Councils are planning to raise taxes and cut local services after Government's spending squeeze

2016 could be a challening year for many local residents across the country, after English councils announced a possible rise of the council tax bills and cuts in several local services.

The budget meeting for the local councils will take place later in February, but many councillors are already warning that funding reductions from the Central Government will result to multi-million pound deficits for local communities.

Changes include a possible rise of council tax up to 3.99%, which is the maximum level permitted, as well as a rise of the adult social care insurance payment (premium), which means that council bills could go up by £47 a year for most Band D properties (the rating scale of the energy efficiency of a house – D is an average grade).

In addition, the reduction of the support grant from the Government to the councils might cause “deeper” cuts to a number of local services, including children's centres, short breaks for disabled children, bus subsidies, funding for theatres, museums, community gyms and projects encouraging people to stop smoking and preventing domestic violence. Also, charges for garden waste collections and bereavement services are set to rise in some areas.

It has also been revealed that over 25,000 jobs are under threat because of the cuts to services, while 15 district councils will see their central government grant withdrawn next year and 168 local authorities will have lost their full support grant by 2019/2020.

However, the Department for Communities and Local Government believes that council tax bills will be less at the end of David Cameron’s government, as now councils “will have almost £200 billion to spend on local services and they can plan their funding settlement with more certainty”.

A closer look at the Christopher Jefferies story and the contempt of court

On December 17^th 2010 Joanna Yeates, a 25-year-old landscape architect, went missing in Bristol, after a night out with colleagues.  Following one of the largest police investigations ever undertaken in the Bristol area, Yeates’ body was discovered on Christmas Day of the same year in Failand, North Somerset. A post-mortem examination showed that she had been strangled to death.

It was later revealed that Vincent Tabak, Yeates’ neighbour, was found guilty of her murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Joanna Yeates pictured in 2009

However, Christopher Jefferies, a retired teacher and Yeates’ landlord, was initially arrested on suspicion of her murder. Although it was quickly established that Jefferies – who was never charged – was innocent of any involvement in the crime, his arrest excited great interest in all media around the UK.

Several UK newspapers published negative articles about Mr. Jefferies and “compendious details of his character and personal habits”. (see Wilby, 2011)

The Sun described Jefferies as “weird, posh, lewd and a creepy oddball”, The Daily Star announced “Jo landlord a creep who freaked out schoolgirls” and “angry weirdo”, while The Daily Mirror branded him as a “nutty professor with a bizarre past, who was arrogant, rude and snob.”

Attorney General Dominic Grieve stated on December 31^st 2010, in an interview for BBC Radio 4 that “newspapers and all media are under a legal obligation to observe the principles of the Contempt of Court Act.” He also added that “contempt laws protect an individual going through the investigative and legal process to ensure a fair trial could take place.”

According to Mike Todd and Mark Hanna “the law of contempt protects the integrity of the administration of justice, and the fundamental principle that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Contempt of law most affects journalists when they publish material which might affect a trial, by making a jury more likely to find a defendant guilty – or innocent – or by influencing witness’s evidence.” (Dodd and Hanna, 2014, p. 212)

“The media may run the risk of breaking the Contempt of Court Act 1981 if they comment on active proceedings, jury deliberations, criticise the judiciary or disobey a court order.” (Bland et al., 2005, p. 15)

Jefferies pictured before his arrest in 2010

Jefferies was released from police bail on March 4^th 2011 and subsequently “the High Court granted the Attorney General permission to bring a case against tabloids and move a motion for committal of Contempt of Court against The Sun and the Daily Mirror.” (see BBC.com, 2011)

Eventually, Jefferies launched legal action against eight newspapers and won an undisclosed sum in libel and substantial damages for defamation from The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror, The Daily Record, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Daily Star and The Scotsman. The Sun and The Daily Mirror were also fined £18,000 and £50,000 respectively, for the way they reported his arrest.

The coverage of Christopher Jefferies’ arrest and the lawsuit against UK newspapers demonstrates that the “crime” of Contempt of Court suggests that publications about on-going legal cases might impede the administration of justice and can also create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to any potential future trial. Even though Jefferies was innocent, the media presented him as guilty and these false accusations could possibly influence the jury negatively.

Has Scuba Diving become an unpopular sport in the UK?

The last few years in the UK, a great number of scuba diving clubs, diving shops and sports centers with diving facilities have closed, due to lack of participation.

Diving instructors are worried that diving is slowly becoming an unpopular sport among young people.

Professional divers Suzy Butler and Harry Saville from the London School of Diving and the Wraysbury Diving Centre, discuss the reasons why Scuba Diving is slowly “shrinking” in the UK.

Here is a video I filmed and edited to give you an idea about UK diving:

Cameron hints Brexit if reformed plans with EU are not met

As the future EU referendum divides the nation, Cameron warns European leaders that Britain “will only stay in a reformed EU”

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron delivers a speech on EU reform, at Chatham House in London, Britain November 10, 2015. © Kirsty Wigglesworth / Reuters

When David Cameron announced during the EU reform speech at Chatham House in London last Tuesday, that he wants changes to happen in the relationship between the UK and the EU, the question about “Brexit” was raised once again.

Should the UK leave the EU or not?

Britain’s Prime Minister stated that his main priorities are “to introduce an arrangement where unwanted EU legislation could be blocked and to reduce the number of people moving to the UK from other EU countries.” Mr. Cameron gave reasoning behind these suggestions, but was immediately met with resistance over his demands.

The European Commission described Mr. Cameron’s proposals as “highly problematic”, while Jean-Claude Juncker, the Commission’s president, made it clear in a caustic speech about the UK, that Brussels is still not taking the threat of Britain leaving the EU seriously.

It is well known by now that the relationship between the UK and the EU has long been one of the most divisive issues in British politics. As John Redwood MP said “it is like a bad marriage”.

David Cameron has pledged to redraw the UK-EU relationship and hold a national referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017.

The referendum is increasingly seen by the British public as a way to settle the vast number of political issues the EU membership raises and unsurprisingly, political parties are also keen on the idea;

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson thinks that “if we are successful in our negotiations, we should stay in a reformed EU. Britain has a great deal to gain from independence and it is time our friends in the EU realise we mean it. We want to stay in, but not at any price.”

The latest poll from the Daily Mail shows a divided nation of Europhiles and Eurosceptics on whether Britain should remain a member of the EU – 51% of people would vote “No”.

Gerard Batten, UKIP MEP for London has said that “the EU is a grandiose political project, which creates an undemocratic super-state that suits the interests of a European political and ideological elite. Inside the EU, Britain will eventually cease to exist as an independent democratic nation.”

In contrast, Marina Yannakoudakis, former Conservative MEP for London, believes that a “No” vote would reopen the question about the independence of the other countries within the UK: “Wales, Scotland and Ireland all want to stay in. Does that mean that the UK would have to split?”

She also added that “it will totally be the wrong move to leave the EU. There will be many issues for England and other European countries if we go down that route.”

One thing is for sure; UK’s EU membership is in the hands of the British public and it is important that both sides of the argument are heard. It is an issue that needs to be solved with careful consideration of all the implications.

Original Sources:

Boris Johnson, Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (CON)

Gerard Batten, Member of the European Parliament for London (UKIP)

Marina Yannakoudakis, former Member of the European Parliament for London (CON)

Dr Syed Kamall, Member of the European Parliament for London (CON)