Humberside Police have launched a campaign aimed at encouraging people to drink safely and stay safe.

The force is highlighting how alcohol can lead to people behaving inappropriately.

Such behaviour can lead them to commit crime, or increase their chances of being a victim of crime.

The Last Pint marketing campaign is being launched this week as the festive and New Year period is historically a time when there can be problems caused by people whose control, judgement, concentration and behaviour are affected by alcohol.

The campaign aims to raise awareness of what could happen through ill judged decision making due to the influence of alcohol.

It aims to influence behaviour to address these issues, with a design that reinforces the message of what could happen.

Humberside Police are out in force over the festive period and will be working with the Ambulance Service in the city centre to reassure and protect people.

Officers are urging people not to increase the risk to themselves and others of alcohol related violence by drinking heavily.

The Last Pint marketing message is being delivered through various outdoor media; poster sites in targeted locations near off-licenses and bars, posters on buses in the region.

Beer mats advertising the campaign’s message have been distributed at pubs and clubs in the area.  Licensing officers will be meeting with licensees to discuss the campaign, provide advice and distribute campaign beer mats.

Inspector Iain Dixon, from Hull’s Public Order Team, said:

“The festive period is a time for people to socialise and enjoy themselves. Many people come into the city centre during this period and do so without incident or trouble.

“Unfortunately there are always a few who drink too much and then are more likely to become involved in crime and disorder, either as a victim or an offender. My intention is to have sufficient officers on the streets to allow people to enjoy themselves whist providing a safe and secure environment.

“Officers will deal quickly and decisively with those causing trouble so as not to spoil the environment for the law abiding majority. Extra officers will be on duty to ensure this happens.

“As part of the on going policing operation officers will continue to work with the Ambulance Service to provide a joint police and paramedic response to incidents requiring medical treatment.

“This Christmas I would ask people to try and enjoy themselves whilst respecting the people around them and the city environment.”

North East Lincolnshire’s alcohol and violence reduction champion Insp Tom Shaw, said:

“It is important that members of our community drink responsibly and know their limits.

“People who drink excessively can put themselves in vulnerable positions as well as doing things they would never do sober and will no doubt regret at a later stage.

“The last thing we aim to do is stop people enjoying a night out, but we do want to encourage people to have a safe trouble-free evening.

“To that end, we are working closely with both local venues and door staff  throughout the area in order to ensure that police are on hand quickly to assist door staff should trouble arise either in or outside a venue by providing direct communication between staff and officers on weekend public order patrols.

“Members of the licensing team will be out and about over the festive period along with officers equipped with head cams in order to capture footage of any activity in real time as it unfolds and local door staff will be working hard to prevent under age drinkers from entering venues they shouldn’t.

“This is just an overview of the activity during this busy time of year however it demonstrates our intention to do what we can to prevent individuals from drinking too much and getting out of hand.

“These people can be a drain on resources and can ruin a night out for others unfortunate enough to come into contact with them.

“The message is simple, drink sensibly and know when to stop as local door staff and police will not tolerate alcohol related issues.”

“EMAS will be providing paramedic cover and the Red Cross volunteers to prioritise any person requiring medical assistance from 2100hrs each evening with the aim of reducing the demands on both the ambulance service and the casualty department of Scunthorpe General Hospital.

“Assistance will be available for anyone requiring it, for example people who have become separated from their friends.”

The UK has paid £109million into the Common Agricultural Policy this year to assist rural development, but at the same time heavily subsidised farmers on the Continent have disposed of 25 million gallons of milk in an attempt to force the EU to reform dairy market regulation and raise prices.  The overproduction of milk has caused a large drop in  income, which has resulted in tens of thousands of farmers facing bankruptcy.

Liberal Democrat agricultural spokesman Tim Farron said:

“The pouring away of millions of gallons of milk is a terrible waste.  Someone has put a lot of effort into producing a healthy, nutritious food source, which has been partly paid for by Britain, and it is being sprayed all over fields.

