Elderly ‘ignored’ in UK care system
 
Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:40PM GMT

While over two million older people in England need care, only around 400,000 of those live in care homes.

Campaigners have urged NHS practitioners to treat elderly patients with respect as it was revealed that they are treated like 'objects' in the current British healthcare system.

In a letter published in the Daily Telegraph, a group of politicians, regulators and charities called for NHS nurses and care workers to sign a 'Dignity Code' drawn up by the National Pensioners’ Convention, promising to treat pensioners with dignity.

Urging hospitals and care homes to agree a set of common standards of care to prevent cases of neglect and abuse, they warned that British pensioners are being spoken down to, prevented from taking decisions, and denied privacy and the best medical treatment.

"For too long, too many of those people have been ignored, denied the basic right to speak for themselves or make up their own mind," the letter warned.

"In this era of human rights, too many older people have seen their basic human dignity undermined in situations where they are treated as objects rather than people,” states the letter signed by 21 public figures.

Recently, a committee of MPs warned that around 1.20 million British elderly people are treated as “parcels” passed around a disorganized healthcare system that is dealing with spending cuts.

Gary FitzGerald, chief executive of the charity Action on Elder Abuse slammed standards of respect for elderly people in care for being deteriorated so badly over the last 10 years.

“When you are in an environment that degrades you every day in the little things, that you can’t escape from, that is death by a thousand cuts, that just destroys who you are, it is so humiliating or degrading, that’s what we have to deal with,” he added.

Bagging a bargain gets us more excited than watching football or even love at first sight

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 9:42 AM on 18th February 2012

Economic crisis and consumerism mean that retail opportunities now seem to set our pulses racing more than romance.

The experiment, carried out by neuropsychologists, found Britons respond with greatest excitement when shown discounted products.

A number of results confounded expectations, such as women preferring £150 off a washing machine to the Hollywood heart throb Ryan Gosling.

And one female participant’s heartbeat reached 187 beats a minute when looking at a deal to save 85p on shower gel – a higher reading than riding a roller coaster.

The consumer behavioural study was carried out by leading neuropsychologist David Lewis to see how we respond to different price discounts and product offers.

In the experiment, sponsored by T-Mobile and carried out over three days, six men and six women were attached to chest monitors, skin conductors and eye-tracking equipment.

These recorded the physiological signs of excitement generated by the body.

Results showed that excitement levels hit their highest when participants spotted a good bargain.

Stimulants and luxury goods including the opposite sex, designer clothes, fashion accessories, expensive jewellery and sports cars had less effect.

‘We’ve measured excitement in all kinds of various situations from the build-up to a big sports match to driving a fast car,’ said Dr Lewis.

‘Yet when it came to getting a good deal, those were some of the highest levels we have seen.

‘Bagging a bargain was routinely shown to be more exciting than love at first sight – an experience that typically causes a peak in the physical symptoms of excitement shown in both men and women.’

Products marked half price or available on a ‘bogof’ deal generated the greatest level of excitement in men, quickening the pulse to nearly 90 beats a minute.

The prospect of a beer didn’t come close, with heart rates barely rising above the average resting rate of 75 beats a minute.

For women, the offer of Christian Louboutin shoes, Mulberry handbags and even a holiday with the girls couldn’t match the levels of excitement from getting a discount

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2102949/Bagging-bargain-gets-excited-watching-football-love-sight.html#ixzz1mtJdjUhG

Falling in love makes men broody

Race abuse fan gets three year ban
 

Press Association – 3 hours ago
 
Howard Hobson, 57, has been fined £200 and banned from football matches for three years for hurling racist abuse during a football match

A Manchester United fan who hurled racist abuse at a black player was today fined £200 and banned from football matches for three years.

Howard Hobson, 57, shouted numerous racial slurs and made monkey noises at Stoke City's Trinidad-born player Kenwyne Jones.

Hobson was in the North Stand at Old Trafford for the game against Stoke on January 31, Trafford Magistrates Court heard.

The defendant was asked to explain his actions by JPs after pleading guilty to a single charge of a racially aggravated public order offence.

"I'm not racist," he told the bench. "I have coloured people in my family and most of my best mates are coloured. I don't know what came over me.

 I'm deeply sorry."

Eileen Rogers, prosecuting, told the court Hobson's behaviour was brought to the attention of club stewards at the match by a witness sitting near the defendant.

After the half-time interval when Hobson returned to his seat he was spoken to by stewards and taken away and then transferred to a police station in Salford.

Hobson, of Weaver Walk, Openshaw, Manchester, admitted making some comments about the Stoke player "in the heat of the moment" and accepted he used the words, "black bastard".

He said he could not remember using the words "w**" or "monkey" but accepted what the witness had reported him as saying.

Hobson was fined £200 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge and £85 court costs.

The football banning order means he is not allowed to enter a football ground in England and Wales for three years or he could be arrested and he must surrender his passport when England play internationals abroad.

Greater Manchester Police said Hobson's ban would give him time to think about his "disgusting outbursts" and send a "clear message" against racism at football grounds.

Stretford-based Superintendent Jim Liggett said: "Hobson's racist tirade was a shocking reminder that there remain a tiny minority of football supporters who still think it is acceptable to abuse players just because of the colour of their skin.

I am grateful to the genuine football supporter who heard Hobson's abuse and quickly brought it to the attention of the stewards.

It is fans like this who are the true supporters of the game, not people like Hobson."

Thoughts on a benefits cap

Authors: Robert Joyce

Institute of Fiscal Studies

This week, debate over the Government's Welfare Reform Bill has returned to the House of Commons.

An element that has grabbed a lot of attention is the proposed benefit cap for working-age households (excluding those claiming Disability Living Allowance or Working Tax Credit), which will be set at £350 per week for childless single people and £500 per week for other households.

This is now expected to affect about 67,000 households in Great Britain when implemented in 2013-14, reducing their benefit entitlement by an average of £83 per week and cutting the benefits bill by about £290 million in that year.

To put this in context, other planned cuts to welfare spending amount to about £18 billion per year by the end of this parliament, and will affect millions of working-age benefit recipients.

How could households be in receipt of more than £500 per week in benefits?

 Put simply, they must have either a large number of children or high housing costs (or both).

A couple with four children and no private income would be entitled to about £373 per week in Jobseeker's Allowance, Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit.

If they paid rent of £127 per week or more (plausible rent levels for those who rent privately or are in social housing in London), a Housing Benefit claim to cover this would result in total benefit income of at least £500 per week.

A smaller family could also be affected by the cap if they live in a particularly high-rent area such as London and consequently claim a large amount of Housing Benefit (for an example, a 3-bedroom household who rent privately can claim up to £340 per week in Housing Benefit to cover their rent).

The Government's Impact Assessment estimates that 69% of households that will be affected have at least three children, and 54% live in Greater London (where rents are high).

So what will this policy achieve, apart from reducing state benefit payments to about 67,000 households with lots of children and/or high housing costs?

The Government has said that it hopes there will be two forms of behavioural response: families may move to cheaper accommodation to reduce their housing costs, and/or take up paid work because their out-of-work benefit entitlement will have been reduced.

A third possible form of behavioural response is in fertility rates, since the cap will effectively reduce state financial support for some large families (see here for previous IFS research on fertility and financial incentives).

If this were the main intended impact, though, one would expect to see the policy affecting only new claimants of child-contingent benefits.

A fourth possible behavioural impact is for fewer people to cohabit, since the benefits cap is to apply at the household level, and hence living apart could split benefits across households and mean that neither is subject to a cap.

This 'couple penalty' is presumably something the Government would not be keen on, as it has said that it wishes to reduce couple penalties in the tax and benefit system.

Crucially, is a benefits cap the best approach to take to deal with benefit payments that the Government deems excessive? If it thinks that the benefit system is giving some families a level of entitlement that is too high, it must believe that some benefit rates are inappropriately high.

The best-targeted response would surely be to change those benefit rates.

In this particular case, the logic underlying the Government's belief that no family should receive more than £500 per week in benefits would point towards cutting the amount families receive for having large numbers of children and/or reducing the value of housing costs against which people can claim Housing Benefit.

The apparent simplicity of instead just placing a cap on total benefit receipt might look appealing, and may well be politically expedient.

But it seems incoherent for a Government to set a system of benefits which it evidently thinks gives some families excessive entitlements, and to then attempt to 'right this wrong' with a cap.

If starting from scratch, this is surely not the approach one should want to take. And very shortly the Government will be starting from scratch - its planned Universal Credit is to replace almost all of the existing system of means-tested benefits and tax credits for those of working age.

