Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 24 2011, 12:53 AM

What part of care and compassion for the sick, elderly and the vulnerable residents of West Berks does this council not understand ? on the back of last years cuts we now have swinging and damaging cuts in provision in everything from meals on wheels to shopmobility ! I'm sorry "call me Dave" but you really don't understand the damage you are doing and the real resentment that is being generated by the population at large. You will not, cannot be allowed to get away with it anymore, expect heavy losses in the next round of elections when the people that this council and central government have betrayed goes to the poles.

Anyone who is as outraged by these cuts as I am shouls lobby the counil NOW ! and make things change, please, before its too late.


signed

Angry of West Berks

Posted by: spartacus Nov 24 2011, 08:04 AM

Turin, are things going to get so desperate that we'll see you with 'Vote RG' stickers on your car? If I remember rightly his side of the political divide dragged us down here in the first place....
I suspect some of the ire should be directed at the myopic Gordon and the ever smiling Toneee

Cuts have got to happen and it's going to hurt you wherever that kick is aimed at.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 24 2011, 08:07 AM

I have briefly seen the article in the NWN - spoken of as the next phase in the already-planned reductions in costs - but did not notice details of the changes as they will affect the recipients of service. Have I missed a detail?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Nov 24 2011, 08:23 AM

Care agencies, Sovereign housing etc, have all been called in this week and told what the Council are up to. So you will find that many people were already 'in the know' and had the full story before the NWN gets it's edited spin from WBC.

At the moment, it's only the Level 1's that are going. But doubtless there will be more.

It is possible that Turin is one of those in the know and thus speaks with a little more knowledge that just that gleaned from the paper.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 24 2011, 08:23 AM

Sorry - But never read such a load of c**p in all my life. How can we be stabbed in the back by a government that we voted in knowing that they were going to make swingeing cuts and are now doing so? Vote Labour again Turin - Lets end up like Italy - why not.

Posted by: Squelchy Nov 24 2011, 08:43 AM

Pot and Kettle time.

This Government were not voted in, they are a coalition, because no-one had enough seats to form one on their own.

I'm sure that had the Tories been in over the last 5 - 6 years, they would have regulated their greedy friends in the city much better. Yeah right.

Are you suggesting that Italy's problems within the Euroszone are a result of the Labour Party? Jog on.

Posted by: Bofem Nov 24 2011, 09:30 AM

It's always sad for those involved to lose their jobs, but that's modern life, and it's not the government's fault.

I currently am forced to give the government £20,000 a year in tax. I can look after all my family's needs and pay my way for the things we share (eg roads), and still have change for a long haul holiday.

If we could have a nice holiday every year because WBC is doing this now, then surely it's a vote winner. Unless you're saying you WANT to give your money away. I don't

Posted by: Bofem Nov 24 2011, 09:48 AM

Also, I see the Tories are pushing ahead with their £1 Sunday parking charge. Presumably, this is to cover the £££s they're have to start paying Standard Life. Trebles all round

Posted by: blackdog Nov 24 2011, 09:58 AM

? I thought they had abandoned the plans for Sunday charging?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 24 2011, 10:09 AM

They'll be charging you if you don't use your waste bin soon. I have seen a 'confidential' most secret e-mail don't you know...

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 24 2011, 10:42 AM

The reason the council embargo'd the info until today was so that the paper could not publish the finer detail (as always). They will be on the radio stations today defending their decisions, but the devil is in the detail. I'm currently compiling a data sheet for everyone to see what the detail is, hopefully I can post that for you a little later once it's ready. Yet again, it's the vulnerable who are being hit with all of this.

Posted by: Jacklets Nov 24 2011, 10:46 AM

Unfortunately the ones "in the know" weren't necessarily the ones that "needed to know" - many of those heard it first from the NWN - interesting method of consultation by WBC.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Nov 24 2011, 11:17 AM

Sadly very true.

And why do you think they waited until now to announce their decisions? Could it be anything to do with making sure it wasn't in the paper this week?

The letters all went out yesterday. (Wednesday).

