Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Daily Telegraph:

 

Council refuses to clean up spilt bin without staff qualified to wear wellies

 

A council allegedly refused to clean up a dustbin that fell into a four inch stream because no-one "qualified" to wear wellington boots was available.

 

An official from Chichester District Council also allegedly said that ropes and harnesses would be needed to prevent workers from being washed away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

No wonder the country is in the state it is..... I bet the ones giving ze orders (for ze troops to follow) vere on fity grand a year too!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Received the following from a Halton colleague. Interestingly as you will see from the item, Halton still have to go through due process otherwise some one acting on behalf of the illegal immigrant could claim maladministration etc...and even sue for compensation for the afforementioned illegal.

 

The following particularly drew my attention:

 

SAIED first entered this country as a Student in November 2005.

 

Owing to SAIED failing to attend college, this status expired and he was refused Leave to Remain on 17/10/2007. This decision was appealed but was refused on 18/2/2008. He is currently at a status of Appeal Rights Exhausted as from 26/2/2008 and therefore has no legal right to work or even remain in the

United Kingdom.

 

Attempts have been made to re-contact SAIED to detain him for the Immigration Services but he has continued to fail to respond to all attempts to contact him.

 

Did they really think Mr Saied was going to respond. :?:wink:

 

Anyway here is the Agenda item:

 

REPORT: Regulatory Committee

DATE: 23 March 2009

REPORTING OFFICER: Chief Executive

SUBJECT: Application to Review Pizza de Action Unit 17

Oldgate St Michaels Industrial Estate Widnes.

WARDS: Ditton

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

To hold a hearing to consider an application for the review of a premises

licence under Section 51 Licensing Act 2003. The Police have applied for the

review which relates to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder licensing

objective.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee considers the Section 51 application

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 An application has been made under section 51 Licensing Act 2003 (?the 2003

Act?) to review the Premises Licence in relation to the above property.

3.2 This hearing is held in accordance with the 2003 Act and the Licensing Act

2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.

3.3 The procedure to be followed has been circulated to all parties and will be

repeated at the beginning of the hearing.

3.4 The hearing is solely concerned with the Section 51 application.

4 THE APPLICATION

4.1 An application for the review of the premises licence was received on 6

February 2009 from Cheshire Constabulary.

4.2 The premises licence allows Late Night Refreshment at the premises between

23.00 and Midnight Sunday to Thursday and 23.00 to 01.00 Friday and

Saturday

4.3 The Premises Licence holder is Muayed Saied.

4.4 The review was requested by Cheshire Constabulary on the following

grounds:-

This application to Transfer the Premises Licence was submitted by Muayed

SAIED on 27/10/2008 but contained few details on which to do a full check.

Subsequent enquiries were made, culminating with a check with the

Immigration Services. Here it was found that SAIED was an illegal foreign

national with no authority to work or, indeed, even remain in the United

Kingdom.

Full checks were carried out by the Immigration Services and it was found that

SAIED first entered this country as a Student in November 2005. Owing to

Page 1 Agenda Item 3

SAIED failing to attend college, this status expired and he was refused Leave

to Remain on 17/10/2007. This decision was appealed but was refused on

18/2/2008. He is currently at a status of Appeal Rights Exhausted as from

26/2/2008 and therefore has no legal right to work or even remain in the

United Kingdom.

Attempts have been made to re-contact SAIED to detain him for the

Immigration Services but he has continued to fail to respond to all attempts to

contact him.

A full C.J. witness statement is attached from Michelle LIVESEY of the

Immigration Services to officially record SAIED's illegal status.

CONCLUSIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

From the evidence presented by Officer Livesey it is clear that SAIED should

not be in this country, let alone conducting a business here.

In respect of an appropriate means of disposal, the Committee do not have a

great deal of options here. There is no facility to simply remove Saied as the

PLH and the imposition of suitable Conditions is not appropriate. Though I

have no issues with the business itself, the only remaining option left open is

the revocation the Premises Licence.

[Note the witness statement from Michelle Livesey referred to above will

be presented to members at the hearing]

5.1 REPRESENTATIONS FROM RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES

No representations were made from any other responsible authority in

response to the review application

6.1 REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

No representations were made from interested parties in response to the

review application.

7.0 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMITTEE

7.1 Section 52 of the Licensing Act 2003 states that the Council must, having

regard to the application and any relevant representations, take such of the

following steps (if any) as it considers necessary for the promotion of the

Licensing Objectives.