“At a time when people are starving in the world, that kind of waste is appalling and it is unfortunately being paid for by taxpayers here.”

A spokesman for Open Europe, a think-tank calling for radical reform, said:

“This is a direct consequence of the EU’s flawed agricultural policy which has caused the dairy market to become too skewed.  This is one more example of how the bloated EU is squandering Britain’s contributions.”

According to the Treasury the UK’s net contribution to the EU will increase by almost 60% next year from £4.1 billion  in 2009/10 to £6.4 billion, which is equivalent to about £260 per UK household, .

The Treasury said it was right for the UK “to share the burden of membership with new accession countries” but the Tories say the rising bill is evidence of Labour’s incompetence”.

The surplus milk scandal emerged as a damning new report revealed that millions of pounds of food aid earmarked for the EU’s poorest people is at risk of being siphoned off by criminal gangs.

Regulators are critical of the £500million programme which is intended to deliver food and milk to people living below the poverty line.

The EU Court of Auditors says a lack of management controls means that criminals can exploit weaknesses and divert the aid.

The so-called “EU food aid for deprived persons” was set up in 1986 when rice, pasta, cereals and dairy products were distributed from the notorious surplus food mountains, but since then surpluses have disappeared and officials buy food on the open market which is delivered to thousands of charities in 18 participating countries, with Spain, France, Italy and Poland the main beneficiaries.

Figures show that there are 11 million Britons “at risk of poverty”, which is defined as someone earning less than 60% of average incomes.

Although the number of people at risk of poverty in the UK is second only to those in Italy, the UK does not take part in the scheme. 

A poll in today’s Mail on Sunday has found that voters support Vince Cable’s proposals for a “mansion tax” by a margin of more that two to one.

57% of voters supported the policy, and 27% were against.  Even amongst Conservative voters 38% said that they would support the idea, with 44% against.

Under the proposals  the owners of homes that are valued at more than £1million would be charged an average of £4,000 each.

Vince Cable said that his proposal would raise £1.1 billion, which he said could be used to raise the threshold of income tax to £10,000, which would take four million people out of tax altogether.

This article was written by Vince Cable> and appears in today’s Mail on Sunday:

An unfair tax is a tax that we have to pay ourselves. A ‘fair’ tax is one that someone else pays.

That was what I was told when I stirred up a hornets’ nest last week with proposals to achieve fairer, but not higher, taxes.

No one likes paying tax. And you can be sure that tax will be a big and emotive issue in the next nine months of electioneering (yes! I fear it will be that long). 

Political parties will be under pressure to explain how they will cover the enormous hole in Labour’s budget.

Even though the Government has had to borrow a lot during the recession – otherwise the recession would be worse and unemployment higher – it can’t keep borrowing at the present very high levels.

Something will have to give. I have been trying to spell out what spending cuts might mean. Not easy. Not nice. I have lost some friends. But I believe that being honest and opening up debate is what we politicians have a duty to do.

Soon we shall see what Alistair Darling or George Osborne can come up with. You can be sure that a Government with either of them in would have to raise your taxes and raise them a lot. Then there will be a massive outcry.

The easiest thing in the world is for Government to duck the issues and go down the stealth tax route. The easiest to hide are business taxes.

But they are passed on as higher prices and reduced dividends that affect our pensions and lead to job losses. Also, these days, many companies can move abroad easily, costing more jobs.

Mr Darling hopes that his plan to raise employers’ National Insurance won’t be noticed by the public, but it has the potential to add thousands to the dole queue.
Less stealthy is taxing spending.

I suspect that Messrs Darling and Osborne, given half the chance, would love to slap big rises on VAT.

It would raise shed-loads of money and avoid some painful choices over cuts. But a big, sudden jump in VAT would stall any early recovery and hit shops hard. Also, some companies have learnt how to dodge VAT.