If it has a view on the maximum reasonable level of benefit entitlement for these people, then it should design Universal Credit (and in particular, the child and housing cost additions within it) to reflect that view.

It is not clear what is gained from instead layering a cap on top of a system that is designed to allow higher payments.

The approach of tweaking particular benefit rates, rather than imposing a post hoc cap on total benefit receipt, would also force the Government to think carefully about (and be explicit about) the features of the current benefits system that it considers inappropriate.

 Apart from improving the quality of its solution to the perceived problem, this may also improve the quality of wider debate about the issue.

After all, it would make it crystal clear what precisely the debate is about.

The benefits of a civilised society

• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 31 January 2012 21.00 GMT

Today the welfare reform bill is expected to return to the Commons (Report, 30 January).

Under government plans, 670,000 households – two-thirds containing a disabled family member – would lose an average of £670 a year because they are deemed to have one or more additional bedrooms.

Separated parents or grandparents who use their extra bedroom to share the care of their children or grandchildren; families in which two same-sex teenage children have their own bedroom for privacy and study; foster parents with rooms occupied by foster children – many, despite having nowhere else to move to, will see their incomes cut if the bill passes unamended.

There is an alternative.

In December members of the House of Lords backed a cross-party amendment to exempt those families with just one additional bedroom where there are no alternative properties for them to downsize to.

For hundreds of thousands of families across the country this amendment could mean the difference between making ends meet and living in hardship.

That's why we are calling on MPs to ensure the government listens to the clear message sent by peers by allowing this compromise to stand.

David Orr
Chief executive, National Housing Federation

Stephen Remington
Chief executive, Action for Blind People

Michelle Mitchell
Charity director, Age UK

Mark Atkinson
Director of campaigns, policy and research, Ambitious about Autism

John Bibby
Director of housing and community services, Association of Retained Council Housing

Douglas Edwardson
Chair, Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers

Victoria Winkler
Director, Bevan Foundation

Keith Smith
Chief executive, British Institute for Learning Disabilities

Dana O'Dwyer
Chief executive, Capability Scotland

Chris Jones
Managing director, Care and Repair Cymru

Emily Holzhausen
Director of policy and public affairs, Carers UK

Dave Adamson
Chief executive, Centre for Regeneration Excellence Wales

Grainia Long
Interim chief executive, Chartered Institute of Housing

Keith Edwards
Director, Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru

Alan Ferguson
Director, Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland

Alison Garnham
Chief executive, Child Poverty Action Group

John Dickie
Head, Child Poverty Action Group Scotland

Anne Houston
Chief executive, Children 1st

Gillian Guy
Chief executive, Citizens Advice

Susan McPhee
Acting chief executive, Citizens Advice Scotland

Nick Bennett
Chief executive, Community Housing Cymru

Srabani Sen
Chief executive, Contact a Family

Paul Smee
Director general, Council of Mortgage Lenders

Kennedy Foster
Policy consultant, Council of Mortgage Lenders Scotland

Leslie Morphy
Chief executive, Crisis

Joy Kent
Director, Cymorth Cymru

Jeff Skipp
Chief executive, Deafblind UK

Neil Coyle
Director of policy, Disability Alliance

Rhian David
Chief executive, Disability Wales

Julie Jennings
Board member, Every Disabled Child Matters

Helen Dent
Chief executive, Family Action

Cathy Ashley
Chief executive, Family Rights Group

Fiona Weir
Chief executive, Gingerbread

Jim Harvey
Director, Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations

Denise Murphy
Interim chief executive, Grandparents Plus

Paul Gamble
Chief executive, Habinteg

Chris James
Chief executive, The Haemophilia Society

Matt Harrison
Interim chief executive, Homeless Link

Bill Scott
Manager, Inclusion Scotland

Terence Stokes
Chief executive, Lasa

Anthea Sully
Director, Learning Disability Coalition

Michael Smith
Chief executive, Livability

Ian Welsh
Chief executive, Long Term Conditions Alliance Scotland

Mark Goldring
Chief executive, Mencap

Robert Meadowcroft
Chief executive, Muscular Dystrophy Campaign

Deborah Jack
Chief executive, National AIDS Trust

Mark Lever
Chief executive, National Autistic Society

Ailsa Bosworth
Chief executive, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society

Christopher Williamson
Chief executive, Northern Ireland Housing Associations

Satwat Rehman
Chief executive, One Parent Families Scotland

Paul McCay
Director of operations, Papworth Trust

Rebecca Gill
Director of policy, campaigns and communications, Platform 51

Paul Jenkins
Chief executive, Rethink Mental Illness
Rights Advice Scotland directors
Rights Advice Scotland

Joy Baggaley
Acting chief executive, Riverside

Lesley-Anne Alexander
Chief executive, RNIB

Richard Hawkes
Chief executive, Scope

Maggie Kelly
Co-ordinator, Scottish Campaign on Welfare Reform

Robert Aldridge
Chief executive, Scottish Council for the Single Homeless

Martin Sime
Chief executive, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

Mary Taylor
Chief executive, Scottish Federation of Housing Associations

Cllr Matt Kerr
Chair, Scottish Local Government Forum Against Poverty

Sue Brown
Head of public policy, Sense

Campbell Robb
Chief executive, Shelter

Ceri Dunstan
Public relations officer, Shelter Cymru

Graeme Brown
Director, Shelter Scotland

Michael Gelling
Chair, Tenants and Residents Organisations of England

Michelle Reid
Chief executive, Tenant Participation Advisory Service (TPAS)

Graham Fisher
Chief executive, Toynbee Hall

John Drysdale
Director, TPAS Cymru

Lesley Baird
Chief executive, TPAS Scotland

Brendan Barber
General secretary, Trades Union Congress

Victor Adebowale
Chief executive, Turning Point

Martin Cawley
Chief executive, Turning Point Scotland

Keith Reed
Chief executive, Twins and Multiple Births Association

Paul Nicolson
Chair, Zacchaeus 2000 Trust

• We urge the government to extend the time limit proposed for some ill and disabled people receiving employment and support allowance.

We are extremely concerned that, if the welfare reform bill goes ahead in its current form, many thousands of people who are genuinely unable to work will be forced into unsuitable jobs or face poverty.

The new rules mean that after a year, many disabled people will have their support cut off if they have a partner who is working, even though they may have a very low wage.

This will place further distress and financial burden on people who are already facing multiple difficulties.

Worryingly, it also creates an incentive for partners to reduce their hours or drop out of the workplace entirely.
In any civilised society, it's crucial the welfare system supports people who, because of illness or disability, are unable to work.

This arbitrary time limit has no clear evidence base.

It punishes some of society's most vulnerable people in our society and penalises people for having a partner in employment.

We urge MPs to support the Lords amendment to extend the time limit to at least two years and put an end to a short-sighted policy, which will cost us all in the long term.

Paul Jenkins
CEO, Rethink Mental Illness

Dr Mark Baker
Head of social research and policy, Action on Hearing Loss
Gillian Guy

CEO, Citizens Advice Bureau

Paul Farmer
CEO, Mind

Simon Gillespie
CEO, Multiple Sclerosis Society

Mark Lever
CEO, National Autistic Society

Lesley-Anne Alexander
CEO, RNIB

• I would like to thank Felicity Lawrence for her excellent article revealing the true impact of the government's attacks on the unemployed and the low-paid (Hunger is being used to spur the idle to work, 31 January). I have been heavily involved in campaigning against Iain Duncan Smith's wholly immoral welfare "reforms", and this article was a sobering reminder not to get lost in rhetoric and focus on the true impact of the policies.
If the benefit cap does progress unchecked then the reality of hunger being used as a weapon against the poor will become even more widespread, and there is no guarantee that all areas will have food banks for the desperate. There is an absolute moral responsibility for everyone with a conscience and a sense of social justice to do all we can to campaign against policies that attack the poor while making the rich even wealthier.
Tim Matthews
Luton, Bedfordshire

• Thanks to Felicity Lawrence for showing the re-emergence of hunger in Britain. During 50 years in welfare work, I have never seen the like. Our project in Easterhouse, Glasgow, gave out 650 Christmas parcels, which mainly consist of food. We have started planning the summer camps, which are needed more than ever. Yet some parents will have to cut down expenditure on essentials if they are to pay the already subsidised camp fees. I recall being with Iain Duncan Smith when he criticised New Labour for not reducing the gap between rich and poor. This year his children will enjoy an affluent lifestyle and more than enough food, in contrast to the needy children at the other end of the social scale.
Bob Holman
Glasgow

Gary Speed inquest: death doesn't make sense, says Shearer

Alan Shearer, the former England striker, has said the death of Gary Speed, the former Wales football manager, does not make sense.