7.2 The steps which are relevant to this type of application

? To suspend the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months

? To revoke the licence.

8.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

8.1 None

9.0 OTHER IMPLICATIONS

9.1 None

Page 2

10.0 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNCILS PRIORITIES

10.1 Children and Young People in Halton

None

10.2 Employment Learning and Skills in Halton

N/A

10.3 A healthy Halton

N/A

10.4 A Safer Halton

None

10.5 Halton?s Urban Renewal

N/A

11.0 RISK ANALYSIS

N/A

12.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY ISSUES

N/A

13 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS UNDER SECTION 100D OF THE LOCAL

GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

Document Place of Inspection Contact Officer

Application

Documents

Legal Services John Tully/Kay Cleary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, when all is saeid and done: if they don't get their way, off they run: is he in Halton, or is he in Hell; that damned illusive Pimpernel?! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Independent:

 

Sainsbury's has renamed Pollack as Colin because, it said, potential buyers were too embarrassed to ask for pollack, a cheap and plentiful cod substitute. After a marketing revamp by the designer Wayne Hemingway, and extensive market research, Sainsbury's hopes colin will revitalise the market for the fish.

 

 

Colin is to be pronounced "colan", after the French term for cooked pollack. France buys 70 per cent of stocks from British waters. Packs of fish, in new packaging, will go on sale in 10 stores to determine whether the rebranding will appeal. "It seems daft that pollack isn't more popular, particularly when it's readily available off our own coast, tastes great and is cheaper than cod," said Hemingway, founder of the Red or Dead fashion brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Telegraph:

 

Barclays bank contractors left a busy high street branch wide open after forgetting to lock it.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5116112/Barclays-contractors-left-bank-wide-open-over-night-after-forgetting-to-lock-up.html

 

Given the credit crunch, the safe was probably empty. :wink::)

 

Talking of which I've just read that Dubai's national debt is 107% of its GDP, it's deep in recession and being bailed out by its neighbour Abu Dhabi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One from the Daily Mail to raise the blood pressure:

 

A council has evicted an organic farmer from a mobile home on her land - despite allowing more than 50 gypsies to set up camp on her doorstep.

Tina Johnston, 42, has lived on the 30-acre plot since 2004 growing boxes of fruit and vegetables which she sells to the local community.

But despite paying council tax, the ecologist and her nine-year-old daughter Grace have been ordered to leave the site following years of planning feuds.

 

Tina was told her self-sufficient farm is on greenbelt land and that she has no right to sleep there.

But planning officials were accused of double standards after a 55-strong group of travellers were allowed to stay on an illegal site in Minety, less than 20 miles away.

The gypsies set up dozens of caravans at the picturesque site last year and applied for retrospective planning permission to stay.

Their application was turned down but they appealed the decision and the case went before a public inquiry - which ruled in their favour.

Tina and Grace have until tomorrow to leave their mobile home or face a ?20,000 fine.

She will now be forced to sell her business to cover the ?10,000 legal fees she has already spent fighting her case.

Tina said: 'I work 16 hours a day on the land, with organic vegetables which I sell in boxes, and beef cows, chickens and it's a really good self-sufficient farm.

'I'm a committed ecologist and was building this up to be a very green business - I even did some of the veg boxes with horse-drawn deliveries.

'I've paid council tax all the time I've been here, which is five years, but it just seems someone somewhere wants me out.

'My barrister told me that if I sold the land to gypsies, they would be allowed to live there.

'Maybe I should, and then ask the gypsies if I could move back in.'

She added: 'The only option for me is to pay up because I can't pay ?10,000 costs.

'If I stuck it out and refused to move, I'd be given a ?20,000 fine. I have no choice but to give up now - I'm so upset.'

Tina and Grace moved into the mobile home in 2004 in a bid to work the land and make a living from its crop.

At the outset, planning bosses at Wiltshire Council told her they had no problem with the mobile home, provided she slept elsewhere.

She has spent the last five years appealing against the decision without success, at a cost of around ?10,000.

Tina won the backing of dozens of locals and her local parish council, and was popular among the community.

But last week, Wiltshire Council ruled that Tina and Grace had to leave their farm in Box, near Chippenham.

 

Last year a 55-strong group of gypsies were allowed to stay on their illegal site 30 minutes down the road in Minety.

A public inquiry ruled that to move the travellers would be a breach of human rights.