So what about income tax, or NICs – income tax by another name? What we pay should reflect our ability to pay. That means progressive taxes with high earners not just paying more tax but a higher rate. This can’t, however, sensibly be pushed further.

Those at the top will be required to pay 50p on every pound they earn over £150,000.
But we know that there is large-scale tax avoidance and even higher rates would create more.

Middle-income professionals earning only £40,000 pay 40p on every extra pound they earn and they are far from being rich.

But the real scandal of income tax is not that average families pay too little – but that they pay too much.

Low-paid workers on minimum wages and pensioners are significantly hit. Tax penalises work and savings. Some people stay on benefits because it doesn’t pay to work.

A tax cut on low earnings reduces the incentive to stay on benefits. The proposal I highlighted last week was that people earning less than £10,000 would no longer pay income tax – four million low-paid workers and pensioners would be lifted out of tax altogether. Those over the threshold would see their tax bill cut by £700.

In the current environment of big budget deficits, no Government can afford to make such an offer unless the money can be raised somewhere else.

Cutting back on some of the tax loopholes and reliefs, which are enjoyed by the wealthy, makes such a tax cut possible.

Those who earn big bonuses, for example, can cut their tax rate by more than half if they turn their income into capital and make capital gains.

We must also crack down hard on tax dodges such as the practice of banks routing stamp duty through tax havens.

The other kind of unfairness relates to local tax. Council tax was introduced in the early Nineties as an alternative to Mrs Thatcher’s hated poll tax. It has always been unpopular with pensioners who have modest incomes and who are often reluctant or unable to claim benefit.

It has become even more unfair as the valuations are now almost 20 years old and bear no relation to present house prices – so people even in the same borough can be paying the same council tax as someone with a house worth twice as much.

We have a system that is unpopular, unfair and out of date. It deserves to be axed and replaced with a system that better reflects ability to pay. That may take time.

Yet there needs to be urgency in dealing with the vast and growing disparities in wealth. Property is also one of the few sources of tax revenue that cannot be hidden or avoided.

And it is one of the few ways of getting untaxed foreign owners to pay their share.

The super-rich have been pouring their money not into businesses, which create wealth and jobs, but into property.

How is it fair that the richest people in the country pay the same council tax, or less, on their £30million palaces as a family in a three-bedroom house in the suburbs?

Britain’s richest man apparently has a mansion in Kensington costing him £40 a week in council tax – not much more than nurses or pensioners pay on a small house or flat in my South-West London borough.

Last week, Nick Clegg and I put forward the idea of a levy on homes valued at more than £1million to try to reduce the unfairness and to produce more revenue to cut taxes on low earners and pensioners.

The owner of a £1million house would pay no tax but the owner of a £2million property would pay 0.5 per cent of the extra million – £5,000.

Some people say: ‘What about those whose properties have appreciated massively in value but have only modest incomes? Their wealth is tied up in bricks and mortar.’

I understand their concerns and suggested the levy be rolled up until the property is eventually sold.

The so-called ‘mansion tax’ has stirred up a big debate, which I welcome. It will help us to design a system that is fair to everyone and also draws on the experience of other countries where such taxes are normal and are seen as fair.

This country has a tax system that is demonstrably unfair. Those who have low incomes pay a bigger share of their income in tax (if you include indirect taxes) than people on high incomes.

Pensioners who have struggled all their lives to build up a small nest egg are having to pay tax on their modest savings and pensions while mansions are subject to no more tax than a nice family home.

We can do better than that. The looming crisis in the budget should be an opportunity to sort out our tax system and create one that is fairer for all. We must take it.

North East Lincolnshire is taking action to reduce worklessness in the Borough. 

Learn more about what NELC is doing from a short video at:

http://www.localgovernmentchannel.com/lga_tv/v/think_of_the_possibilities/

NHS hospitals collected more than £110m in car parking charges last year, according to figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats.

The figures, which were disclosed followig a Freedom of Information Act, show that hospital visitors were hit with £84 million in car parking charges, while NHS staff paid £28million.

Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge made a profit of £2.8 million, which was the highest of any hospital in England.

Peter Wilcock, Liberal Democrat candidate for Saffron Walden, Cambs, said the charges were “effectively a tax on the sick”.

Mr Wilcock said:

“No one is denying the need for hospitals to cover their costs, but that doesn’t mean they can use hidden charges to help themselves out of financial black holes.

 ”Ministers have ducked this issue for far too long and failed to ensure that Government guidelines are actually being followed.”

Stephen Robinson, Liberal Democrat candidate for Chelmsford in Essex, said:

“I raised the charging issue when I met Broomfield hospital managers last year and will do so again.

“Mid Essex Hospitals must cut their ‘tax’ on patients – excessive car park charges, high bedside phone and TV charges and expensive 0844 phone numbers.

“We now need an urgent review into whether hardworking doctors and nurses and the chronically ill should be paying these charges at all.”

There have been repeated calls for hospital car parking charges to be abolished in England because of the high cost.

Charges were abolished in Scotland last year following protests from health campaigners who said they were against patients’ interests.

A new strategy for supporting local carers has been launched by North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus (CTP) in partnership with North East Lincolnshire Council and Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

Read the strategy – Caring Today and Tomorrow (PDF file)

Read the strategy’s action plan (PDF file)

The three-year strategy, ‘Caring today and tomorrow’, focuses on supporting carers through maintaining their health and well-being, work, financial security and helping them enjoy a life outside of caring.

It recognises that carers are expert partners in care and that is how all the local agencies should work with them in the future. The strategy also includes support to carers under the age of 18, to ensure that they are protected from inappropriate caring roles.

Barbara Marshallsay, associate director for integrated commissioning at the CTP and local strategic lead for carers, said: “Carers are the bedrock of care in the community, helping children, relatives, partners or friends because they have an illness, disability, frailty or substance misuse problem.

“We are making significant progress in supporting them but we know that they continue to be at risk of disadvantage, discrimination and deprivation.

“The national strategy for carers talks about carers asking for a system that is on their side and a life of their own. This is not too much to ask given their invaluable contribution to our community and we are determined, through this local strategy, to deliver high quality support to them.”

Providing around three-quarters of care in the community, carers form 10 per cent of the population. The number is steadily increasing and three out of five people can expect to become carers at some point in their lives.

Speaking recently in Swindon, Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker called for an end to the Government’s agreement with train companies that allows them to increase some fares by 1% more than inflation each year and others by much more.

The Liberal Democrats say that overall fares should rise by no more than the rate of inflation, and should be reduced where possible.

 First Great Western, increased its unregulated fares by an average of 6.6% at the start of the year, which is slightly lower than the industry average, but above the rate of inflation, which was 5% according to the retail price index.

Mr Baker said that his aims for the rail network, which includes reopening disused lines and stations, would be to extend the average length of franchise agreements from around seven years to as much as 30 years, to ensure that in future  passengers would be put before profit.

Mr Baker told his party’s annual conference in Bournemouth:

“Rail fares will not rise above inflation. I have ambitions for rail. I want to be charging ahead in the years ahead.

“We want 30-year franchises properly controlled with five-year rolling reviews, putting passengers first.

“We want to be much harder on railway companies, and force them to use some of the money they are getting on reopening lines, reopening stations and redoubling lines, and do it with their money, not taxpayers’ money.”

The Lib Dems backed a policy motion that stated:

“As soon as possible, overall annual increases in rail fares should be at no more than inflation, as part of the wider agenda of promoting green forms of travel.”

It added that new franchise conditions should focus on boosting passenger experience, “including, where possible, fare reductions”.

Mr Baker told the Swindon Advertiser: “The railways are now more punctual, more reliable and safer than they were, with new rolling stock, but the fact is it’s horribly expensive.

“All passengers have been ripped off by rail fares, which are the highest in Europe. We don’t get value from rail fares in this country.”