Alan Shearer said he last saw Gary Speed at the BBC studios on the Saturday before he died 

By Andy Bloxham

5:08PM GMT 30 Jan 2012

He said Gary Speed did not appear to be worried about anything when they last met, just hours before his former Newcastle United teammate was found dead.

In a written statement, Mr Shearer, who did not appear at the inquest in person, said they were good friends and told how their families had enjoyed holidays together.

When they met up they "let off steam and really enjoyed each other's company", he said.

On their most recent holiday, in August last year, Mr Shearer said Mr Speed was "more relaxed this year than I have ever seen him".

He added that he was aware of a "couple of issues" between Mr Speed and his wife on the holiday.

"My response was that is usual in a relationship that is so long-standing," the footballer said in his statement.

"I think he took the advice well as his words were that he was "going to give it a go" and "stick in there"."

Mr Shearer said he last saw Mr Speed at the BBC studios on the Saturday before he died.

"He seemed fine, laughing and joking," he added.

The pair talked about playing in an upcoming charity game and planned to meet up with their wives beforehand.

Then they watched the Stoke and Blackburn game together, "chatting away normally", Mr Shearer said.

"Gary didn't appear worried about anything," he added.

"Gary seemed to be enjoying his job as Wales manager and coped with the pressure well.

"He knew what it was like beforehand and some part of him liked to work under pressure.

"When I left the studio on that Saturday I expected to hear from him on the Monday.

"On Sunday I got the phone call telling me Gary had died. I didn't believe it.

"I was shocked. Gary is probably one of the last people out of my million friends to ever do that.

"I had only seen him the day before and he seemed fine, we had plans for the following week too.

"It just didn't and still doesn't make sense to me."

The coroner for Cheshire, Nicholas Rheinberg, recorded a narrative verdict.

He concluded that Mr Speed had died by hanging but added that it was not clear whether his death was accidental or intentional

State to help elderly downsize as Government tackles housing crisis

Elderly homeowners will be encouraged to downsize to smaller properties and allow councils to rent their homes to local families under Coalition plans to ease the nation’s housing crisis

Grant Shapps, the housing minister, said councils should offer to help pensioners move to more suitable accommodation to create space for families.

Local authorities would then take over responsibility for maintaining and renting the vacated properties at affordable rates, transferring any profit from the rental income back to the elderly person or their estate. The Government believes the proposal would provide support for the elderly to move without having to sell their homes at a time when there is a shortage of affordable housing for young families.

Research released last year estimated that 25million bedrooms in England were empty, largely because elderly couples do not move out of family homes to smaller properties.

The Radical says this is another hare-brained, sticking plaster scheme thought up by another Slash and  Burn Tory  Minister.

Instead of the Government building homes for young couples and low income families – ie Council accommodation, the Tories want OAP’s to give up their nice home to let the Council manage it, while they move into smaller accommodation.

The Government could create growth and thousands of jobs, by a policy of improving the countries infrastructure including building homes.

So the Council join the pits to become  Estate Agents ?

The Council can't manage the homes they have so they flog them off to Housing Associations and  Private Property firms

So we have a stagnant housing market and a shortage of housing and the elderly should make way ?

How about MP’s giving up second, third and fourth homes ?

How about restricting foreigners buying up half of London or anywhere else.

No foreigner should be allowed to own more than one home that he must live in.

And then there is the size of homes !

The palace could accommodate 100 families and the stately homes turned into flats ?

When my parents were ready to downsize they did so by selling one house and then moving into a smaller one (and immediately extended it.)

Not until they were unable to cope did they move into a Care home flat.

In my case I converted my home to allow me to take a lodger without losing too much privacy.

I could move into the “annexe” myself when I am past it and rent out the main house myself.

So a little box on the hillside for Minister Grant on retirement and my home is my castle!

And it is not always about the size of the accommodation.

What about the location, the garden and the neighbours, friends and relatives.

If the Minister gave assistance to create Granny Annexes on large properties and encouraged families to look after their Aged P’s and UK society to be less “independent” and more family minded then I could agree with him.

In most parts of the world the family unit is sacrosanct but ever since Tebbit told people to get on their bikes and successive governments have failed miserably to recognize that bringing employment to an area, which has lost its industry, keeps the community together and caring for each other.

Many houses are simply not big enough or constructed suitably to accommodate even a medium sized family let alone a "Granny or Grandad"

It’s a dog eat dog world for Minister Grant and its time for governments to understand the importance of an individuals wellbeing and leave old people to make their own decisions in their own time, after all unlike him they have a lifetime experience of it and less of the scatter brained ideas of our “dear” leaders.

Rise of the 'experience' shopper:

Happiness is what you do, not what you buy

Last updated at 1:22 AM on 28th January 2012

They say money doesn’t buy happiness – but maybe it depends how you spend it.

People who splash out on ‘experiences’ such as days out and concert tickets are happier than those who buy possessions, research shows.

Psychologists asked 9,600 people about their shopping habits, as well as questions to ascertain personality traits, values and life satisfaction.

Extroverts and people who are open to new experiences tend to spend more of their disposable income on treats, such as concert tickets or a weekend away, rather than hitting the mall for material items.

These habitual 'experiential shoppers' reaped long-term benefits from their spending as they reported greater life satisfaction, according to the study led by San Francisco State University Assistant Professor of Psychology Ryan Howell.

For his latest study, Howell and colleagues surveyed nearly 10,000 participants, who completed online questionnaires about their shopping habits, personality traits, values and life satisfaction.

'But we wanted to find out why some people gravitate toward buying experiences.

Participants’ personality was measured using the “Big Five” personality traits model, a scale psychologists use to describe how extroverted, neurotic, open, conscientious and agreeable a person is.

People who spent most of their disposable income on experiences scored highly on the 'extrovert' and “openness to new experience” scales.

'This personality profile makes sense since life experiences are inherently more social, and they also contain an element of risk,' Howell said.

'If you try a new experience that you don’t like, you can’t return it to the store for a refund.'

The authors suggest that it could be easier to change your spending habits than your personality traits.

'Even for people who naturally find themselves drawn to material purchases, our results suggest that getting more of a balance between traditional purchases and those that provide you with an experience could lead to greater life satisfaction and wellbeing.'

To further investigate how purchasing decisions impact well-being, Howell and colleagues have launched a website where members of the public can take free surveys to find out what kind of shopper they are and how their spending choices affect them.

Data collected through the 'Beyond the Purchase' website will be used by Howell and other social psychologists.

Graduate students in Howell’s Personality and Well-being Lab will use the site to study the link between spending motivations and well-being, and how money management influences our financial and purchasing choices

It’s a girl: The three deadliest words in the world

And they said it wouldn't last:

 Girl, 17, who devastated mother by marrying biker aged FIFTY celebrates five years of wedded bliss

• Couple wed in secret ceremony despite families' outrage

• Kayley, 23, wants babies but Philip, 55, is about to become a GRANDDAD

By Deborah Arthurs
Last updated at 5:29 PM on 4th January 2012
 
It is not the kind of relationship one expects to go the distance.

But today, a girl who married her 50-year-old biker lover in a secret civil ceremony has celebrated five years of marriage.
Kayley Simock, now 23, was just 17 years old when she wed twice-divorced ex-roadie Philip Nash in 2007, a year after meeting him at a religious service where she was playing the guitar.

The pair, who have a staggering 32 year age gap between them, infuriated their families when they wed in secret after Kayley's family tried to put a stop to the relationship.
 
Best friends: Philip and Kayley share a passion for motorbikes, and say their friendship has helped them stick at their marriage

The receptionist nearly destroyed her relationship permanently after refusing to stop seeing ex-roadie Nash.
Yet six years since they first met, they say they are still very much in love. 
 

Their path has never run smooth. Kayley, from Stourbridge in the West Midlands is the primary breadwinner after Phil was injured in a motorbike accident four years ago.

And while Kayley is ready to start a family of her own, Phil is less keen as his only child, a 27-year-old daughter, will soon give birth to his first grandchild.
 
Infatuated: The couple married in 2007 in a secret civil ceremony
Kayley said: 'In a way, we’ve proven the whole world wrong. It seemed like everyone was against us, purely because of the difference in our ages.

'I knew when we got together Phil was the man I wanted to be with. People said I was too young to know that, but I did.

'And the proof is in the pudding. We’re still very much in love. Not everything is easy, but that’s life.

'I can’t wait to have kids - I would have them tomorrow. But with Phil not working, money is tight, so he says we should wait a while.

'And Phil is about to become a grandfather - he’s already had his children and is conscious about our money situation.

