North Korean football team berated for failure

The North Korea authorities could do with a reminder that football is just a game.

The US-based Radio Free Asia reports that the majority of the North Korean football team have been subject to a six hour public reprimand for "betraying" the communist government (i.e. not winning the World Cup), according to The Guardian.

The public reprimand included detailed analysis of individual mistakes in play, provided by the country’s main sports broadcaster, as well as players being forced to denounce coach Kim Jong-Hun.

In the past, North Korean athletes and coaches who did not perform well enough to satisify the government were sent to prison camps.

During the World Cup, I blogged on my concerns about North Korea playing in the 2010 World Cup. Should sport be free of politics, or should we show a vile dictatorship how the rest of the world feels about it? Today's news adds to the case for the latter.

Financial Crisis? What Financial Crisis?

Oldham Council wastes money:

A series of seaside-themed sculptures funded by the council have been installed on the streets of Oldham, Greater Manchester, according to the Manchester Evening News.

One of the sculptures, a bucket and spade,cost local residents £1,550.

This decision comes after council staff were told their salaries would be cut by up to £16,000 in a pay review.

I have no problem with a council spending money on sculptures when public finances are plentiful (and it will be many years before this happens again) but to spend this kind of money on a low priority during a time of economic hardship is simply waste.

One commentator mentions on the Manchester Evening News' comments section that he has had to wait seven years for alley gates (which stop people causing trouble in and around an alleyway) only to be told there is no money, saying "now I know why".

Barnet Council wastes money:

North London's Barnet Council also seems to be ignorant of the financial crisis.

Council leader Lynne Hillan's salary rises from £34,909 to £54,227, while cabinet members will receive an increase of £10,126 in their allowances.

This proposal will last for four years. The one Conservative councillor who abstained, Kate Salinger, was stripped of seven committee posts as punishment.

It is odd how there is enough money to pay Lynne Hillian an extra £20,000, but not enough to prevent a 75% cut in the number of wardens in Barnet Council Sheltered housing last year.

As IanKemp comments on the Evening Standard website:

Public sector pay for all senior officials should be capped and regulated where rises are decided by an impartial body and/or voters. Increases should be related to their performance.

The Barnet Times has created a petition opposing the pay rises.

Public anger caused a U-turn on expenses for Croydon council.

One assumes that residents of Oldham and Barnet (what an interesting twinning exercise that would be) will be making their voices heard at the local elections.

I'm sure Grant Shappes, who has condemend the Barnet increases, would agree with this blog post. The Barnet Bugle highights his comments on councillor allowances:

"It is not justifiable for hikes in councillor allowances when public sector workers are facing a two-year pay freeze. We're all in this together, and those who hold public office need to lead by example.

"In an era of localism, councillors will have an increasingly important role to play in holding town halls to account on behalf of their residents. But councillors must remain arms-length volunteers. It will be harmful for local democracy if they become the bankrolled staff of the town hall dependant on the municipal pay packet.

"The new Government will let the sunlight of openness into councillor allowances to allow the press and public to hold elected officials to account more. We all need to do our bit to restore the public finances to good health and ensure taxpayers get better value for money."

No doubt Mr Shapps would feel the same way about spending splurges on sculptures as well.

Volunteering at City and Hackney Mind

For the past two months, I have been volunteering part time at City and Hackney Mind, a mental health charity based in Tudor Road, Hackney.

City and Hackney Mind provides a wide variety of mental health services including advocacy, counselling, education and employment advice and supported housing.

During my time here, I have been hugely impressed by the dedication of the staff and the comprehensive nature of the services provided.

It is clear that our work makes a big difference to the community.

My work:

So far, I have redesigned and updated a guide to services, researched, written and sent out the first in a new series of enewsletters (once again using Mailchimp) and created a funeral booklet.

Lately, I have begun researching a project for young service users as well as taken over the project management of deploying a new Salesforce database. This afternoon, I took part in a four hour meeting where I got some hands-on experience of a customised Salesforce backend.

Please support City and Hackney Mind with an online donation.

I found out about the volunteering vacancy from the Do-it website, but you could always contact your local Mind directly if you want to volunteer.

The housing benefit cap is wrong

The ConLib coalition's proposed housing benefit cap has understandable appeal.

The cap may bring down the overall cost of renting a house, and there is a populist line that working people should not have to subsidise people on benefits living in nicer houses.

However, there are a number of problems with cutting housing benefit:

1. If someone who has been living in an expensive area such as Earl's Court loses their job, the idea is that they move to a cheaper area such as Erith.

However, few landlords want to take on someone who can only pay their rent using Housing Benefit.

Walk along your local High Street and look at how many estate agents have "No housing benefit" or "No DHSS" stuck to their window.

This, as The Third Estate points out, is one reason why the benefits bill is so high:

In such circumstances it is obvious that the small number of letting agents who are willing to deal with these apparent untouchables will be able to charge what they like.

2. For those people on housing benefit who are unemployed and fit for work, time spent looking for a new home or relocating because of housing benefit changes will be time that could be spent looking for work.

One could argue that relocating could be done at the weekend, but this would mean that people would have less time to rest, making them less efficient when looking for work.

3. The latest Private Eye makes the point that families who cannot pay their rent will have to present themselves as homeless at the town hall.

While they are assessed, they must be placed on temporary accommodation costing £300 a night on average.

After verification, a council must then re-house the family, adding to the 4.6m on the housing waiting list.

4.Private Eye also highlights that housing benefit will be linked to the consumer price index (CPI) which does not include housing costs.

Rents have risen by 2.5% more than the CPI over the past decade, according to the Chartered Institute of Housing, which says that within a generation there will be towns and cities across Britain where people on benefits cannot afford any accommodation.

Campbell Robb, the chief executive of Shelter, told the BBC that: "The vast majority of housing benefit claimants are either pensioners, those with disabilities, people caring for a relative or hardworking people on low incomes, and only one in eight people who receive housing benefit is unemployed.

"We are really concerned that, even at current levels, nearly half of Local Housing Allowance claimants are already making up a shortfall of almost £100 a month to meet their rent."

Bridget Phillipson, MP for Houghton and Sunderland South, calls for social housing as a fairer way to tackle the housing benefit costs.