He added:

“Operators are putting up the price of first class tickets, off peak tickets, or cutting the time that off-peaks are available, putting up car park charges – anything that is not regulated.”

 The Liberal Democrats have proposed that Dentists working in parts of the country that have higher oral health needs should receive extra pay.

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, told delegates at the Liberal Democrat’s annual conference that the move would help improve access to NHS dentistry where it was weakest.Mr Lamb said dentistry was in ‘real need’ of reform, despite the government’s 2006 new contract. Mr Lamb supported proposals made by Professor Jimmy Steele, in his independent review of NHS dental services published this summer, to give dentists across England greater incentives to take on more patients.

He also argued that dentists should be made to work for the NHS for at least five years before being allowed to take up a private practice.

Mr Lamb said:

“The Liberal Democrats will ensure there is an NHS dentist available to everyone who needs one – by making sure that dentists who are trained by the NHS work in the NHS for a minimum of five years.

“By reforming dentists’ contracts so they’re paid to take on more NHS patients, not just getting money for the number of treatments they provide, and we’ll prioritise areas where dental services are worst, by providing increased payments to dentists who operate in the areas of greatest need.”

Mr Lamb said that the Liberal Democrats want to set out the principle of offering incentives for working in areas of highest need, rather than being prescriptive about how it was achieved.

He said: ‘There are parts of the country where NHS dentistry is weak and access is poor. The problems are particularly acute for those on low incomes who can’t afford the private alternative and are left with very poor access.

“We have got to be prepared to incentivise dentists to plug those gaps.”

Mr Lamb said his party had signed up to the ‘thrust’ of the reforms proposed by the Steele review, and paid tribute to Professor Steele’s ‘positive and constructive contribution’, adding: ‘He’s clearly taken his role seriously and gone out and listened to dentists around the country.’

The health spokesman, in his speech to the conference, warned that the NHS as a whole was in ‘danger’ because it faced the biggest financial crisis in its history.

He told delegates: ‘Whoever wins the next election, the pressures will be the same. The crisis in public finances dictates that savings must be found.’

The MP insisted healthcare should not be immune from the process of reducing cost, but suggested savings could be re-invested in the NHS.

Turning to next year’s general election, Mr Lamb said: ‘The choice is clear. Vote Labour and you will continue with an NHS strangled by bureaucracy.

Vote Tory and the very existence of the NHS is at risk, or vote Liberal Democrat for a party which is ambitious, straight talking and prepared to take the tough decisions to safeguard the very future of our NHS.’

Speaking at an event hosted by Liberty at Liberal Democrat party conference, Nick Clegg outlined why only the Liberal Democrats will stand up to protect the civil liberties of British citizens.Speaking in conversation with Shami Chakrabarti, the director of civil rights group Liberty, Mr Clegg criticised Labour’s authoritarian measures and said that the Conservatives were flip-floppers.

He said that his family background – his mother was imprisoned in a Japanese Prisoner of War camp while his grandmother fled Russian pogroms to seek asylum in Britain – and his natural instinct to always question authority influenced his passion to protect civil liberties.

Mr Clegg said that Labour had brought in illiberal measures such as control orders, where people can be incarcerated without facing trial or even being told of the charges against them, because the party believed that any threat to collective safety justified targeting individuals’ liberty.

The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, believe that infringing the rights of individuals through control orders is a slippery slope to further huge erosions of personal freedom, he said.

Mr Clegg contrasted the Liberal Democrats’ principled stand on control orders with Conservative “flip flopping”.

“In February 2007 as Tony Blair was trying to introduce control orders I said that they are wrong and we would vote against it,” he said.

“The Tory spokesman said he agreed with everything I said, they were wrong, and if it carried on the Tories would vote against it next year.

“In 2008 they did not fulfil that promise. That tells you all you need to know about the differences the two biggest opposition parties.”

View Shami Chakrabarti’s response to her interview with Nick Clegg here.