'But Phil is not getting any younger. It’s crazy to think I am going to be a grandmother soon. I’m excited, but there’s no way anyone is going to call me Nana.'

Five years after their marriage Kayley’s mum, Jayne, 46, has finally come to terms with having a son-in-law who is nine years her senior.

However, Kayley says she lost most of her friends at the start of the romance who couldn’t understand why she was spending time with 'an old man.'

She said: 'My mum was furious when she first found out about Phil.

It destroyed our relationship for a long time. 'I still can’t talk to my dad about it and don’t see him very often.

'I’ve got virtually no friends left who are my own age because I felt I could never talk to them about me and Phil.

'My relationship is good with Phil’s daughter now but obviously it was strained at first.

'I don’t treat her as a step daughter and she doesn’t treat me like a step mum.
 
Starting a family: Kayley says she would like babies, but Phil, who is about to become a grandfather, is more reluctant

'Despite the massive age gap Phil and I are soulmates. Occasionally it will be an issue like when we are mistaken for father and daughter, which can be a bit embarrassing.

'Or sometimes Phil will want me to come home early when I want to stay out later.

But we are best friends who always know what the other one is thinking.'

Youthful Kayley was playing guitar in the church orchestra when she was approached by Phil. Despite being warned by her parents and church leaders that the friendship was ‘inappropriate’, the pair continued to meet.

A year later they moved in together while Kayley’s mum was away for the weekend. Kayley said: 'We got a van and moved all my stuff into Phil’s flat.

My parents weren’t listening when I told them how I felt.
 
No regrets: Phil Nash, 54, and Kayley, now 23, devastated Kayley's family when they married five years ago, but today say they are blissfully happy

'I couldn’t believe they were being so narrow-minded.

I knew Phil was the man for me.'

A year later, in 2006, the slim brunette - who still gets asked to prove her age when buying a lottery ticket - married Phil in a secret ceremony attended by only Phil’s family.

She said: 'We got married at the registry office. I felt sad that my family couldn’t be there but I knew what I was doing.

'I don’t know how she found out but I got a text from my mum after the ceremony asking if I had just got married.

'I texted back 'yes', then I didn’t hear from her for months.

Even if it meant losing my family I knew I had to be with Phil.

After my parents stopped talking to me I still had no regrets.

'We’ve already made it five years.

These days, there are plenty of marriages that don’t last that long, even when both people are the same age.'

Phil receives £300 per month in incapacity benefit after being forced from his job as a car salesman following a bad motorbike accident.

However, the couple are still able to pursue their love of biking and go out most weekends.

Kayley said: 'When I’m at work Phil stays at home and does all the cooking and cleaning. 'It took Phil a bit of getting used to.

We would like to have more money, but we’re happy for now.

'We both know Phil is likely to die before me but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

'There’s no point in worrying about it. I want to enjoy the here and now.'

Care for elderly in 'absolute crisis', charity warns

Age UK says cuts leaving increasing numbers of old people with either no support or very limited help at home

Cuts mean carers are unable to give elderly people the support they need at home.

Britain faces an "absolute crisis" in social care for the elderly as a result of cuts to local services, the director of the country's leading charity for older people has warned.

Michelle Mitchell, the director of Age UK, said increasing numbers of older people with considerable care needs "are getting absolutely no support at all, or poor quality and limited support" as a result of cuts to local authority provision.

She cited research by the King's Fund showing that the number of older people who need significant care support but receive no assistance will reach almost 900,000 in 2012, rising to 1 m by 2015.

"This means people will deteriorate more quickly and go into hospital," Mitchell said.

"We have seen the rates of admissions to hospital increase over the last few months which, apart from anything else, is very expensive to have someone admitted through A&E and then kept in hospital.

"Care is in crisis and it is getting worse. We have evidence to show that local authorities have cut care for older people by 4.5% this year, and this at a time when social care is chronically underfunded anyway."

She cited cases in which older people who were unable to undress themselves were being put to bed at 5pm because it was the only time care workers could fit them in, and left there until 10am the next morning.

"There are other cases where 15-minute visits are now the norm, so someone comes and washes you in a very intimate way and they have to do that in just 15 minutes," she said.

With other services such as lunch clubs or day services being slashed, older people were increasingly isolated, she added.

The squeeze on care services comes as older people are being forced to "eke out" an existence on the edge of poverty due to rising fuel and food prices, Mitchell said.

Age UK (formerly Help the Aged and Age Concern) says 1.8 million pensioners live beneath the poverty line, 1m of them in "severe poverty".

"One of the biggest worries, whether you are in poverty or whether you are managing on a very, very low income, is that the cost of living is increasing very rapidly …

This is a story about breadline Britain and the eking out of an existence for millions of pensioners."

Mary, a 76-year-old pensioner from a small town, told the Guardian she was angered and concerned by cuts to care services.

After a stroke eight years ago, she was left part paralysed and uses a wheelchair.

She needs help throughout the day, totalling about two hours of care.

"I need help getting dressed of a morning, and I have a quarter of an hour at lunchtime to do me a sandwich, half an hour at teatime and a quarter of an hour bedtime," she said.

She is obliged by her local authority – which she asked not to name, fearing it might affect her provision – to meet most of the £700-800 monthly cost herself, being judged "too well-off" as a result of her husband's pension, half of which she receives.

This expense, with rising fuel and food costs, means she now regularly switches off her central heating because she cannot afford to heat her home, she said.

Asked how she feels about cuts to care services, she said: "I get angry because I feel that the government has no idea what it's like to live on a normal everyday pension.

They are all very wealthy people, they live in cloud cuckoo land.

"It's as though the government is saying, well, they've done their bit and they're no longer any use.

Older people, I mean. It's a horrible thought, but you do have these thoughts.

You've paid your dues, you're now no longer active enough to work, so why bother now courting you.

I'm afraid they don't seem to consider older people at all."

Most social care funding is allocated by central government to local authorities to spend as they determine.

It was formerly ringfenced until changes to local government funding introduced by the coalition

Do women still appreciate loyal men ?

I'd like to think so.

 But the modern society often sees loyal man as weak, insecure, and unattractive.

 In this world we are living in loyalty and honesty is taken for granted.

 Relationship is such a temporary concept, and marriage is only commitment out of comfort and security.

 Is there such thing as a true love between two loyal individuals that is beyond respect and total understanding?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that's dependant on age really, and what the individuals interests are.

 Whether they really want a relationship, or are just out to have fun.

Commonly the women that are younger are at a stage where they are focused on their selves, because they are still establishing their life, career, etc.

And the older women are the ones who are looking for someone they can start a life with now that they feel they are dependant with or without.

Either way however, both young and older women love a loyal companion.

It makes them feel of great worth to someone, knowing they don't want anyone but them.

And who doesn't want that?

Keys To Loyalty In Relationships

Where are the Cheapest Countries to Retire in?

We bring you a fresh batch of tried and tested countries that offer the perfect blend of affordable cost of living and high quality of life for anyone looking for a cheap place to retire to abroad

You're here: Home   »   Living Abroad   »   Retirement Abroad   »   Where are the Cheapest Countries to Retire in?

The thought of retirement can bring about very mixed emotions for many of us; on the one hand the thought of not having to get up in the morning for work every day can bring about feelings of unadulterated happiness! 

 But on the other hand, knowing that you will possibly have a fixed and therefore restricted income to live on in the form of a pension can bring feelings of panic or at least concern.

We’re constantly advised by whichever government is in power that we have to take responsibility for our retirement savings – and then we watch as our incentives to save are eroded. 

 We hear every year about the numbers of pensioners living on or below the poverty line, we understand that the likes of the winter fuel allowance are a lifeline for some people – and all the while we’re ever hopeful that that won’t be us in retirement, i.e., we won’t be the ones struggling to survive on a measly pension…

However, at the same time it certainly makes a lot of sense to think seriously about how one can achieve the perfect blend in terms of quality of life on the one hand, and cost of living on the other when it comes to retiring. 

In our working lives perhaps we are restricted in where we can live by our job – but another positive thing about retirement is that we will be totally unfettered by such restrictions then, so it makes sense now to ask where are the cheapest countries to retire in…and then to think seriously about perhaps moving to live there in retirement so that our pensions will go that much further.

The thing is, as we have discussed in a previous article entitled ‘The 5 Cheapest Countries to Retire to,’ ‘cheap’ and ‘affordable’ are relative terms with what constitutes ‘cheap’ to me perhaps meaning ‘unacceptably rubbish’ for you! 

So you need to look closely at each nation we list and any country you personally consider for an affordable retirement to ensure it will indeed offer you the balance between a low cost of living and a high enough standard of living.

