DJKillaQueen

No and to be honest I don't think the government has really thought about that either....which is why LA admissions to bed and breakfast accomodation have shot up by 40% (B&B being far more expensive than an average private sector rent). Benefit changes are required to kick in as soon as need changes, so that suggests no leeway of adjustment time. But as is often the case with things, if the problems are too commonplace when they do kick in, probably some softening measure will follow. I know for example that changes are about to be made to the frequency of ESA assessments, because the government has accepted that it is completely wrong that an ESA recipient can win a tribunal and then be called in for reassessment a week later (and find themselves back in the same process). There is evidence that ATOS are harassing 'softer' claimants in order to make their quotas, but those softer claimants are often the most vulnerable as they are predominently mental health cases, along with those suffering from other 'unseen' illnesses and disibility. Back on the children front though....I've long held the belief that education can be a way out of poverty, so I passionately care if the poorest children are living in overcrowded households. Homework clubs can be a valuable outlet for those children. So facilities such as libraries, community centres and any spaces where children can go are very important, and they need to be open outside of school hours. Southwark in my experience though, has been very good at giving support to the many volunteer groups that work hard to keep community centres and other facilites going.

Herrick...maybe you'd be better taking the time to read the thread and peoples posts properly...you might find some of them to be well thought out and better informed than you think. Huguenot is right. We as taxpayers do have a right to ask if any public service is working to a reasonable budget. The proposed cuts are a suitable foundation for such a debate. Not a single fire service employee has engaged in an informed date about facts and figures on this thread. I've made some attempt to provide data that can be debated in a sensible manner. All we seem to get from those posters are mild rants and hissy fits about how ill-informed we all are? So no Herrick...I won't be pming you for any fire and rescue data. It's all out there in the public domain anyway, much of it published by the Fire Service itself. Didn't I even post links to some of it earlier in this thread? But you wouldn't know that because you couldn't be bothered to read it. If you had, you would have been in a better position to consider the facts behind some of the points the rest of us have made.

I agree that there are issues here regarding those that may have covered/ protected not just him, but the likes of Gary Glitter and other convicted high profile peadophiles. And if the BBC itself played a part in that then the victims amy well have a compensation claim.

I saw this happen years ago in a restaurant. Well known method of distraction theft.

It's not so much about children having to share (that's not the issue), it's the size of the space they are expected to share. The average second and third bedrooms in social housing can only house a single bed, or single bunk beds, and not much else. And flats have no storage space elsewhere, for clothes, books, and the variety of things teenagers and children have, and need. Hence my points about what constitutes as overcrowding, and can be defined as living on top of each other. And yes, this is an issue that can affect families from every part of the spectrum. Sadly the government doesn't care if there's affordable and suitable alternate accomodation available or not. It simply wants the welfare bill cut, and it wants it cut now, whatever the impact.

I think it depends on those sharing and the size of the property. We have archaic laws on overcrowding in the UK. When the 1985 Housing Act came to be, with it's 1987 and 1989 ammendments, it addressed pretty much everything but size of occupancy. As a result we still have laws that state that children under a certain age don't count when measuring occupancy because they can sleep in a bath, or kitchen. Those laws date back to 1850 when entire families living in one room was common, and because of those laws, local authorities are not obliged to rehouse families with small children living in one bedroomed flats for example (and yes, I know of several families in this situation and until rencently, a family of five who now thankfully have been able to move). We have the smallest planning regulations regarding minimum dwelling size in Europe. When a family lives on top of themselves (literally in the case of children sharing tiny bedrooms with barely the space for a bunk bed) then there can be problems. Try doing homework in a household like that for example! Under occupancy can be addressed, but there has to be options for those to take if they want to downsize....so we can agree on that. But for someone who holds the views I have regarding children, poverty, education and social mobility....it is important to me that children have stable home lives which includes the right environment for learning and study. Overcrowding can be a real hindrance to that. All the evidence historically backs that up too.

That's some 220,000 then, that may need to seek downsized accomodation from their HA or LA.....accomodation that doesn't exist in those numbers....or face paying 14 or 25 % of their rent from their benefits/ low wages. Do the government even know how small the second and third bedrooms are in many social housing flats. Putting two 15 years old in a small bedroom with no room for wardrobes or drawers is asking for trouble.

From April 2013, if a claimant of HB is under occupying their property they will lose a % of their housing benefit. This is something that will affect all kinds of people, from the single person to the recently widowed, and becomes complicated for children under 16 who are expected to share with a sibling. Examples here..... http://www.riverside.org.uk/national/big_changes/changes_to_housing_benefit_th.aspx

A lot of DLA receipients have already seen that part of their benefits reduced or taken away altogether. But indeed, the bedroom tax (as you calll it) and changes to the way council tax benefit is set (by the local authority, not the DWP) is going to really hit the poorest hard. And you are right Chippy. We can not measure any impact until all of those reforms are in place.