Posted by: Bofem Nov 24 2011, 11:29 AM

It's buried in http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=18457.

As an aside, I don't concur with the NWN that a 3% staff cut and 5% budget cut (11% if you take out capital spending) is brutal or swingeing.

Also, can someone clear up the discrepancy between the 59 jobs 'axed' in the NWN and 47 WBC say in their http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=24129.

Posted by: Bofem Nov 24 2011, 12:04 PM

If the euro goes t#ts up, WBC will have a fantastic opportunity to renegotiate all sorts of contracts.

The German firm that provides meals on wheels, the French company emptying our bins, and the Dutch firm who repair the roads all do most of their business in euros.

Some of them will either go under, some will sell off their UK divisions, and other new companies will emerge.

PS I notice £500k was paid to the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead on 10 June 2011. (I didn't want you all thinking the council only spend money with foreign-owned multinationals)

Posted by: Blue Nov 24 2011, 05:28 PM

The cuts are forced on them by the Government surely?

Posted by: Blue Nov 24 2011, 06:07 PM

I don't like the NWN's use of the word "trick" in this story either.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 24 2011, 06:14 PM

No, no the coucil is made up of a cartel of old misers with pots of cash who sit around dreaming up ways of making life as unbearable as possible for the common folk.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 24 2011, 06:16 PM

I really do not like the re-insertion of the Sunday parking fee. If nothing else, the cost of enforcement will likely negate income, methinks.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 24 2011, 06:23 PM

That will be for the bargain basement CCTV system.

Posted by: user23 Nov 24 2011, 07:35 PM

This seems to be proposal up for consultation.

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=8993

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 24 2011, 07:54 PM

That's one of the items up for consultation. You need to click "consultation finder" to find the budget documents which are pretty much hidden away from view!!! Talk about making it difficult.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 24 2011, 07:58 PM

If they made it too easy to find then everyone would know what was going on - it would only lead to more trouble for the council so.........

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 24 2011, 08:27 PM

How does putting a consultation document on the website under 'Consultation Finder' make it hard to find? I've also had my invitation to view it from the 'get involved' team. Perhaps more need to sign up to that?

Hello

You may remember in completing one of our surveys you indicated that you would be interested in taking part in further consultations being run through West Berkshire Council.

This email is to let you know that we have just launched a consultation on our draft Council Strategy (2012-16). In this strategy we have set out our medium term plan for how we will need to review and reshape the services we provide across the Council and across west Berkshire.

This is the toughest economic climate for many years and along with the rest of the country, local councils are operating within significant financial constraints. Despite these difficulties, we are determined that we will live within our means and continue to provide value for money for local people.

This is a significant challenge. Demand for our services and support for people, particularly those in need, is high. At the same time, there is less income from government grants, council tax and service charges. So we are having to make hard choices about how our resources are allocated.

You may remember me writing to you inviting you to take part in our Budget Simulator exercise last year. This asked local people what was important to them and where they thought our resource needed to be focused - allowing us to make sure we could define local people’s priorities. We then used your feedback to develop our overarching objectives - making sure they are relevant and appropriate.

We recognise that our ambitions can only be achieved in partnership with the people of West Berkshire, other public service providers, the voluntary and community sector and parish councils. We want to hear your views on the general principles and objectives which we have set out in this overarching document.

You can view the draft strategy at westberks.gov.uk/councilstrategy where you can also find a form for responding against each of the key points covered in the strategy. Individual service areas will develop more fully and consult directly on specific proposals relating to individual functions. You can find more information about these in the normal way through our Consultation Finder database linked from the same page.

Please note, the closing date for all contributions is Friday 6th January 2012. Your feedback will be used to inform the full council strategy which will come into effect from April 2012 which will guide the priorities and objectives for the Council for the next 4 years. A summary of the feedback will be published on our Consultation Finder database, available at westberks.gov.uk/research.

I hope you will find the strategy of interest and value.

If you need help in completing the form, or require the information in an alternative format, please either email me back or give me a call.