The following 3 countries are locations where Shelter Offshore contributors live or have lived, they have therefore been personally vetted and assessed and are examples of where in the world you can live relatively well on a relatively tight budget in retirement if you so choose. 

However, one or more of these countries may not appeal to you – so tomorrow we’re going to publish a report into how you can find your own cheap and ideal retirement destination according to your own personal preferences and criteria. 

We will help guide you in assessing each nation on its own merits so that you end up having found the perfect personal retirement haunt by the time you come to retire.

In the meantime, how about one of the following three countries: -

Retire to Cuba-

Until very recently Cuba wasn’t even considered a suitable holiday destination let alone a suitable place to retire abroad, but with the easing of America’s aggressive position on this tiny Caribbean country and the increase in its positive profile internationally, a handful of intrepid expatriates have now decided to call Cuba home. 

What they have found is a relatively peaceful country where integration is perfectly possible as long as you speak Spanish, and where the cost of living really is incredibly affordable. 

Healthcare in Cuba is universally free – and the country has one of the highest doctor to patient ratios in the world! 

Yes, facilities can be poor and supplies limited at times, but life expectancy in the country is on a par with that in Americaand so medical needs should not be a factor against Cuba as a retirement destination abroad.

The climate is excellent for most of the year, the landscape is stunning, culturally and historically Cuba is rich and blessed – but perhaps the one thing not in its favour is the level of poverty suffered by some.  

Cuba has a lot going for it – but you should take a closer look before you commit.

Living in Bulgaria in Retirement

- According to Eurostat, in 2008 Bulgaria enjoyed the lowest prices for goods and services across all EU member states; and although it is now seeing some producer price inflation, the nature of the economic situation across Europe and particularly within the eurozone means that prices are remaining restricted in Bulgaria.

The country is accused of limiting its own development by the excessive amounts of red tape and bureaucracy in place that have restricted investment to date – and whilst this can be seen as negative for those who want to advance their living standards and see improved levels of employment in Bulgaria for example, it is not such a bad thing for would-be retirees attracted to Bulgaria by its still low prices.

The cost of living outside the main towns and cities is cheap by most people’s standards, with real estate still available for rent and to purchase at acceptable levels as long as you avoid the summer or winter resorts.  Bulgaria also has accessibility from the UK in its favour for those retiring Brits who still want to keep in touch with home.

Retire Abroad to Malaysia

- You may have a fairly fixed preconception about Malaysia, most people do – too exotic, too foreign, too tropical, too expensive, too far away? 

 However, the one thing about Malaysia that is universally true is that you have to see it to believe it. 

And to see it you have to visit, travel and stay for an extended period of time – only then can you get anywhere close to seeing the many sides of this incredible destination.

It is a vibrant, beautiful, peaceful, exotic, tropical, accessible and relatively affordable country to live in. 

You have the fast pace of life in the cities like Kuala Lumpur and you have the tourist-dominated resorts such as Langkawi – great to visit, but not ideal to retire to if you want affordable peace! 

So, step off the beaten track and what will you find? 

A people who learn to speak English at school from a very young age – well-educated people who have access to superior medical facilities in urban areas, and who can live on very little and very limited budgets the further away from urbanisation you move.

You will find stunning tropical beaches that you will previously only have ever dreamed of, incredible flora and fauna, a rich cultural heritage, cheap property and a growing number of expatriates lured not only by the lifestyle but by the tax incentives of the Malaysia My Second Home Programme – you will perhaps find your paradise on earth.  And you won’t know until you visit!

In Conclusion

We hope the above countries will have given you some food for thought in suggesting new nations for you to explore as you go in search of the perfect country to retire to abroad. 

 Cheap and affordable may be deciding factors for many retiring expats when they look at countries to retire to – but as I hope we have shown they needn’t be limiting factors. 

There’s a whole world out there – a world of opportunity when it comes to lifestyle. 

Tomorrow’s report will help you match up your lifestyle and affordability retirements with the perfect place to retire if the above suggestions aren’t suitable for you…

Related Articles

§         Think You Can’t Afford to Retire Abroad? Think Again!

§         Why Offshore Financial Planning is Critical when Retiring Abroad

§         Your Top 10 Retirement Abroad Questions Answered

§         3 Important Considerations for Brits Retiring Abroad

§         Is It Realistic to Retire to Turkey – Probably Not…

§         7 Places to Retire Abroad in 2011 for an Affordable Lifestyle

§         Why it Pays to Retire Abroad

§         Retiring Abroad?  Avoid These 3 Costly Mistakes

§         Key Criteria to Consider When Retiring Abroad

A grumpy guide to Christmas

Tis the season to be moaning: Ian Martin highlights the flashpoints for festive disharmony

Widening care gap crisis looms over families

Taking the chance out of chance encounters

The state pension: below the poverty line

UK pensioner poverty is among the worst in Europe – only
Cyprus, Latvia and Estonia abandon their pensioners to a greater degree.

France spends over twice as much on pensions as the UK, Germany two-thirds more.

It is simply not true to say that the UK cannot afford better pensions when nearly every other European
country does better by their pensioners.

The truth is that the value of the state pension has been in decline for 30 years.

In that time the pension has gone from being worth 25% of average male earnings to just 15%.

The basic state pension is currently £102 a week, worth only 57% of the government’s official weekly
pensioner poverty level of £178.

Two and a half million pensioners in the UK live below that level.

Even before the above inflation energy price rises this year, 3.5 million pensioners lived in fuel poverty.

Many pensioners therefore rely on means-tested benefits like the pension credit,

council tax benefit and housing benefit.

However, because of the stigma  attached to claiming, over a million pensioners entitled to pension credit
do not claim it.

Research by the Left Economics Advisory Panel estimates that the cost of means-tested benefits is currently
£13bn per year.

This state spending would not be necessary if private sector employers provided for their staff in the
same way as the public sector.

However, the proposed cuts to public sector pensions would mean that more and more public sector workers will be eligible for these benefits too.

The state pension age is currently proposed to rise from 65 to 66 by 2020, 67 in 2034 and to 68 by 2044.

“The basic state pension is currently £102 a week, worth only 57% of the government’s official weekly pensioner poverty level of £178”

Pensioners reliant on state pension for majority of income

Pensioners in fuel poverty

The Basic State Pension

The best guarantee of security in older age is a decent non means-tested pension linked to earnings.

Pensioners should be able to share in the prosperity of the UK, the fourth wealthiest country in the world.

A decent pension is vital not only to avoid poverty but also social exclusion.

Pensioners should be entitled by right to a healthy diet, material security, social participation and a sense of control.

The extent of pensioner poverty in the UK can be illustrated by the following:

Barely 40 per cent of pensioners have enough income to be taxed, whilst some 2.5million pensioners are entitled to income support through the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG).

The government's latest figures show that 27 per cent of pensioners live on incomes below the poverty line (below 50 per cent of average earnings). In contrast, for those of working age the figure is 14 per cent.

Retirement should be a time to look forward to but unfortunately for many it is not.

No one should have to rely on means-tested benefits in later life and lead a lifestyle geared to survival and essentials with little room for positive and active ageing.

UNISON is pursuing the objective of a "living" pension through the following policy:

The link with earnings

The 2001 Budget included a number of pension proposals intended to provide an income of at least £100 a week by 2003.

There are three elements to these proposals:

However these proposals do not restore the link with earnings and the increase is largely dependent on the means tested MIG.

Pensioners do not want to have to make application for what they are entitled to. This is highlighted by the fact that the Government has launched a £15million advertising campaign to persuade 500,000 eligible pensioners (1 in 5 of those who qualify) to claim MIG.

The Government claims that it would be too costly to restore the link with earnings yet it has spent £6.5 billion on pensioners since the 1997 election, £2 billion more than if the link had been restored.

UNISON continues to campaign for a restoration of the link with earnings to ensure a decent BSP because:

A final thought - if the link with earnings had not been broken in 1980 the BSP for a single pensioner would currently be £97.60 a week instead of £72.50.

As incomes are crunched,

families stuck in debt slash spending

and cut out luxuries to make ends meet

By Tara Evans and Becky Barrow

Last updated at 12:06 PM on 16th November 2011

Millions of Britain's heavily indebted families are cutting back on luxuries from holidays to takeways as their incomes fall in the big squeeze.

The average family with debt is living with credit card bills, loans and overdraft borrowing amounting to £10,604, which equals nearly 50 per cent of their average £23,796 yearly income, research has found.

The major study by Aviva revealed that the typical monthly income of an average family has fallen by 1.7 per cent in just three months, down from £2,018 in August to £1,983 now – if incomes fell at that rate annually they would decline at almost 7 per cent in a year.

