https://www.richmond.gov.uk/council/elections_voting_and_registration/electoral_data/scheduled_elections/local_council_elections_2018
UPDATE
Councillor Brian Marcell from the majority party has just canvased me about voting on Thursday 3rd of May. He is on the social services committee of the council, which apparently spends 58% of the budget. "It should be more", I said, and mentioned Mears Care as well as spending on nasty anti-gay-cruising tactics on Barnes Common. And I promised to email him some alternatives to Mears Care, so this is the Writetothem.com email. I wish I'd written "spend more on the niceness budget and less on the nastyness budget", but I got close. You can see that the niceness budget is under-spent if you read the bit in red further down the page.
Someone has just knocked on my door to ask about "local issues", which always sounds like something out of League of Gentleman.
I came-up with one or two, starting with the idea that "local people" can vote on what council money is spent on, even if is is earmarked for an insurance-like service that people have paid-for over decades. Such as social care. I think this is a bad thing.
The candidate looked like someone forced to be patient, so I got specific to social care in Richmond.
He wasn't a candidate for the party in power, so I don't think I bothered him too much. It would have been more embarrassing to say this to the face of someone from that party, so maybe, if you're mixed-up with that party, you don't hear about this....
Council social services offering a legal minimum minus what the council can get away with.
Assessments don't always happen unless a high priority. The chance of an elderly person getting an assessment like this...
http://www.housingcare.org/information/detail-1621-housing-options-for-older-people-hoop-a-selfassessment-.aspx
... are low
For example if you don't have the money for social care, the council contractor gets this report from the care quality commission. Not many agencies get bad reports. One or two are "outstanding". So presumably the council has picked the worst ones because cheapest, although even that may not be true because worse home care will increase demand for residential care so it's a false economy financially.
Mears Care 114b Power Road, Chiswick W4 5PY
Tel: 020 8987 2350
Email: richmond.care@mearsgroup.co.uk
Web: www.mearsgroup.co.ukhttp://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-138291078
Some aspects of the service were not safe.
There had been improvements in the way in which the staff were deployed and care visits were scheduled. However, further improvements were needed to make sure people always received the right care at the time they needed this.
Some aspects of the service were not responsive.
Some people did not receive care visits at the right time to meet their needs and there was variations about the timings of calls each day. In addition the provider did not communicate when care workers were running late or when there were changes in care workers.
Some aspects of the service were not well-led.
There had been improvements at the service and these had made a difference to people's care. However, further improvements were still needed to make sure people received a consistent service which always met their needs.
UPDATE
Councillor Brian Marcell from the majority party has just canvased me about voting on Thursday 3rd of May. He is on the social services committee of the council, which apparently spends 58% of the budget. "It should be more", I said, and mentioned Mears Care as well as spending on nasty anti-gay-cruising tactics on Barnes Common. And I promised to email him some alternatives to Mears Care, so this is the Writetothem.com email. I wish I'd written "spend more on the niceness budget and less on the nastyness budget", but I got close. You can see that the niceness budget is under-spent if you read the bit in red further down the page.
MEARS CARE ALTERNATIVES
We met on the doorstep at 2 Avenue Gardens just now and I promised to email some alternatives to Mears care.
My googled notes of care quality commission reports on agencies in the council booklet of local care agencies are on http://bit.ly/homecarerichmond
They quote the care quality commission reports on any that did well or badly, and the ones contracted to the council do badly.
Some newer agencies have spent money on public relations and got themselves quoted in newspapers, claiming that more automated management allows more money to go to the carer and provide a better service. The names I googled are
- https://supercarers.com/
https://supercarers.com/ https://myhometouch.com- https://vida.co.uk/
BARNES COMMON NASTYNESSOn another subject, the council had found tens of thousands of pounds for car park security off Rocks Lane, and work by Continental Landscapes for Friends of Barnes Common to cut down trees and clear undergrowth in the area.
Looked-at closely, the work is a very expensive project to discourage gay cruisers on Barnes Common at night. Trees hundreds of years old have been felled to reduce shadow. Large areas have been cleared of smalller plants. Search lights are installed on the car park and the sports ground next door. There is also a hieight restriction on the car park to stop gypsies. And an account of Friends of Barnes Common visiting Friends of Tower Hamlets Cemetry to compare notes, which are quite clear on the Tower Hamlets site: they want to discourage gay people from cruising.
I really think the council should spend less on nastyness and more on social care. After all, the kinds of voters who ask for anti-gypsy gates and anty-gay search lights are probably not marginal voters anyway.
I will try to take the subject up with Richmond and Hounslow parks department and find out if they can take gay peoples' opinions into account and save a bit of council spending at the same time.
Yours sincerely,
John Robertson, 2 Avenue Gardens, London SW14 8BP 0208 286 9947
Someone has just knocked on my door to ask about "local issues", which always sounds like something out of League of Gentleman.
I came-up with one or two, starting with the idea that "local people" can vote on what council money is spent on, even if is is earmarked for an insurance-like service that people have paid-for over decades. Such as social care. I think this is a bad thing.
The candidate looked like someone forced to be patient, so I got specific to social care in Richmond.
He wasn't a candidate for the party in power, so I don't think I bothered him too much. It would have been more embarrassing to say this to the face of someone from that party, so maybe, if you're mixed-up with that party, you don't hear about this....
Council social services offering a legal minimum minus what the council can get away with.
Assessments don't always happen unless a high priority. The chance of an elderly person getting an assessment like this...
http://www.housingcare.org/information/detail-1621-housing-options-for-older-people-hoop-a-selfassessment-.aspx
... are low
For example if you don't have the money for social care, the council contractor gets this report from the care quality commission. Not many agencies get bad reports. One or two are "outstanding". So presumably the council has picked the worst ones because cheapest, although even that may not be true because worse home care will increase demand for residential care so it's a false economy financially.