With thanks
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Teal
Research I Consultation I Performance
West Berkshire Council

01635 519102
westberks.gov.uk/research
westberks.gov.uk/consultation
westberks.gov.uk/performance

Posted by: user23 Nov 24 2011, 08:38 PM

You need to click a link titled "consultation finder" to find consultations you say?

Yeah, talk about making it difficult.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 24 2011, 08:43 PM

It is if the consultation finder is like the small print on an insurance policy?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 25 2011, 05:27 PM

I'm sure the people who are affected by funding cuts would rather respond to the consultation about their service rather than the draft four year council plan which Newbury Sound, the paper and the council press release all link to.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 25 2011, 06:04 PM

User what's gone wrong???

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 25 2011, 06:36 PM

It amazes me that in an age when we are supposed to be caring and compassionate and dare I say it "civilized" and when a government states categorically that the vulnerable will be protected that a council can make cuts that will affect the MOST vulnerable in our society, the old, the sick and the terminally befuddled.

Drastic cuts to meals on wheels, Mencap, Mobility, even for Gods sake when Dave bleats on about the big society and volunteering, the Volunteer office gets a funding cut ! Ironic ? only if you're a politition I guess.

And what response do we get ? bleating about paying a quid to park on a sunday ! I just hope that those among you who will be striking next week in defence of your pensions can tell me how to explain to, lets call her Gladys, who will need to sit on her own in her own filth for eight hours a day because her carer has been withdrawn for "efficiency" reasons how its worth it "c'os you don't matter but my long haul holiday does" ! Please tell me how, if you can.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 25 2011, 07:03 PM

The so-called "volunteer sector" has ridden the state gravy train way too long. That's my tax the state is giving those executives of all those charities, and I can't afford it any more. The Big Society is about people taking responsibility for themselves, not depending on the tax-payer for support.

I've made a very public demand for Newbury Town Council to devolve the management of its allotment services onto the allotmenteers. I want this because it's good for the allotmenteers - people enjoy taking responsibility for themselves - this is what the Big Society is actually about. It turns out that by devolving the allotments service allotmenteers get a better service for less rent, but it also turns out that NTC can save the £90k each year that they currently spend in providing the service. That's £90k a year saving, and I'm offering to volunteer my time and effort to make that work. Forgive me if I show little sympathy for your bleating when you do nothing but mock my effort.

And that's just the allotment service, it's pretty straight forward to find over £300k of Big Society savings that actually improve the Town Council's services. That would go some way to filling the funding gap.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 25 2011, 08:06 PM

Yes but the rub is, it would take power away from certain people who like to have that power!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 25 2011, 08:08 PM

Yup, that's the top and bottom of it.

Posted by: Bofem Nov 25 2011, 09:21 PM

I would say to Gladys "the state can't afford to look after you any more. From now on, looking after you is going to be your family's responsibility, not the state's.

Posted by: user23 Nov 25 2011, 09:46 PM

What happened to Gladys' family in this scenario?

Posted by: Squelchy Nov 26 2011, 09:28 AM

Many do not have a family. What then?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 26 2011, 10:27 AM

Stop trying to make User's life difficult.

They may have family but the family for whatever reason are unable, or indeed be able to afford, to look after Gladys?

Posted by: user23 Nov 26 2011, 01:13 PM

To say many people of this age don't have brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children, grand children, great grandchildren, cousins or friends they consider family would be untrue.

Posted by: Bartholomew Nov 26 2011, 01:21 PM

I suppose that the use of the word "many" may be your diverting argument but it doesn't alter the fact that there are people in this situation that require support.

Posted by: user23 Nov 26 2011, 02:01 PM

You're not wrong there certainly are, however there are many who could be looked after by their family.

We have an aging population and if people don't want to pay more tax for someone else to look after their elderly relatives, they're going to have to look after them, themselves.

This way those who really have no one to care for them will be able to receive help whilst those for whom it was convenient to be looked after by the state can be cared for by their relatives.

Posted by: Ron Nov 26 2011, 02:10 PM

So what you are saying is that I should look after two lotsof people? My relations, which I done until she died 8 weeks ago, and potentially someone elses?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 26 2011, 02:20 PM

These people thought that was why they were paying for National Insurance? Now it is time for them to make a claim you are saying sorry nothing in the kitty - go away?