 Income squeeze: Families are cutting back on luxuries such as holidays and entertainment.

The report said that 52 per cent of UK families are living with unsecured debts, including loans, credit cards and overdrafts, which many will be unable to pay off as incomes fail to keep pace with inflation.

Excluding housing, families with debts are spending nine per cent of their monthly income on servicing them - almost as much as the ten per cent they spend on feeding themselves.

The report said typical monthly incomes have risen  since January, but that increase has been just £46 at a time when energy bills, transport costs and food bills have soared.

The report also paints a bleak picture of those in crisis who are having to cut back to all but essential spending.

It said that the main driver behind this fall appears to be the six per cent drop in three months of income among those living in a committed relationship with one child.

Their average monthly income fell from £2,327 to £2,196. 
 

More...Families inheriting a retirement home are left with huge bills

Funeral costs are soaring but paying in advance can ease the pain for families

All other types of family also saw their income fall, with the sole exception of those in a committed relationship with no plans to have children, who actually saw their incomes leap eight per cent.

The picture across the country is pretty bleak too.

For example, while families in London may have the highest average monthly income of £2,682 a month, they also have the highest amount of unsecured debt, an average of £23,609.

Paul Goodwin, director of workplace savings at Aviva, said: ‘Incomes have only risen by £46 since January so to make ends meet, we have found that UK families are cutting out luxuries, economising on spending and reducing the typical amount they save.’

Household monthly income compared with debt: Families sizeable debts will be very difficult to repay

Saving has also been hit hard by the big squeeze, with families only putting aside £19 a month after having their budgets crunched by soaring bills and stagnating wages.

The study by the insurer is one of the biggest investigations into how families are coping in the aftermath of recession.

At a time when the economy urgently needs people to spend, it is ‘clearly a picture of a nation cutting back’.

Families are reducing their spending to the basics by ‘ruthlessly removing luxuries from budgets to not only make ends meet but also provide additional security in the form of savings’.

After housing, families are spending nearly 10 per cent of their monthly outgoings on food – but they also have to allocate over nine per cent of their budget to debt repayments.

Families are coping with their tight budgets by ‘cutting spending on non-essential purchases’ such as entertainment and holidays – families spent just three per cent out of their total monthly income on this, the lowest level recorded this year.

 Cutting it fine: How families have cut back on non-essential spending over the past three months

The squeeze on spending on enjoyment is highlighted by a fifth of families not even going out to dinner or having a takeaway.

More than half also said they are spending nothing on children’s activities, such as swimming or piano lessons. All these figures have risen over the last three months.

Overall, the report says families are ‘cutting spending to the bone’, after being hit by small pay rises, or pay freezes, large debts, few savings and rocketing household bills.

Worryingly the number of families surviving on less than £1,250 per month has increased by 1 per cent since August this year to 30 per cent – a concerning trend in the current economic environment.

 Home sweet home: How house prices, income and lending money to family differs across the country
To make matters worse, a third of families also feel forced into helping relatives and close friends who have financial problems.

The report, from insurance giant Aviva, found that over the last year people have paid out around £440 – typically to a brother, close friend or child who has left home.

Mothers, fathers and grown-up children were the most common recipients of this type of help, but 3 per cent of people said they also helped their friends out with cash.

The most common reason for helping friends and relatives was changes to financial circumstances, but 19 per cent of those who helped someone out said it was because of the recipient's 'poor financial management'.

More than one in 10 people said they were less able to help than previously as they were struggling themselves. It added that many cannot afford the lifeline but feel morally obliged.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2062164/Family-income-debt-crunch-Luxuries-spending-cut-make-ends-meet.html#ixzz1e1SY61F2

Prisoner numbers hit fresh record high

Social- Divorcing women use their children,to gain personal financial advantage.

Radical says:-  Most women, with children, seeking a divorce,

on  "grounds of unreasonable behaviour" ( thats a joke !) *

 are unfit to be mothers,yet the Courts completely ignore this

and on solicitors advice agree to give them custody.

And then society wonders why we are rearing delinquents,disadvantaged and depressed children.

Custody must become an issue before divorce is granted and presumption is for equality between men and women.

Assuming you agree that men should have equality with women in marriage )

The Children should always be represented by a third party

*(When has a women's behaviour ever been reasonable. Have the Courts never heard of Vituperation ?)

Law shake-up 'will fuel the epidemic of fatherless families':

Proposals condemned by IDS think-tank

By Tim Shipman

Last updated at 12:41 AM on 4th November 2011

Concerns: Ian Duncan Smith

Plans to deny fathers and grandparents the legal right to see children after a  family break-up will fuel an ‘epidemic of fatherlessness’ in Britain, it was claimed yesterday.

A think-tank set up by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith warned that the proposals could further undermine the family.

Downing Street also turned on the Family Justice Review, drawn up by former civil servant David Norgrove, insisting its conclusions are not in line with Government policy and saying it was not duty-bound to implement it.

Mr Norgrove has recommended fathers get no legal right to equal access and reneged on an earlier pledge to write into legislation that the courts should insist a child has a ‘meaningful relationship’ with both parents.

He said handing out greater rights would lead to more legal battles for custody and delays in deciding who a child should live with.

Mr Norgrove also angered grandparents by rejecting calls to scrap an existing rule which means they have to go to court twice to gain access to their grandchildren.

He also argued grandparents can do more harm than good by interfering in fraught custody battles.

But minutes later the CSJ issued a powerful denunciation of the final plans, saying they would fuel the numbers of fatherless feral youths blamed for the riots this summer.

Mr Duncan Smith is leading a study of what drives young men into gangs and has vowed to fight Mr Norgrove’s proposals. He is furious the proposals could undermine David Cameron’s pledge to create the most family-friendly government ever.

The CSJ said: ‘The final report from the Norgrove Review fails to address the bias in the family law system against fathers and grandparents and will fuel the epidemic of fatherlessness in the UK.

Urgent changes are required in this legislation to reflect the vital role non-resident parents play, usually fathers, for their child’s wellbeing.’

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said: ‘It is Coalition policy that we are in favour of a meaningful relationship. We are committed to shared parenting.

We’re firmly of the view that children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

‘It’s an independent report. We will examine carefully the panel’s recommendations and come back with a response in due course.’

Mr Norgrove said: ‘Grandparents are very important in children’s lives but there are occasions when grandparents can either cause problems for themselves or be used by their children to get at their partner.

‘In highly conflicted cases, grandparents can play a damaging role.’

He said two court hearings were needed to ‘weed out malicious and potentially damaging’ access claims by grandparents. ‘Most of them are not a malign influence but some are,’ he added.

Numerous studies have found that grandparents should play a bigger role in the event that a child’s parents split.

Verity Gill, the founder of Grannynet, the online community for grandparents, said: ‘We are horrified to hear the rulings put forward in the report.

One million grandparents are denied access to their grandchildren in the UK today.

‘Grandparents currently contribute £3.4billion per year in childcare costs, but behind that number is the love and support that creates a stable home life for millions of children.’

CSJ executive director Gavin Poole said: ‘Norgrove’s refusal to acknowledge the importance of fathers and recommend a change to the law ignores the vast majority of public opinion and evidence about the effect absent dads have on children.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057383/Law-shake-fuel-epidemic-fatherless-families-Proposals-condemned-IDS-think-tank.html#ixzz1ciD4eLCh

Betrayal of the family:

Despite all those Tory promises,

fathers and grandparents will still be denied the right to see children after a divorce

By Tim Shipman

Last updated at 1:04 AM on 3rd November 2011

Fathers and grandparents will not be given any legal right to see children after a break-up, under the biggest changes to family law in a generation.

In what was immediately denounced as a ‘betrayal’ of the family, a major report today rules against giving men shared or equal time with their children when a relationship ends.

It suggests fathers will even be denied the legal right to maintain a ‘meaningful relationship’ with their families, as this ‘would do more harm than good’.

The review also kicks into touch Coalition pledges to make it easier to maintain contact with grandchildren when parents separate, a problem that usually affects those on the father’s side.

The long-awaited Family Justice Review was branded a ‘monstrous sham’ that undermines David Cameron’s pledge to lead the most family-friendly government in history.

The independent report was commissioned by ministers to examine the case for reform of a family law system repeatedly accused of putting rights of mothers over those of fathers and grandparents.

But its proposals – likely to form the basis of future government family policy – sparked an immediate Cabinet revolt.

Allies of Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said he would fight to ensure the Government’s response – due to be published in January – will do more for fathers and grandparents.

A source close to the Cabinet minister said that the findings were ‘absurd’, warning that they undermined attempts to tackle the generation of fatherless youths blamed for the summer’s riots.

But Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is expected to back the review, chaired by former civil servant and Marks & Spencer executive David Norgrove.

His report was commissioned by Labour and dismissed by the Tories in Opposition as inadequate but will now form the basis of Coalition legislation.

The review comes against a backdrop of soaring divorce rates and increasing numbers of children  being born out of wedlock, often to co-habitees who are more likely to break up than married couples.

Last year there were almost three million children aged under 16 living in a lone-parent household – or  24 per cent of the total.

Mr Norgrove’s findings fly in the face of studies showing that it is best for a child to have extensive access to both its father and mother.

The report says: ‘No legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents.’

Mr Norgrove has even watered down his own interim report, published in March, which said there should be a legal presumption that children should have a ‘meaningful relationship’ with both parents.

Mr Norgrove believes that enshrining such rights in law could slow down already lengthy and expensive custody cases.

Instead, the courts will simply have to consider the benefits of a meaningful relationship when they decide where children should live and how often they should see each parent.

The final report flatly rejected claims by fathers’ rights groups that the current system is biased – despite figures showing that 93 per cent of custody battles are won by the mother.

Nadine O’Connor, of the Fathers 4 Justice campaign group, said: ‘The review is a monstrous sham and a bureaucratic exercise in improving the efficiency of injustice. It will feed the epidemic of mass fatherlessness and lead to further social unrest.

‘This report condemns children to a life without fathers with catastrophic social consequences.’

The report also contradicts pledges by senior officials earlier this year that grandparents would be given far greater rights.

Instead, they will still have to apply to court twice to see their grandchildren: once for the right to begin a case and then to seek access to their loved ones.

The Norgrove panel merely issued a tepid recommendation that their role should be ‘emphasised’.

Instead of legal protections for fathers and grandparents, the Norgrove report laid out plans to encourage parents to settle disputes before they get to court.

All parents will be given advice on drawing up ‘parenting agreements’ to divide the care of their children.

James Deuchars, of Grandparents Apart UK, said: ‘The Tories said before the election that grandparents were going to have more rights. This is a betrayal of that promise. It was all a con and a gimmick.

‘This report is trying to do away with the traditional family. The result will be more bitter and disillusioned young boys who join gangs.’

A source close to Mr Cameron said the Government has ‘certainly not’ pledged to adopt all the report’s recommendations.

But a source close to Mr Clarke described it as ‘an authoritative account of the problems and a thoughtful look at the solutions’.

The report also said no childcare case should last more than six months and recommended the creation of a Family Justice Service to focus the work of all agencies for the 500,000 children and adults caught up in the family courts each year.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056869/Fathers-grandparents-denied-right-children-divorce.html#ixzz1ccORjJRL

Co-ops and the British jobs crisis

£2m taxpayers' bill for families unable to afford funerals

By Petrina Berry

Saturday, 22 October 2011

i

Financially pressed families cannot afford to bury loved ones, and taxpayers increasingly have to foot the bill, a report has found.

Research by the Local Government Association found councils in England and Wales funded almost 3,000 funerals last year.

Some 52 per cent of councils reported increases in families claiming not to have enough money to pay for funerals. Councils spent £2,110,000, with the average cost being £950.

David Rogers, chairman of the LGA's community wellbeing board, said the Government's complex 25-page form stopped families from claiming grants.

He said the process was slow and often failed families faced with having to pay costs up-front.

"The last thing a grieving relative needs is extra stress over whether they're going to be able to pay for and organise the funeral of their loved one," Mr Rogers said.

"There is a specific grant available to alleviate that situation, but it is so outdated, complex and confusing that it often prevents people getting the support they are entitled to."

Mr Rogers said the funeral payment covered burial or cremation costs but only provided up to £700 for other expenses, including funeral director costs.

 He said this had not been updated since 2003.

Under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, when someone dies outside of a hospital and there is no next of kin or anyone else to foot the bill, the funeral arrangements and costs fall on councils.

Boys born in Kensington today 'will live 13.5 years longer

than those in Glasgow'

Gap in life expectancy between rich and poor areas is revealed as report shows low-income families' struggle to pay bills

Britain's care home shame

Elderly care should focus on basic patient needs

 Radical- I shall say this only once.

The Nursing Profession is responsible for the lack of basic care by students of nursing and this has been going on for 40 years.

Taking Nurses out of the care environment into the schools and elevating the profession to degree status was responsible.

 It divided nurses and the profession.

Nurses came into the profession to put the "cool hand on the fevered brow", a maternal instinct.

 Many of the teachers were thinkers and not doers.

Nursing to a large extent is commonsense and basic training of the care needs.

The medical world has moved on and has become more involved but nursing can still be an art and a science.

What is important is for the profession to be attractive to carers.

These are girls and boys who want to care and want to do a job well for the sake of it.

Fortunately we have enjoyed a large immigrant population who have come to replace the basic care shortfall in our own numbers.

They must receive equal status and opportunity.

Nursing used to be a task orientated profession,similar to the Armed Services but that changed to a Process where nurses decided the patients needs.

That changed the profession for the better.

The NHS

If you want my opinion for what its worth, I would relieve half the administration of their roles and give that back to the Medics, Nurses and Technical Staff responsibility for smaller units within a larger complex.

Medics would have to decide between Private and Public work, not both. The Hospital Secretary would be just that. 

Responsibility and finance would be delegated.

Units responible for budgets.

And bring back Matron.

I have to say that - I was one - well a male one. A Patron ? 

 A report from the Care Quality Commission shows basic human rights are being overlooked in the care of older people, says Melanie Henwood

The latest report from the Care Quality Commission on the poor treatment of many older people in hospital has is a cause for concern.

The findings reveal a shocking picture of sub-standard care that has become institutionalised in many hospitals where the basic principles of human rights and dignity are ignored.

There has been much discussion, in particular, of the failings of nursing training.

One line of argument is that patient neglect is somehow due to nurses spending too much training time in the classroom and not enough on the ward.

Nursing as a degree level profession is also blamed.

This is over-simplistic and trite.

Why should academic knowledge be antithetical to compassion and understanding?

Nonetheless, there are training issues, particularly in addressing person-centred support and looking at the needs of the individual, rather than using a task-based approach.

The most basic nursing (often the most important elements for patients) including cleanliness, being comfortable and being able to eat and drink, is often delegated to health care assistants rather than done by qualified nurses. This can serve to demean and devalue such care.

Successive governments have failed to grasp the issue of regulating health care assistants and specifying the training, standards and competencies they should achieve.

While it should be common sense and fundamental to basic humanity to treat people with dignity and empathy, it is clear that it is all too easy for this to slip, particularly if no one challenges poor practice.

The CQC is right to emphasise the importance of management and leadership within hospitals in creating "a culture in which good care can flourish".

More than that, the culture must be one in which good care is a fundamental requirement at all levels of staffing, from the ward to the boardroom.

Dame Jo Williams, chair of CQC, commented that despite examples of good and excellent care, around half of the hospitals visited gave the inspection teams "cause for concern".

Part of the solution lies in resources, and while well-resourced hospitals can still provide poor care, and vice versa, "there are levels of under-resourcing that make poor care more likely".

It is a complex picture, however, as Dame Jo acknowledges in her remark that "kindness and compassion costs nothing".

The poor care shown to many older people in failing to respect them, or offer them dignity and privacy, is sadly familiar from previous studies of hospital care for older people and also from similar evidence in relation to people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and mental illness.

How and why this can happen is well understood; people who are 'different' or vulnerable and less able to assert themselves can be at risk of being bullied, abused or ignored.

Reading this latest report shocked us, and made us feel uneasy.

What kind of society allows indignities to develop and thrive as if they were perfectly acceptable?

Hospital managers, boards and care staff all have a responsibility to challenge poor practice and reinforce basic values around dignity and respect.

But they are not the only ones.

 Don't we all have a role to play too in our day to day interactions with fellow citizens?

Welcome to snooperland

Prisons are bursting at the seams !

And its shown it doesn’t work for petty criminals.

So what is the alternative ?

What shall we do with the non violent offender ?

A) Make them MP’s ?

B) Give them Capital to start a business?

C) Give them a secure job in the Community ?

Women’s Bad Moods

You have heard all the usual reasons.

Wrong time of the month

Testing the partner

Illogical reasoning

But enough is enough !

There are so many fish in the sea that men should draw the line in the sand.

Ask her….

What is your plan ?

If she wants money

Tell her to go an earn some

If she wants a divorce or to leave

Show her the door

Of course you may be up to your neck in it !

Kids

Debt

Valuables to protect

So ?

Why did you get into that situation in the first place.?

Its easy to say that in hindsight.

