already chosen Politics as a career path and apart from
> extreme right or left wingers, it gets difficult to tell 'em apart at times
> as they struggle to keep onside with either their current party thinking or
> smoozing up to a fickle public attitude.
> The interesting thing over the past year has been the disgraceful antics of
> Politicians who have abused the expenses system like pigs to a trough. I
> havn't got the actual figures and can't be bothered to go get them but it
> did appear that the offenders came from both sides of the political divide
> at the time.
> However, back to the IOW. This council is in financial crisis and they
> appear not to be able to steer a course out of it.
> Here's one example of how their attempts backfire. The council decided
> that they would stop paying expenses (well, not entirely stop, but alter the
> scheme around a total annual mileage usage..) for those people using their
> own cars in the course of their jobs. Get that? You have a job, get
> employed by the Council and the nature of the job you do is one that
> requires moving around the Island a fair bit. You use your own vehicle
> because the Council does/cannot/won't provide vehicles for the work to be
> 65p a mile. The council then decide to change the criteria and not pay most
> of their employees in Social Services the allowance for using their own
> cars. So far so good...?
Some of your posts are pretty silly, but suggesting that anyone
involved with politricks is anything other than a liar/cheat/scoundrel
is completely ludicrous!
At the moment taxpayers are footing the bill for a ridiculous
whitewash job over the attack on the people of
Iraqi.................one million dead, billions squandered, and you
suggest politricks should be taken seriously?
Richard
> Of course, such myopic generalisations of politicians are woefully
> inaccurate.
>
> > At the moment taxpayers are footing the bill for a ridiculous
> > whitewash job over the attack on the people of
> > Iraqi.................one million dead, billions squandered, and you
> > suggest politricks should be taken seriously?
>
> bit more...
> The politics behind the actions were deadly serious, my friend.
> Interesting article in todays Independent by Richard Ingrams - he of
> Private Eye fame - who recounted Bush's meeting with Chirac prior to the
> invasion in May 2003 when Bush told Chirac that "Gog and Magog are at work
> in the middle east. The biblical prophesies are being fulfilled. This
> confrontation is willed by God who wants this conflict to erase his people's
> enemy before a new age begins"....!!
> The question might be to Tony Blair..."did Bush speak to you in this
> manner.." and if so, did you concur that to be the case?
> Don't confuse your blinkered views with serious political movement.. albeit
> one from US neo-cons who have/had a deep religious conviction and had been
> planning to attack somewhere, possibly Iraq, from way, way back in their
> murky, dismal past....long before the White House became a reality for
> Bush.
> Also, you repeat this monotone each time an opportunity arises. If only the
> world was a simple and black and white as you would like it. Might make it
> easier for you to comprehend all that is around you, assimilate it and come
> up with some constructive thought. Until then.... well, we can just
> wait..... and wait....
>
> Happy new year
>
> mark
Another complete crock of shite.............apparently from a poster
who actually believes what is propounded in the corp media!
At this moment in time we are witnessing a ridiculous pantomime which
involves UK taxpayers spending several million pounds on a rather
crude propaganda exercise to excuse the murder of around 1 million
people, and squandering billions of ££££s to facilitate this.
Anyone who isnt able to grasp the implications of that, is either very
very dim, or has been completely brainwashed by the established
order.................
mark
Yaaaawwwwn.......... ker plonk.
zzzzzzz
mark
Richard
Says it all really..................I think Mark proves conclusively
by the content of his posts, that he is a fully fledged member of what
Walter Lippmann referred to as the "stupid majority"!
In the age of the internet there is a surfeit of information, and this
means its even easier to confuse people like Mark with propaganda,
which in the eyes of the stupid majority is not recognised as such if
it comes from government sources.................
Mike
"Richard" <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:198fc227-a7c7-4ec5...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
...............................................................
The Christopher Steven's signature tune. He sings it to himself all the
time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhvgRbjHg_w
--
Richard
Mark is simply stupid and misguided, and seems to be held in the
thrall of corporate media/government propaganda! You on the other hand
dont seem to have any sort of agenda, other than that of a walter
mitty type fantasist, who at one moment is suggesting he served as an
officer in the RAF, as well as being the grand wizard of an IOW
freemason group.....................