5 years hard labour ?

[Primus1]

There aren’t many councils that have there own care homes anymore preferring instead to place people in private care homes.

[Rhymes with Paris]

38 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

There aren’t many councils that have there own care homes anymore preferring instead to place people in private care homes.

Yeah, I've heard it referred to very cynically as "granny farming", which is a pretty horrible attitude.

I saw my dad in a fairly decent nursing home for his last few years, even so I don't fancy being at the mercy of such characters and their employees now , it'll maybe be my turn, and things have got so bad.

Believe me, there is a lot of mistreatment and bullying of the elderly in NHS hospitals and private nursing and care homes, not in theory of course with all the supposed checks and regulations, but the reality is there.

Luckily I was young enough, and capable of advocating for my dad at the time to protect him from mistreatment, but if you have nobody, make good friends quickly.

 

 

[Haliotis]

Does not this dire warning about mistreating the elderly make you feel that care homes should be heavily equipped with tamperproof CCTV surveillance?

[Rhymes with Paris]

1 minute ago, Haliotis said:

Does not this dire warning about mistreating the elderly make you feel that care homes should be heavily equipped with tamperproof CCTV surveillance?

Yes, and hospitals too.

Trouble is looking for evidence is always after the event.

Even if the coverage was sufficient, and acted upon, never mind the inflated costs that would be used as an excuse not to have it.

For some, this is not a good time to be old and frail, maybe never has, but the general attitude I hear and read about now, makes me think that people my age and older are a bit of a nuisance, and in the way.

Apart from of course if there is any money/inheritance to be had, then it's all a big race to the death bed while no interest or care for the closing years.

Of course, those who have loving family to look out for them do not experience this, but many unfortunately do.

I'm leaving my modified Tsport to Saxo Tony and Tina turbo for their kindness.

[Primus1]

We don’t have any abuse of residents in the care home where I work, it would be stamped on very quickly, we did however, have a male carer who set up his own surveillance in our staff toilet to film members of staff ( female) using the toilet, ( I was recorded too) it was brought to management on several occasions, it was after one of the senior nurses found a pen camera that the police were called which he was eventually arrested, he’s now serving two years, but the company I work for only offered any counselling after he was sentenced, now we have a sexual harassment training course each year, 

[Cyker]

"Brought to management on several occasions" Sounds like the people in charge need the training course more than the staff do!! 

[Mjolinor]

9 hours ago, Primus1 said:

We don’t have any abuse of residents in the care home where I work, it would be stamped on very quickly, we did however, have a male carer who set up his own surveillance in our staff toilet to film members of staff ( female) using the toilet, ( I was recorded too) it was brought to management on several occasions, it was after one of the senior nurses found a pen camera that the police were called which he was eventually arrested, he’s now serving two years, but the company I work for only offered any counselling after he was sentenced, now we have a sexual harassment training course each year, 

I won't ask why you were using the female toilet with a name like Alan. None of my business, each to his own. 🙂

 

[Eddie G]

5 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

I won't ask why you were using the female toilet with a name like Alan. None of my business, each to his own. 🙂

 

Single toilet for everyone's use by the sounds of it.

[Primus1]

Yes it was a toilet for all staff, one of the staff refuses to complete the sexual harassment training ( online) even if it means losing her job, incidentally, I was the only not guilty plea he entered as he never got any gratification from viewing my images,, I don’t know if to feel relieved or disappointed..

[Bper]

10 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

Yes it was a toilet for all staff, one of the staff refuses to complete the sexual harassment training ( online) even if it means losing her job, incidentally, I was the only not guilty plea he entered as he never got any gratification from viewing my images,, I don’t know if to feel relieved or disappointed..

Why would she refuse, surely as a woman this is important for her protection is it not.?🫤

[dannyboy413]

2 hours ago, Primus1 said:

I don’t know if to feel relieved or disappointed..

I bet you felt 'relieved' at the time though. 😉

[Primus1]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

Why would she refuse, surely as a woman this is important for her protection is it not.?🫤

Because management failed and we are the ones who have to be aware of sexual harassment, some of the victims are anxious when they try on clothes in changing rooms in clothes shops..

[CassUK]

No politician should ever accept freebies, let alone those that run the country. Even after they were exposed by the MP’s Expenses Scandal, they can still claim almost whatever they like and their second home allowances are shocking. It’s one rule for them and the rest of the country suffer whilst they dip into the public purse with impunity. They are quick to call out alleged impropriety by others but unashamedly silent when they are confronted. Time to call them out at every opportunity - and make it LOUD 😡

[Primus1]

What people seem unaware regarding the freebie’s are that, so long as they are declared, then it’s perfectly reasonable to accept them, they are not breaking any parliamentary rules, the problem arises when, as seen by the last government, they were not declared, however, it does seem a little unfair when most of the country are struggling to make ends meet…

[Haliotis]

The problem with freebies is that they suggest bribery, or a minister feeling obliged to invoke an advantage not available to society in general.  For this reason, nobody in high office in should be allowed to accept freebies - from ministers/MPs in government, through to judges, police and any similarly occupied persons serving the public.

