Defence Minister outlines expanded mental health provision for Armed Forces and veterans READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-minister-outlines-expanded-mental-health-provision-for-armed-forces-and-veterans

F-35 jet cleared for Carrier take-off, Defence Minister tells Select Committee READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f-35-jet-and-new-batch-of-uk-pilots-cleared-for-carrier-take-off-defence-minister-tells-select-committee

recently received two 90£' fines' from minister baywatch for parking in a hospital carpark where i was doing placement as a student. They are for 2 days in a row, i only remember getting a ticket for one day This carpark has different sections some you can park there all day, some are limited to 4 hours, but you dont have to pay to stay there at all. I didn't know there was a difference. I was informed by many people in the hospital that they were a cowboy operation and that no one pays their 'fines'. When given the tickets the carpark wasnt full and they dont even charge anyway. I also had no idea between the different carparks and their time limits and have no idea how its possible to enforce a 4 hour limit like that when you dont have full time parking attendents. there is also no parking rules or and notices inside the carpark , there may be a notice about the 4 hour limit but i never remeber noting a difference what should i do guys?

Strictly, speaking this is not a subject that would normally feature on the 'bailiff discussion' section of the forum. However, with the subject matter regularly featuring on the popular TV series; Can't Pay We'll Take it Away' it may well assist some viewers. Anyone watching the TV series would have seen the many instances of a tenant is being evicted. Routinely, the tenants had been advised by their local authorities that in order to gain assistance with emergency housing, that they must remain in the property until the actual eviction. It would seem that this practice must stop. The following is taken from a recent article from the Sheriffs Office: Housing minister, Brandon Lewis has told all local authorities to stop routinely advising tenants to stay put until the enforcement agent arrives before they can be accepted as homeless. Mr Lewis has written to all the chief executives of local councils saying that households should not be put in this position, and clarifying the guidance about homelessness. In his letter he says, “Authorities should not routinely be advising tenants to stay until the bailiffs arrive; there is no barrier to them assisting the tenant before this. By doing this, local authorities miss a valuable opportunity to prevent homelessness.” Mr Lewis writes that the statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance, which local authorities are required by law to have regard to, is clear on this matter and contains guidance on how they should treat homelessness applications where a tenant has received a valid S21 notice. This is what Mr Lewis’s letter highlights about what the guidance states: -Housing authorities should not, in every case, insist upon a court order for possession and that no local authority should adopt a blanket policy in this respect. -If the landlord intends to seek possession and there would be no defence to an application for a possession order, then it is unlikely that it would be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation. -Unless a local authority has very good reason to depart from the statutory guidance, then they should not be placing households in this position.

For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'. Yesterday, the Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice; Shaliest Vara, clarified the position regarding enforcement agents fees....the 'pro rata' distribution of payments.... and most importantly, how courts deal with direct payments (after a warrant has been past to the enforcement agency. A copy of his statement features in my second post. By way of background, the following is a copy of a post that I made earlier this month: In the past couple of weeks I have received reports of six cases where a locksmith had been used to enforce a debt for magistrate court fines after a debtor had relied upon misinformation on the internet and believed that paying the amount only of the court fine (minus bailiff fees) to the court (as opposed to the enforcement company) would mean that the warrant had been satisfied. In four cases, payment had been made to the court on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (when bailiff fees of just £75 had been added). In the remaining two cases, payment had been made following an enforcement agent agent visit (fee of £235 had been applied) In each case, the person had relied upon the following statements featured on social media sites (with close links to the Freeman on the Land movement). The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980. Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged". In each debtors case, after making payment to the Magistrates Court they had received notification from the court that their payment had been forwarded to the enforcement company so that the company could properly deduct their Compliance fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation. By following the inaccurate advice, each debtor had incurred substantial additional fees. In four cases, an enforcement fee of £235 had been added and in each case locksmith fee had also been applied.

This is reported tday. David Cameron should have been statesmanlike. Instead he was partisan. His remark to Tory MPs that 'you should not be walking through the lobbies (i.e voting) with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers' was unworthy of a British Prime Minister. BTW I think a militant exchange. One quote made it was idiotic and crass to say that. It demeans the reality of war. The insult not just aimed at JC but anybody who expresses doubt about the wisdom of bombing Syria. It applies to John Baron, a former British army officer who served in Northern Ireland when terrorism was at it's height. Mr Baron warned that in proposing this action, Britain risked repeating the errors of the past,and was setting out on a 'tragic and misguided path once more'. The office of labour MP Stella Creasy who was undecided ahead of the vote, was yesterday surrounded by a gang of thugs, forcing Ms Creasy to leave the Commons Chamber repeatedly to check that her staff were safe. Polls last night suggested around half of all British voters are opposed to the military adventure in Syria. If true, David Cameron just damned more than 20 million of his fellow citizens as 'terrorist sympathisers' on the basis they have not been convinced by his sales pitch? For that matter, the Prime Minister's remarks would also apply to the Daily Mail which warned last week that David Cameron has not yet convincingly made the case for war. Indeed, the epithet 'terrorist sympathiser' might also be applied to the many experts who are entirely unconvinced by David Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrians ready and willing to join the fight against IS on the ground.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/15/tory-work-and-pensions-minister-disabled-people-not-worth-minimum-wage-4906892/?ito=v-a I think even his own party should be calling for his resignation. I would say that 90% of parliament are not worth what the tax payer is shelling out for them.. especially when they make crass statements such as this ??