But MP for North Wiltshire, James Gray, yesterday branded the decision to evict Tina the real 'human rights tragedy'.

He said: 'Just a few miles away in the same district, gypsy families are allowed to do exactly what this lady wants to do - in fact, she has a better case becasue she is working the land she wants to live on.

'During the saga of the Minety gypsies, this was the case I raised as evidence that there was one rule for one group and another for the rest.

'This case is both peculiar and outrageous.

'I have no doubt that if she declared herself a Romany, she'd be allowed to stay there, but becasue she's admitted she has no such link, she is being forced out.

'The Minety gypsies, for instance, won in the end because they'd been there long enough for the ruling to be that their human rights would be affected by being forced to move.'

Tina now faces the prospect of having to sell her business and move into a 25ft horsebox on non-greenbelt land nearby.

MP James Gray added: 'Here is a farmer forced to live in a horse box while she sells her land and moves away. It beggars belief.'

A spokesman for Wiltshire Council said: 'The land in question is green belt land and as such has stringent planning policies attached to it.

'Our countryside needs to be protected as a resource for future generations and there was no overriding reason why development should be allowed in this case.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just happen to chance upon the Budget for 1695 :shock::shock:

 

Our GDP was ?59 million and the 2 items of expenditure listed were:

 

Defence ?5 million, and interest ?1 million....and our net public debt was ?8.4 million. Public expenditure of 10 %........:wink::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neighbour builds 6ft wall half an inch from family's windows to stop them 'trespassing' on his land by opening them

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210874/Neighbour-builds-6ft-wall-half-inch-familys-windows-stop-trespassing-land-opening-them.html#ixzz0Q7N8seQj

 

 

Beggars belief. An interesting case in so much that there are many terraced houses that front right on to council owned pavements, does that mean that when they open their windows they to are trespassing. :?

 

Personally I think all parties in this case need their heads banging together...and no doubt the legal fraternity will be making money from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this could be a test case for the WBC planning department and it's venture into private enterprise. The question is which side would they support.

 

Does look as though common sense has flown out of the window, ok squeezed out.

 

article-1210874-0647508A000005DC-538_468x630.jpg

 

article-1210874-06475065000005DC-954_468x299.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one to get you going :wink:

 

Motorists should be made legally responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, even if they are not at fault, say Government advisers.

Cycling England, an agency funded by the Transport Department, wants the civil law to be changed so drivers or their insurers would automatically be liable for compensation claims.

The proposal will infuriate drivers, many of whom are angered by the antics of 'Lycra louts' - cyclists who sail through red lights, go the wrong way up one-way streets and intimidate pedestrians on pavements and zebra crossings.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214856/Motorists-blamed-accidents-cyclists-fault--says-Government-advisor.html#ixzz0RjAHiyVs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's one to get you going :wink:

 

Motorists should be made legally responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, even if they are not at fault, say Government advisers.

Cycling England, an agency funded by the Transport Department, wants the civil law to be changed so drivers or their insurers would automatically be liable for compensation claims.

The proposal will infuriate drivers, many of whom are angered by the antics of 'Lycra louts' - cyclists who sail through red lights, go the wrong way up one-way streets and intimidate pedestrians on pavements and zebra crossings.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214856/Motorists-blamed-accidents-cyclists-fault--says-Government-advisor.html#ixzz0RjAHiyVs

 

Amazing that a bunch of uninsured idiots with no concept of road awareness can get away with. Tax them, insure them and then they can have a say in what goes on, otherwise they should be grateful for what they've got (which is 100% more than I would have granted them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that they, Cycling England, receive ?150 million of funding...most or all of which will be from the taxpayer. Just wondering how much the boss of this QUANGO is paid, I understand he was at one time the MD of Raleigh bicycles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that this could be a test case for the WBC planning department and it's venture into private enterprise. The question is which side would they support.

 

Does look as though common sense has flown out of the window, ok squeezed out.

 

 

Not a planning matter Geoff, but rather the childish behaviour of neighbours who need their heads banging together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't vote for them :wink::wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible..... roll on the election so we can banish this bloody nanny state government to the dustbin of history. To be perfectly honest, I would rather the Lib Dems got in that Labour because even the busybody Liberals couldn't possibly mess with folks everyday lives as much as Brown and his cronies do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Women who do not have children should be allowed to take maternity leave, allowing them time off from the workplace, according to a study. "

 

Daily Telegraph.

 

 

I thought they already did, the time off is called a holiday. :?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...