Care Quality Commission report on Mears Care
Mears Care 114b Power Road, Chiswick W4 5PY
Tel: 020 8987 2350
Email: richmond.care@mearsgroup.co.uk
Web: www.mearsgroup.co.ukhttp://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-138291078
Some aspects of the service were not safe.
There had been improvements in the way in which the staff were deployed and care visits were scheduled. However, further improvements were needed to make sure people always received the right care at the time they needed this.
Some aspects of the service were not responsive.
Some people did not receive care visits at the right time to meet their needs and there was variations about the timings of calls each day. In addition the provider did not communicate when care workers were running late or when there were changes in care workers.
Some aspects of the service were not well-led.
There had been improvements at the service and these had made a difference to people's care. However, further improvements were still needed to make sure people received a consistent service which always met their needs.
Most care quality commission reports on Medacs Healthcare offices are bad on more than one point. The web site is mainly about recruiting staff.
My source for this is the care quality commission and the booklet listing care agencies. The booklet which is about all you get off the council if your savings are about £23,500. If you or someone you know are learning how the system works, there is a set of notes that I did for myself here which may be useful. It is basically the council list of home care agencies plus annotations from the care quality commission, and I think it might include a link to housingandcare.org list of residential care options
http://bit.ly/homecarerichmond
Oh and I mentioned that gay cruisers on Barnes Common now face cut-down trees, cleared undergrowth and floodlights at council expense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07.4.18
Local people are against dogs: official.
Kennel Club’s Worry Over Richmond’s Restrictions on Local Residents and Visitors
The Kennel Club is concerned that following its Public Spaces Protection Order consultation, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames is still planning to introduce measures which will seriously restrict not only the freedom of dog walkers, but also of any other member of the public who chooses Richmond’s large open spaces for recreation.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames has consulted with its residents on Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) to help the police and council tackle anti-social behaviour on public land. A PSPO is a new measure which replaces existing legislation and introduces wider discretionary powers to deal with any particular nuisance or problem that is detrimental to the local community’s quality of life. The orders can be enforced by fixed penalty notices or prosecution by police or council officers.
When Richmond opened up its consultation period earlier this year, it was met with great concern from many dog owners in the area especially in regards to restrictions on the number of dogs which may be walked at once. A large petition was carried out by residents of Richmond, which gained over 1,700 signatures, and 59% of respondents to the consultation also disagreed to the council limiting dogs being walked at any one time to four.
However, Richmond has still taken the decision to impose a four dog restriction on dog walkers. The council is proposing a 12 month pilot scheme to license up to 15 people to be exempted from this restriction; however, there appears to be no obvious reason why this number has been decided upon. This potentially leaves some dog owners having to take their dogs out on separate walks.
The Kennel Club is further concerned by some of the other byelaws that are being suggested. For example, a byelaw is being proposed that a person in charge of a dog on any of Richmond’s open spaces where dogs are permitted, must not cause or permit annoyance to any other person or animal, or cause damage to any council structure, equipment, tree, shrub, plant, turf or other such council property. The Kennel Club is in complete agreement that dogs should always be kept under suitable control, but is concerned that there is no clarification by the council to what constitutes an annoyance. Would the occasional bark be constituted as an annoyance, and how will annoyance to another animal be measured and assessed? There is concern that annoyance to people is a very low bar to pass.
The second clause about damaging turf and trees is also very ambiguous and worded so that any typical dog behaviour could fall under this. While the Kennel Club wouldn’t expect enforcement in this manner, it cannot be taken as a given and tough enforcement could take place under these new protection orders.
There are many other restrictions to be put in place, such as restrictions on anyone disturbing any animal, digging, damaging or disturbing the ground or removing or displacing any stone, soil or turf. Questions need to be asked to what these restrictions would include, for example, would swatting a mosquito, shooing away a pigeon, throwing a skimming stone, feeding the ducks fall under this? Would walking across a park disturb the ground, especially if wearing studs if playing sport?
Other clauses include not throwing or using any device to propel or discharge any object which is liable to cause nuisance, injury or damage to any other person, animal or structure. This would therefore include throwing a ball or frisbee around a park, which could lead to injury or nuisance.
Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary said: “While the Kennel Club can support reasonable PSPOs and is happy to help work with councils and advise on dog issues to try and ensure responsible dog ownership, we are very concerned to read Richmond’s proposals which seem not only extreme but very restrictive on its many residents. If enforced to the degree it implies, it will seriously limit any enjoyment that members of the public can enjoy in the London Borough of Richmond.”
A meeting by London Borough of Richmond upon Thames is being held on Tuesday 11th July to provide the opportunity for the councillors to review the proposals and consultation responses, and the Kennel Club will be present to voice its concerns. For further information on the results of the consultation and the proposed PSPOs, please go to https://consultation.richmond.gov.uk/environment/pspo/.
The Kennel Club runs KC Dog which is a dog owner campaign group, free to join, which keeps members updated on dog access issues, and other relevant Kennel Club campaigns, which may affect dog owners across the country. Visit www.kcdog.org.uk for more information or join us on twitter @KC_political.
My source for this is the care quality commission and the booklet listing care agencies. The booklet which is about all you get off the council if your savings are about £23,500. If you or someone you know are learning how the system works, there is a set of notes that I did for myself here which may be useful. It is basically the council list of home care agencies plus annotations from the care quality commission, and I think it might include a link to housingandcare.org list of residential care options
http://bit.ly/homecarerichmond
Oh and I mentioned that gay cruisers on Barnes Common now face cut-down trees, cleared undergrowth and floodlights at council expense.
 |
