The important to restoring the beauty in the residence lays in the truth that the wooden need to be appropriately managed and protected. An ideal way is always to use UV variants. Investing inside a property is one of the significant expense proposals, and it is pretty a lot essential to have a thoroughly clean roofing company. The chemical compounds applied in property washing need to be authorized by the ARMA to ensure that it doesn’t affect the shingles. In relation to house washing high point, technical bulletins will go a long way in alleviating their uncertainties. This can make certain that the methods and perform approach carried out are in accordance using the affreux down guidelines. On the subject of home cleansing methods they have to ensure that all of the streaks are eliminated without using pressure washing strategies. This may ensure that 100% guarantee is given as far as the looks are concerned. This can make sure that the home seems fresh when the washing course of action is over. The techniques employed in this kind of methods ensure that all of the filth is eliminated in an suitable way with no triggering any type of exterior or internal harm for the residence. Homemaker should really produce a self-assured choice to go in advance with house washing greensboro so that they can experience the advantages over the long term. Licensed pros is usually sourced within this regard to make sure that the residence washing process is carried on in an efficient way. They serve the interests of individuals who reside in Carolina, along with the surrounding vicinity. Moreover they educate professionals concerning tips on how to clear the rooftop, along with the property with out inflicting any kind of damage. This can be what folks want in order that they know the intricacies involved in house washing. The house washing high point possesses essential equipment.
EU
Attempt To Know How To Become A Psychiatrist When You Are Interested In Coping With Individuals Getting Mental Issues
Psychiatry will be the branch of medication that offers using the analysis, analysis too as remedy of psychological disorders. A psychiatrist is actually a health-related expert who has a healthcare degree in psychiatry. There are plenty of resources like the textbooks and internet websites that support someone know how to become a psychiatrist. There are a lot of internet sites that not only aid an person thinking about psychiatry know how to become a psychiatrist, but also gives insight about the psychiatric income, exactly where to enrol for a psychiatry program and so on. If an individual desires to understand about the income that a psychiatric attracts, he can always log on to psychiatrist salary. When an individual reads an article or an website that deals with how to become a psychiatrist, an individual can also achieve perception about the psychiatric therapy modalities, distinctive sort of psychiatric problems and so forth .A person fascinated to understand how to become a psychiatrist, will need to possess a fascination towards a medical career and has to be ready to sacrifice his lifestyle for your benefit of his individuals. An person interested in a psychiatric career have to also be ready to function tricky and study for a lot of number of years till he effectively gets his psychiatric diploma. He would must go after the medical diploma for around four yrs in the undergraduate degree and he would must watch for more than 10 several years to grow to be a psychiatrist. Someone who wishes to understand how to become a psychiatrist can also talk to other healthcare professionals and know much more facts as to where and when to enrol to get a psychiatric degree, what are the admission formalities, Which is the best university to choose up an psychiatric program and so on. There are numerous instructional consultants who too can assist someone know how to become a psychiatrist and what are the formalities and methods driving it.
Do You Loathe Getting Adult Diapers?
Growing old can surely be a vicious procedure. There comes a moment in most people’s worlds when particular bits of your body no longer function quite the way they did once upon a time. You slow down, you get “beauty marks”, you are tender everywhere and you start chucking more meds than Janis Joplin did in her prime. But it’s not just the achings & cricks that clutch you. Effortless things we take for granted can become a nightmare, and shame lies in wait around every corner! It’s the kickoff of the insidious grinding down of your self-sufficiency.
The real truth of incontinence is never more obvious than when you lose control of your bladder. You start shopping for for apparel not based on style or comfortableness, but for how excellently they hide a telltale stain. When out at barbecues or at the shopping mall, movies or possibly the vacation spot with the kids, friends or family, you sketch lavatory routes and also “duck out” tacticals. Every foray out of your homestead becomes a trial, every errand a conceivable catastrophe…
The is inescapable fact, while nearly all people are certain that it is only seniors that are afflicted by incontinence, but the simple fact is they don’t make up the lion’s share of the niche market for incontinence products.
Have you ever found yourself looking fixedly at a deflated adult diaper bag, or ran short of your adult diapers when the last thing you want to do is go shopping? No more flying to the store praying they will have adult diapers or adult briefs in your size. No more wrestling bags & adult diaper boxes into your vehicle & home (in front of prying eyes of neighbors! Buy from your property & have your adult diapers & incontinence supplies delivered discreetly to your doorway!
Adults who live with urinary incontinence have to manage the repercussions of their infirmity regularly. For some, age is the culprit – the muscles that oversee the urge to ‘go’ just are not doing their job too well. Others may suffer from an infection, or the after-effects of a surgical process.
Females as a rule have difficulty with urinary control after having a baby – just ask any recent mama what happens whenever she sneezes suddenly! Nor is it limited primarily to women – men with prostrate issues, having stout medicine or even ones who suffer from certain neurological diseases can also be affected.
All sufferers at some point end up at the same place, right in the adult diaper aisle at the neighborhood chain store.
It’s stressful, standing there. You endeavor to pretend you’re evaluating something else at the start; surreptitiously verifying to the left and right to confirm no-one else strolls down the section before focusing on your rightful target. If anybody at all even moves like they are thinking about turning the corner, you promptly perform a 180 spin and play like you’re rivetted in permanent hair color instead.
The sheer array of adult diapers and incontinence products makes matters even more frustrating. The ‘underpants’ come in many sizes, have various ‘control’ places for men versus women, and a multitude of other properties. This makes discovering the product you certainly require challenging to track down, when you’re continuously starting at nearly every sound and fervently praying your neighbor doesn’t suddenly show up behind you.