Another shyster insurance scam then?

Posted by: user23 Nov 26 2011, 02:25 PM

It's an emotive subject and people understandably have strong views on it.

All I'm saying is there's more demand for these services from a growing number of older people and less money coming in to fund them because of relatively lower taxes and other financial constraints, so something has to give.

More people looking after their relatives is one option which to me seems to be the best.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 26 2011, 02:41 PM

Ummm, can quite understand why the electorate feel ripped off. The increase in age could have been anticipated and properly planned for. We were all given to understand that under the state insurance scheme (welfare state in total) we'd be looked after from cradle to grave. No wonder the banks followed suit! So after 60 or so years, we are back to every man for himself and never trust anyone from government; they just want you to fight wars and pay taxes.

Posted by: user23 Nov 26 2011, 02:51 PM

Being looked after by one's family isn't "every man for themselves" is it?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 26 2011, 02:59 PM

Not quite. But it is about authority reneging on a contract? You paid the premuims faithfully all your working life and then when the time comes to make a claim low and behold we have run out of money?

Posted by: JeffG Nov 26 2011, 04:57 PM

NI is not personal insurance - you are not "paying premiums" for your own future benefit. You are paying a tax to fund those that need support and pay their pensions now, and when you in turn draw your pension it will be the current working population that is paying NI to fund it. 'Twas ever thus.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 26 2011, 05:09 PM

Until now of course according to User there is no money to pay for what Gladys needs now?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 26 2011, 07:02 PM

So you are saying NI contributions were not enough?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 26 2011, 07:15 PM

I'm not. But User is!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 26 2011, 07:16 PM

So you didn't write - You paid the premuims faithfully all your working life and then when the time comes to make a claim low and behold we have run out of money

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 26 2011, 07:25 PM

Let me, if I may, draw a scenario. Young Gladys meets a dashing young man in 1935 and gets engaged, war comes and her lover becomes a pilot, falls burning from the sky in 41 fighting the nazi horde. She goes on working in a munitions factory where the explosives create an unsightly skin condition. After the war she never marries, never has children, therefor no grandchildren.

Brothers / sisters all dead. She is alone. She gets involved in childrens charities until she can now longer be of use. She is still alone. Who now looks after her ? The State ? or is she merely expected to die quietly ?

Old age is never simple, but it could be kinder.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 26 2011, 07:49 PM

Just replied with a scenerio to User's argument that the money had run out so families had to look after Gladys.
Obviously Gladys thought her contributions to NI she had paid would do as it said on the tin, look after her from cradle to grave, but lo and behold she has been told a whopper? That's according to User of course.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 26 2011, 08:07 PM

But then User will always defend wbc decisions any way.

Posted by: user23 Nov 26 2011, 08:26 PM

A heart wrenching tale indeed.

Consider another the story of another young woman called Gladys though. Young Gladys meets a dashing young man in 1935 and gets engaged, war comes and her lover becomes a pilot. Her winged warrior becomes one of the few to survive over the fields of Kent and they go on to have three children who in turn have their own offspring.

Gladys' husband passes away and she starts to need help around the house, but the children are too busy with their lives. A grandchild pops in to see her from time to time but they're all having children of their own so can't spare too much time.

The decision is made to put Gladys into care.

Now the problem here is that limited funding is now split between my Gladys and your Gladys and whilst your Gladys cannot do without care by the state, mine could be cared for by her family.

So, like you say, old age is never simple, but it could be kinder.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 26 2011, 08:30 PM

Is that what you did ?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 26 2011, 08:37 PM

Yet both Glady's had paid in to NI. Why is the Gladys with family being penalised and why is the family being penalised especially if she needs a lot of looking after. Why was it not explained that although you pay NI it does not mean you get automatic help when you need it. What does this say for a society that saves banks from going broke, and they carry on business as usual, and then make the old and infirm suffer because there is now no money left for the Glady's of this world?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 26 2011, 08:54 PM

We've either misunderstood or got it wrong. Gladys may well have had a house content policy for many years. So if during her infirmity her house got burgled - at least the stuff damaged or stolen will be replaced.