Sigh...and you don't want to accept the published facts, which I may add go beyond yourself and the fire station you personally work at. If you had bothered to look at the links I provided for example, you would see they are not just simply 'a page or two' from the media. If you are going to make unsubstantiated claims then you need to have hard facts to back that up. Just saying 'I am a fireman and have been one for 26 years' doesn't discredit the data that is out there, from many reputable sources. This is perhaps why the public aren't as on side with public sector unions as you would like. Because those unions take the public for idiots. Try to scare us with stories of disaster and chaos if anything is changed and then when presented with hard data to question that, say the kind of things you are saying...which to be frank is, that you know best and the data is wrong. And btw ...having the same thing for less IS still cutting funding. If the fire service can deliver the same for 12% less then great. We know they can do it for 5% less. But all, that internal documents are leaking to the media, are worst case proposals to close x amount of fire stations and make redundant x amount of personnel. If the fire unions instead presented logical debate which had some relationsship to the data out there, then maybe I and the public would listen, and be on board. Unfortunately all the public ever hears is self serving defiance that nothing should be cut, wages should not be frozen, pensions not be touched etc and to do this at a time when many public sector workers are struggling and facing a bleak and poor old age, is both insulting, and out of tune with the mood of the public.

What no 'Colour Thief' this year? :P

I now know what I want for Christmas...........

Some insight here LM in this CAB lecture aid..... http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=47155d9d-9f6f-4894-a759-8a098a68774c&groupId=10171 Note the pie chart on page 5 which perfectly illustrates my point about disproportionate cuts to those on disibility benefits and in receipt of Disibility Living Allowance. Part of me thinks that the government have cycnically complicated the reforms to make it dificult to measure the impact in some areas. I think that reforms to the child tax credit system do illustrate this. What can be said though is that in spite of all these cuts, the welfare bill is actually going up. In the disibility sector, the company employed to assess people (and paid ?400million to do so), Atos are failing everyone but the most severely ill, that comes before them. Most claimants are appealing (which costs money) and a high percentage of those are successful at tribunal (again costing more money) before having their benefits reinstated and back paid. Those who succeed in this process are then called in within a month for another assessment, which they fail, and the process starts again. How on earth is that saving money? And what is it doing to those vulnerable people it affects?

Still looking for London figures for council tax and public sector pensions but in the meantime have a look at this thread.....it kind of illustrates why we should care why so much of our money is being spent on public sector pensions. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/council_taxpensions

I echo H's points. Spc, show us the evidence that shift changes have not improved efficiency or reduced costs - on this point the LFS's own accounts show the savings made by shift changes, so there's a clue to why I dispute your claim on this point. Call outs and emergency work as you freely admit are only 10% of your workload. And this is something that has reduced over the past ten years (by as much as 30% in some regions). So it's only common sense that the work load shifts to other secondary things such as prevention and education. On insurance claims and attendance times...again, show me some data to support your claims. A red herring as H says (not supported by evidence). Also injuries and deaths to both fire fighters and the public are dropping year on year. This amazingly in spite of changes to the fire service, which your union told us would lead to increased danger to the public and fire fighters. See why we need more than just unsubstantiated claims? There are plenty of stats online regarding all aspects of the emergency services and work they do, collated by reputable sources. Sources that you can not dismiss as the work of politicians and biased service managers. And you may well pay 11% into your pension, but you also know that the government and your employer are topping up your pension substantially (adding between 11 and 21 % according to whether the scheme is pre/post 2006). And what the public might not know is that one pension scheme allows fire fighters to retire as early 50 (as long as they have 25 years service) or 60 for the post 2006 scheme. Do you ever stop and think about the millions of private sector workers unable to afford even a basic pension, who are paying (through their taxes) for your expensive and generous pension scheme, while they'll be lucky to see retirement before 70? I tried to find some accurate data of the cost of the pension scheme versus service costs. Because the council tax we pay for the fire service in part is for the pension fund too. Establishing just what percentage is for the service and what percentage is for the pension fund is proving to be difficult.

Is that external funding coming from TFL Renata (for Forest Hill road).....if so, it would be part of the same funding envelope covering the junction of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road.

Hmmm....most tenants stay put because they can't afford to move out to be honest. When Tenants do find themselves in a position to buy something, it's usually the social home they live in or part buy schemes. Personally I am against shared ownerships schemes because I think they are another device designed to keep property prices high in the absence of first time buyers. If you look at the evolution of the housing market over the past three decades you will see a direct relationship between availability of first time buyers and products offered by mortgage lenders. It's a process that began with cheaper interest rates and larger salary x loans...moving to interest only mortgages...to finally self certified mortgages. We are heading for a crisis with interest only mortgages as some of those first to buy them are coming to the end of their mortgage period with no means to pay back the capital for the intitial purchase.