And do we ever learn ?

Count your divorces not escapes!

Then answer that question yourself.

Time for men to get liberated ?

Time to get wise, organised and independent.

It may seem a daunting task but….

How many bad moods will it take

Are you a mouse

(A wee sleekit cow'rin tim'rous beastie ) ?

No of course not

You’re a man

And on course get the odds stacked better in your favour.

Who wants to work forever?

Friday 30 September 2011

Sharp rise in demand for food handouts

from poverty-stricken families

Food charity FareShare sees a 20% rise in demand, much of it from people hit by unemployment and benefit changes

Britain has seen a sharp increase in the number of people unable to afford to feed themselves at the most basic level, thanks to the worsening economic climate and changes to the benefit system, according to a survey by a leading food charity.

In the past year FareShare, which redistributes waste food from major food manufacturers and supermarkets to social care charities, has seen a 20% rise in the number of people it is feeding – from 29,500 a year to 35,000.

And many of those, blighted by rising unemployment and business failures, are coming from the sorts of stable family backgrounds once considered immune to the worst effects of recession.

The new findings, which are backed up by research from other organisations working in the same field, will make sobering reading for the Conservative party as it gathers in Manchester this weekend for its annual conference, where the direction of the government's stringent deficit reduction programme will be carefully scrutinised.

The number of charities that have signed up to receive food from FareShare, which operates from 17 sites across the UK, has also risen in the past 12 months, from 600 to 700. More than 40% of those charities are recording increases in demand for their feeding services of up to 50%.

"People in our communities are going to bed hungry because they can't afford to feed themselves," said Lindsay Boswell, chief executive of FareShare. "This is a huge problem and it's right here, in our neighbourhoods, on our streets. This is outrageous enough even before you factor in the thousands of tonnes of good food thrown away each year. It's illogical and frankly immoral that these problems coexist."

The food that FareShare distributes would generally end up in landfill sites. It is discarded by major supermarkets such as Sainsbury's, Tesco and M&S, because it's out of date, or surplus to demand or as a result of printing errors on the packaging.

It's estimated that three million tonnes of food like this is being wasted in Britain every year, of which FareShare gets hold of about 1%. "Demand for our food is going up far faster than we can source it," Boswell said. "As a charity we started out purely interested in liberating waste. We are an environmental charity that gets bloody angry about food being thrown away. However, we're clear that it is the alleviation of poverty which now leads what we do."

One of the major changes seen by FareShare and organisations like it is in the type of people they are now feeding. Where once it was single homeless and the chronically destitute now it's increasingly families and working people who have fallen on hard times.

In the past year, the Salisbury-based Trussell Trust has seen the number of people it is feeding rise from 41,000 to 61,500. It runs more than 100 food banks around the country, distributing emergency food parcels to people in dire need who have been referred to it by social care organisations and charities.

"We're seeing a big increase in what you could call, for want of a better phrase, normal working people, those who have lost their jobs or seen their own businesses go under," says Jeremy Ravn, manager of the food bank network. "The big problem is that the welfare state is not reacting fast enough to need."

An increasing time lag between benefits claims being accepted and the date when payments come on stream is, Ravn says, resulting in some people suffering serious hunger.

A spokesperson for the Department of Work and Pensions denied there had been any changes to the system for paying benefits which could be blamed for the sharp increase in the number of people requiring food aid.

However he said that a series of reforms, including the controversial plan by work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith for a universal credit to replace a slate of existing benefits, was now more necessary. "This will help us get back to a working welfare state where people don't have to rely on food parcels," the spokesperson said.

• More than one in five workers now earn less than a "living wage", says the Resolution Foundation thinktank. Its head, Gavin Kelly, said the research showed how pervasive low pay is.

Week's grace for travellers as judge delays eviction

Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die

We should enjoy life as much as possible, because it will be over soon.

 This saying is based on verses from the biblical books of Ecclesiastes and Isaiah.

 A LIFE OF SIGHING ?

 DO THIS – DON’T DO THAT – OBSERVE THE OTHER –

 BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOUR EVERY MOVE.

 CCTV- SPEED CAMERAS – NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

 NO !  I AM NOT SUGGESTING WE BECOME A BUNCH OF MONKS

 BUT AFTER THREE SCORE YEARS AND TEN

 WHY SHOULD WE NOT “LIVE TO EAT”RATHER THAN “EATING TO LIVE”?

 IF WE ARE TO BE SUBJECTED TO A DIET IN LATE LIFE OF EVERY DISEASE UNDER THE SUN ACCORDING TO THE GLOOM DOOMERS

 WHY BE MISERABLE ?

 EVERYTHING IN MODERATION IS A REASONABLE APPROACH TO LIFE

 BUT WILL SOCIETY LET YOU ?

 THE CONSUMER SOCIETY – CONVINCING YOU OF YOUR NEED FOR MOST THINGS YOU DON’T REALLY NEED.

 BUY BUY BUY- EVEN ON CREDIT BUT BUY ?

 WORK WORK WORK UNTIL YOU DROP TO PAY FOR THE BUY BUY BUY

 EVEN THE BASIC COMMODITIES OF LIFE GIVE YOU PAIN ?

 HEATING – HEALTH – HASSLE -THE HIGH AND MIGHTY  AND HOGWASH

 SO PLEASE REMEMBER WE ARE ALL DYING SLOWLY

 BUT STICK TWO FINGERS UP ON THOSE WHO WANT YOU TO GO CHEAPILY.

 TO THE CENTURIANS I SAY JUST THIS – KEEP COLLECTING YOUR PENSION- YOU DESERVED IT.

AND THE CENTURIANS WOULD REPLY – EAT DRINK AND BE VERY MERRY

Hatred and hypocrisy

Wrong to describe greed as 'basic human instinct'

Family migration to the UK:

the poor need not apply

Community spirit needs to be regained

Populations

End of history and the last woman

Aug 22nd 2011, 15:02 by The Economist online

How our not-so-better halves

leave us with their bad habits

• 'Men are usually the bad influence'

By Mail Foreign Service

Last updated at 9:00 AM on 20th August 2011 

But pay close attention to your spouse's less attractive qualities – because they're the ones that are going to rub off on you.

According to a study, once you've tied the knot you're likely to pick up your partner's bad habits.

Exchange vows with a heavy smoker or a junk food addict, therefore, and you're at risk of developing the same vice.

Or if you're an exercise fanatic who promises to love, honour and obey a couch potato, they'll probably convince you to stay on the sofa.

While previous studies have generally associated stable relationships with good health, researchers in the U.S. found that couples who walk down the aisle are likely to adopt one another's vices instead of helping each other to change.

And it's men who are almost always identified as the 'bad influence' on their other halves.

Professor Corinne Reczek, who led the study at the University of Cincinnati, said:

'The finding that one partner is a direct bad influence suggests individuals converge in health habits across the course of their relationship, because one individual's unhealthy habits directly promote the other's unhealthy habits.'

For example, she added, both partners would eat the fatty foods that the  less health-conscious of the pair had purchased.

 The researchers carried out in-depth interviews with 122 men and women  who were married or involved in long-term relationships.

The couples had been together for between eight and 52 years and were questioned about their smoking, drinking, food consumption, sleep patterns, exercise and other health habits.

Professor Reczek, who will present the findings at a health meeting in Las Vegas next week, said: 'Particular attention was paid to how partners shaped each of these habits.'

The researchers reported that they noticed a 'discourse of personal responsibility' among the participants – meaning that if they observed their partner indulging in an unhealthy habit, they did not attempt to stop them, suggesting that they  were complicit in sustaining their partner's vices.

Professor Reczek said: 'While previous research focuses nearly exclusively on how intimate relationships – particularly marriage – are health-promoting, these findings extend this research to argue that intimate partners are cognisant of the ways in which they promote the unhealthy habits of one another.'

The findings also apply to gay and lesbian couples, but in these cases  it was more difficult to identify the 'bad influence' because the vices of both  partners were 'simultaneously promoted'.

Professor Reczek said: 'For these individuals, one partner may not  engage in what they consider an  unhealthy habit on their own, but when their desire for such a habit is matched by their partner's, they partake in unhealthy habits.'

The end of ageing: Why life begins at 90

• 10 August 2011 by Michael R. Rose
• New Scientist

UK riots:

Why respectable people turned to looting

RADICAL REMINDS- ROUGH JUSTICE -EVEN MP'S ARE "THE LOOTERS"- CHEATING THE PUBLIC PURSE WITH ILLEGAL EXPENSES CLAIMS- SO WHY WERE THEY ALL NOT BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURTS ?

• 13:21 12 August 2011 by Linda Geddes
• New Scientist