Presumably, if the policy had been with 'Government Insurance' she'd simply be told, sorry, we've spent too much on rehabilitating offenders so foxtrot Oscar; your kids should help.

Don't quite think the welfare state meant that you look after someone else's welfare whilst you are in a state.

Posted by: user23 Nov 26 2011, 08:58 PM

Gladys in my scenario has not paid a days NI in her life.

She's never had paid work but been a mother and housewife, two jobs in themselves some might argue.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 26 2011, 09:04 PM

Perhaps WBC and User would relent and pay for an euthanasia injection for poor Gladys to help her out of her predicament then?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 26 2011, 10:03 PM

Fair enough. Have no issue with that then. However, the terms of the 'policy' were certainly made explicit by HMG during the welfare state's inception. Essentially free cover. A bit like the 'free' legal insurance you might get with your car insurance. Again, no issue but government would certainly criticise private insurance firms if they carried on that way, as they do. So, the old guild motto 'in God alone we trust' still holds good.

Posted by: Bofem Nov 26 2011, 11:38 PM

Exactly. That was the state's justification for appropriating a vast array of hospitals, railways, etc. Now millions are discovering that nanny doesn't know best after all.

Posted by: user23 Nov 27 2011, 08:38 AM

Really?

We've seen some awful incidents in privately run care homes recently and privatized trains seem more crowded than ever.

There's an ongoing shift in the average age of the population which means health services cost more to run, however taxpayers don't seem to want to contribute more. Now this is fine, however we can't also expect the same level of service.

Posted by: Strafin Nov 27 2011, 08:42 AM

Let's not forget that public sector wages have gone up, as have the number of workers. They're even going on strike because the private sector can no longer afford to top up their pension!

Posted by: Bartholomew Nov 27 2011, 09:12 AM

This may be part of the issue. The bigger issue is the cost of the bureaucracy that stops health services from doing the things that they should be doing. Having been involved as a patient in the nightmare of the health service, I realise that realise that much of everyone's taxes go the managers and form fillers. This probably has a bigger effect than the ageing population.

Posted by: user23 Nov 27 2011, 10:01 AM

Most public sector workers haven't had a pay rise for a couple of years, and aren't likely to in the near future.

In real terms public sector pay has decreased as it hasn't even tracked inflation.

Posted by: Bofem Nov 27 2011, 10:12 AM

Put simply, too many old women HAVEN'T paid into the system because many haven't worked for decades before they hit 60. They then expect there to be a first class service they haven't contributed to waiting for them when they hit their 80s.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 27 2011, 10:15 AM

I don't think anyone expects that.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 27 2011, 10:25 AM

The argument about 'fair' pensions will rumble on and on with nary a solution. The preferred scheme for the public sector is Final Salary based on a scheme (no fund) as it is broadly easier to budget for long term. The public sector prefers to offload the 'guarantee', so go for investment-funded pension schemes they can largely walk away from as employers.
When investments are on the up those funded pensions pay out big time, and the public sector ones are the poor relation. At the moment public schemes, being 'guaranteed' to pay at a certain level, look good and the employees in invested arrangements feel hard done by.
It was only a few years ago Investment 'Advisors' were crawling around the public sector offering their 'far better paying' schemes to employees. No sign of them now, and some are even having to pay compensation for mis-selling.

The two ways of funding pensions are just different - one guarantees a certain payment, one offers the chance, dependant upon investment returns, of a certain payment. The contributions paid by many public sector employees are far higher than most private sector ones.