Spc it is well known and admitted by some fire fighters themselves that they have had second jobs. Granted it's not all but still let's not pretend that some night shift fire fighters have had an easy ride in the past. The LFS themsleves publish detailed annual accounts as referenced in my posts above, along with detailed data on call out's and types of work undertaken. So to answer you question....I get all my info from the fire service themselves, including their own admission that they came in 5% under budget last year. I don't know if the LFS can absorb the second 8% cut in funding, but all the evidence is that it can certainly absorb the first 6% cut. You might not like it spc but quite frankly I'm tired of arguments that try to alarm the public with tales of death and serious injury being the outcome of any change. As we've seen with recent changes (to shifts etc) the rate of incidents and the outcome of those incidents have not been adversely affected. I am also equally tired of public service sector workers accusing anyone that supports changes in efficiency and cost etc as not being supportive of those services (when we all pay into their generous pension schemes). Some Firefighters seem to have a hero complex imo. Nurses, paramedics and Police all have to deal with life threatening situations on a daily basis (hourly in some cases), and all have seen cuts to their services. They don't seem to need to remind us constantly of the paitents they treat or the people they help like some firefighters do.

No one is suggesting those on low incomes lose help. But you know as well as I do that a family with an income with 50k is not on a low income. My argument is that child benefits should be means tested more than they currently are. What do you class as an ok wage? I don't know what you earn but I can guaratee that any cut in benefit hasn't reduced your household income by 25% unlike those on the poorest rung of benefits. If benefits were taken away from those who truly do not need them, then they can be refocused on those that do....and you may well be one of those who would benefit from a more efficient allocation of welfare. Ideally of course, I'd like to see the minimum wage increased and something be done to control rents, so that people in work can afford them without the need for benefit. In principle though, I am against giving a benefit to someone for every child they have. It is a choice to have children, and many of the benefits given are to compensate for absent parents who take no responsibility for the children they produce.

'Social mobility is really no where near high enough in the UK for class not to have any social / cultural traits.' This I totally agree with. But traditionally class in the UK has had more to do with cultural upbringing than wealth....although the two are often linked. This is why a person can acquire (or lose for that matter) great wealth but doesn't then become x class because of it.

This might interest you LondonMix www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03228.pdf It states.... 'There are 10.3 million people aged 65 and over in the UK. This is an 80 per cent increase over six decades, from in 1951.'

Absolutely, and I think everyone understands that. There's worse to come of course with a third of the working population having no private pension provision, in addition to the unemployed. The government recently anounced a new state subsidised private sector pensions scheme, but it is of course optional, bound to fail for all but anyone in long term and stable employment, and comes a bit to late to stave off the immediate crisis. The other point to make is that that aging population are also voters so any government is wary of cutting too much in this section, another reason perhaps why the truly poor 12% are subject to the overwhleming bulk of the cuts to welfare reform. That to me is unforgivably unfair and totally in the self interest of the government making the cuts. If we look at the second largest part of the welfare bill....child credits and allowances, that too is an area being left relatively untouched by the spread of cuts. Why do we reward families for the number of children they have? A family with five children and an income of 50k is eligible for family tax credits...why? Child benefits were originally designed to lift children out of poverty but they have become a way of making children affordable. If we must give tax credits to working families then why can't it be limited to two children and the poorest families only?

Nonsense.....did I mention cats first? No Rosie wrote.... 'I'm assuming all the people on here calling for dogs to be kept on a lead at all times also feel cats should be kept indoors, or also on a lead? Either that or they don't feel the 55 million songbirds killed by cats every year deserve their pity (I figure frogs, mice and rats haven't a dismembered leg to stand on in this particular argument).' Sunlover...that is also a way of saying if you are going to come down on dogs then you'd better come down on cats too...or should I put it this way....don't blame dogs for killing cats when cats kill birds.....? Now you tell me sunlover....just why did Rosie feel the need to point out that cats kill wild animals?

Then what do we do about foxes, badgers, birds that kill insects.......Wild animals kill wild animals of which there are a few good feral wild cats. That's nature. This is a debate about domesticated animals killing other domesticated animals. And imo it's completely heartless to be turning this into a cat v dog debate when an owner has just lost a dearly loved pet in the most brutal way imaginable, whilst unforgivably that dog owner looked on and did nothing (before doing a runner).

I second all of that MM. Nowhere have I suggested normal emergency cover should be compromised Jessie. My point was in response to a suggestion that nothing should change in case we had a 'chemical bomb' attack for example. Throwing in unlikely scenarios to justify changing nothing isn't a good argument for me. As MM eloquently desribes......changes to the LFS over the past decade have had some positive results, in all respects. Change isn't always bad.