Regarding second homes, this is a difficult one if a PM or MP actually owns two properties.  An MP is expected to be convenient to his/her constituents, and to be located so as to be able to attend parliament.

The answer could be properties held by the Crown - one in each constituency and one for each MP, and situated convenient to the House of Commons.  These properties would be used by the elected MPs, regardless of party.  Running costs and maintenance would be administered by a specific branch of the Civil Service.  Ministers and MPs could then have a fixed allowance for travel between their private residence and Westminster.   If any owned second homes, these could come under the same rules as for anyone owning m,ore than one home.

Perhaps still not an absolute answer, but one that would give more clarity.

[Bper]

If I hear one more politician say, when questioned about freebies, 'we have been completely transparent,' as if they're doing us a favour, I'll scream. The parliamentary rules mandate transparency they don’t have a choice. The way they try to spin it to justify their actions is an insult to the intelligence of the public, and this will not be forgotten come voting time.

Keir Starmer said today at the Labour Party Conference that he wants the 'Israeli sausages' released—yes, not hostages. Given the problems the Labour Party has dug itself into so far, will he still be Prime Minister next year?"😠
 

[Eddie G]

32 minutes ago, Bper said:

If I hear one more politician say, when questioned about freebies, 'we have been completely transparent,' as if they're doing us a favour, I'll scream. The parliamentary rules mandate transparency they don’t have a choice. The way they try to spin it to justify their actions is an insult to the intelligence of the public, and this will not be forgotten come voting time.

Keir Starmer said today at the Labour Party Conference that he wants the 'Israeli sausages' released—yes, not hostages. Given the problems the Labour Party has dug itself into so far, will he still be Prime Minister next year?"😠
 

Whoever Labour has in place as leader at the next general they will be out after one term, It reminds me of watching Norman Wisdom films but you wish you were not laughing out loud everytime someone from the Labour party is doing an interview.

[Bper]

11 minutes ago, Eddie G said:

Whoever Labour has in place as leader at the next general they will be out after one term, It reminds me of watching Norman Wisdom films but you wish you were not laughing out loud everytime someone from the Labour party is doing an interview.

So is Starmer "Mr Grimsdale"😂

[Rhymes with Paris]

8 hours ago, Haliotis said:

The answer could be properties held by the Crown - one in each constituency and one for each MP, and situated convenient to the House of Commons.  These properties would be used by the elected MPs, regardless of party.  Running costs and maintenance would be administered by a specific branch of the Civil Service.  Ministers and MPs could then have a fixed allowance for travel between their private residence and Westminster.   If any owned second homes, these could come under the same rules as for anyone owning m,ore than one home.

Well tower Hamlets ain't too far from Westminster is it?

Maybe the aspirational MPs could think ahead a bit, and jump through all the hoops to get social housing, and subject themselves to the indignities involved, there is always emergency accommodation in b&bs if there is a waiting list for sub standard housing.

Then get a bus if they find the walk to parliament a bit far, and experience what the electorate has to.

Memory of London locations nowadays may be out a bit,not having worked there for a few decades, so maybe I have the logistics wrong.

Reckon I could rough it on a basic £91,000 a year though.

 

[Haliotis]

The overall yearly cost of the illegal immigrants is now  equal to the amount of Winter fuel Allowance that has been taken from pensioners.  So pensioners are paying for keeping illegal immigrants in the UK.  If the labour government can sa to pensioners, “you are getting nothing”, then why cannot they say the same to the illegal immigrants?  Is it cowardice in the face of the vociferous minority who welcome these people onto our shores?   The continuously increasing flow will cause an ever-increasing cost, and Starmer cannot use that financial escape twice at some point, there will be a disastrous situation seeing a threat as serious as the early years of WW2.  If the government of the day had dug in and said, “You get nothing, so you might as well go back”, things may have been different - but now there is a proven record of immigrants getting their own way, so the encouragement is there.

[FROSTYBALLS]

9 hours ago, Haliotis said:

The answer could be properties held by the Crown

Probablyy not.

The Crown Estate is a public corporation, not part of the Civil Service, and Crown properties are neither owned by Government nor form part of the King's private estate. Crown Estate employees aren't civil servants.

[Primus1]

Can someone clarify what constitutes an illegal immigrant…?

[FROSTYBALLS]

House of Commons library:

Illegal immigrants in the UK include those who have:

• entered the UK without authority
• entered with false documents
• overstayed their visas
• worked or studied on a tourist visa/ non-immigrant visa waiver
• entered into forced or fraudulent marriage
• had their marriages terminated or annulled

[Primus1]

9 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

House of Commons library:

Illegal immigrants in the UK include those who have:

• entered the UK without authority
• entered with false documents
• overstayed their visas
• worked or studied on a tourist visa/ non-immigrant visa waiver
• entered into forced or fraudulent marriage
• had their marriages terminated or annulled

Thanks for that, so it’s not those crossing the channel to claim asylum as many people and the media believe…

[MC1216]

10 hours ago, Primus1 said:

Can someone clarify what constitutes an illegal immigrant…?

The world has gone mad that the new term is now... the government has dropped the term "illegal migration", replacing it with "irregular.