Plus, we are doubtless living longer, and elderly care is much more 'expected' to be provided by the state. Nearly every geriatric hospital has long closed, so the state either pays for care in the home, or for private provision (when the recipient is skint). It was politically unacceptable to change pension age/contributions to reflect the greater costs that were there to be see. Now the problem is a major one and the solutions hurt.
If a pension is expected to pay out for 10 years (expected life after 65 in 1948), but then pays out for 20 or more (life expectancy now) then something has to give. We either pay more for the pension while working, or we get less while drawing.
In the same way, providing care for - say - 100 people for 5 years costs a lot less than for 150 people for 10 years. We have to bite that bullet and find ways to provide the care (including families taking responsibility) and pay for it.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 27 2011, 04:25 PM

Think it all adds up to us needing far far less government and being made to stand on our own two feet. We still haven't eliminated poverty etc., as User23 rightly points out. Trust God alone and look after yourself, no one else is going to. Mrs T was quite right, as we can see very clearly now, 'there is no such thing as society'.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 27 2011, 04:36 PM

Still it is nearly time for the yearly reminder to come on the telly, A Christmas Carol, do we really want to end up back to times similar to as portrayed by Dickens?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 27 2011, 04:54 PM

Dickens was a master story teller. The soap operas of the day. Just like George Orwell, knew exactly how to play the audience!

I could go out today and find the grinding poverty that Dickens portrayed. If you are a child in such a disadvantaged circumstance there is no way out. Even with the billions we pump into the welfare society today.

It really does boil down to taking responsibility. Most people want the best for their children and want to make provision for ill health and old age. Trouble is, over the last 60 years we've assumed that 'government' will do it on our behalf.

Silly example, several months back, Dentist asked if I was insured, yes I said, pay through my wages - called national insurance. Aah no, I meant private.... Lets be honest, this 'private' insurance is simply a means for the dentist to extract rather more than he deserves.

Charity begins at home, once you've sorted yourself, then you can give a bit to help others if you feel they are needy. Think it was Norman Tebbitt who suggested that the Good Samaritan must have had money to spare. He got pilloried for that, have never known why, because its so obviously true.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 27 2011, 06:41 PM

People take offence from people that don't have to experience their words of wisdom.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 27 2011, 07:13 PM

Generally when they don't want to - the truth often hurts.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 27 2011, 07:17 PM

That is without doubt, but it is also arrogant of me to think everyone should be at least as good as me at being human.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Nov 27 2011, 09:35 PM

No it wasn't, so he couldn't have got pilloried for it.

Thatcher, in order to justify her belief in 'trickle down' economics did say "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well."

So you can only do good, or be a reformer, or do God's work if you've got money. The equating of the poor with the ungodly died out at the end of the Victorian era, and even Cameron 'call me Dave', has admitted more than once that 'trickle down' didn't work. The rich just became richer and more and more spiteful in their attempts to hoard their money.

There are a few exceptions, but they tend to be Americans.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 27 2011, 10:03 PM

Sorry, but did say I thought it was Norman Tebbitt, suggesting I wasn't sure. Mrs T then. However, how else does a capitalist society work? If you are poor, it's not going to work now. Lets face it, the People's Party had a good decade to get things turned round but they didn't. Simply joined in at the trough! Unless you have some other answer - it is everyone to himself.

Posted by: Bofem Nov 27 2011, 10:20 PM

Yes indeedy...as many are finding out....government is not the doctor, it's the disease.

Posted by: Jack Nov 28 2011, 04:18 PM

It would seem that West Berkshire Council has announced cuts in its support for charities in the Newbury Weekly News prior to them speaking to the charities first. One can only assume that they took this approach in order to get all of the bad news out at once. 'Bury' it all at the same time so to speak. Mr. Alistair Campbell in charge of the press office now is he?

This is not only a morally repugnant way in which to behave, it is cowardly, it would be most upsetting to people connected with or working for the charities before the charities themselves had had an opportunity to discuss the issues.

I read the comments from Mr. Tim Barton (he is a much respected partner with Carter Jonas and for such a person to make a comment in the press one can only assume they must have been treated very badly)

They may be difficult time for councils but this is no excuse for bad manners. Shame on West Berkshire Council local government officers for allowing their elected members to behave in this way or did they lead them into it? Local Government officers must never be apologists for policy they are there to implement it good or bad, but never but never should they resort to short changing and spinning stories to please their masters.