‘Pull ups’ that sounds like a toddler product handy for pajama parties. ‘Easy tear away sides’ – those definitely belong on a Chippendale dancer’s pants! ‘Ultra dryness protection with no-flow channels and patented wick away technology’ – who are they trying to fool? Adult diapers are adult diapers and there’s not a whole lot you can do to dress that up.
After you make your choice and conceal them under four boxes of Choco Fruity Soy Oats you’ll never ever ingest, a beach ball on sale (it’s December), and two newspapers very carefully and messily arranged, you head warily for the checkout line at the front of the department store.
Of course, there’s only just one cash register open when you finally reach the front of the grocery store. There is also invariably someone you know standing in line in advance of you. however, adult diapers and incontinence products for some varied reason have various price changes applied, so the bar code, SKU #, product number will almost naturally display as void whenever the cashier (who has actually been eyeballing at you strangely while punching in two identical scandal sheets, four boxes of Choco Fruity Soy Oats and a flabby beach ball) ventures to scan it.
As the call goes out on the pa system for a price check at register three, you abruptly ‘determine’ you left your purse at home and hurriedly retreat from the pharmacy, in your mind judging what it will cost you in gasoline to do your purchasing at the adjacent metropolis over for the following couple of weeks.
This was the past predicament. In this modern day, fortuitously, obtaining such embarrassing items as ‘adult diapers’ does not have to be embarrassing! Providers online now make it easy for you to shop online and have your vital adult diapers and incontinence products delivered right to your door in a discreet packaging – prying next-door neighbors will be unaware and you will be discomfort free.
Before you go anywhere – visit DryDiapersPlus for the revolutionary super absorbent <a href=" adult diaper, based on NASA technology – with extraordinary deals on all of your incontinence supplies and ABDL needs. At DryDiapersPlus we provide the very best customer service, affordable pricing and discreet packaging.
Tammy Chamberlain is an incontinence products specialist at DryDiapersPlus,
Buy your adult diapers online at DryDiapersPlus. Serving the US and Canada (visit DryDiapersPlus.ca for Canada Shoppers)
TaxPayers’ Alliance sets out powers the PM should bring home from European Council
The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) today (Tuesday December 6th) sets out how David Cameron has, for the first time in a generation, a serious opportunity to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU and seek the repatriation of powers back to the UK.
Click here to read the full report
Click here for the complete press release
Setting out a list of twenty policy changes that could make up any new deal between the UK and the EU, the TPA says the British Government could take immediate action on six of these areas without the need for any agreement in Brussels. The remaining fourteenwill require negotiation at the European Council on December 9th.
The twenty pieces of the policy jigsaw cannot be tackled in isolation. Britain is in a strong negotiating position and should force these issues onto the agenda.
Any package of reforms brought home from the European Council should be judged in comparison to this list; otherwise the Government could declare victory while delivering a poorer deal for taxpayers.
Click here to read the full report
Click here for the complete press release
Fourteen pieces of this jigsaw should be on the negotiating table at the European Council:
- Bringing to an end the treaty objective of “ever closer union”
- Repatriating the Common Agriculture Policy to national government control
- Repatriating the Common Fisheries Policy
- Repatriating control over International Development
- Radical cuts to budgets where policies have limited demonstrable benefit
- Slashing the UK budgetary share
- Re-establishing the Social Chapter opt-out
- Ensuring UK Parliamentary sovereignty overrides EU law
- Dropping UK participation in EU defence integration
- Introducing flexibility involving Justice and Home Affairs, including Asylum and Immigration control
- Restoration of UK Government powers over taxation
- Greater freedom for Britain to enter bilateral trading agreements globally
- Rowing back from costly EU space ambitions, particularly the Galileo programme
- Triggering massive reform to the structures of the EU itself
There are also six areas where immediate action can be taken by the British Government and without the need for any agreement in Brussels:
- Commissioning a measured, independent and trustworthy cost-benefit analysis of EU membership
- Demonstrating an intent and capability to act unilaterally if necessary to improve Britain’s position
- Appointing a Cabinet Minister to review the acquis communautaire
- Requiring EU-sourced legislation to be printed on differently-coloured paper, and to carry a cost-benefit summary that can be compared with the EU original estimate, in order to avoid ‘gold-plating’ (extra red tape from British civil servants)
- Securing transparency in Westminster over EU laws
- Improved use of the national scrutiny reserve, the Parliamentary veto
This list should be considered a toolbox for the British negotiating team and should help inform the backbench business debate to be held in Parliament on Thursday 8th December. Senior Conservative Ministers have long argued for a repatriation of powers; now that they have the chance, they must exploit this opportunity to make changes in the long term interests of Britain.
Tinkering with individual treaties is not enough. In the history of negotiation with the EU Britain has experienced a number of false dawns where despite winning a concession or opt-out from legislation, the policy has been enacted via the back door (such as the Working Time directive). There is no reason why Britain cannot fundamentally renegotiate its position; various nations already have differing relationships with the EU.
Click here to read the full report
Click here for the complete press release
Dr Lee Rotherham, Research Fellow of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:
“The British people are crying out for the Government to stand up to Brussels and reclaim powers that should never have been surrendered in the first place. Senior ministers who have long called for a repatriation of powers now have a once in a lifetime opportunity to negotiate with their European counterparts from a position of strength. This report sets out a comprehensive list of reasonable demands that David Cameron should take into the negotiating chamber alongside a number of steps that can be implemented immediately at home, without recourse to Brussels. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to bring home a wonderful early Christmas present for British taxpayers, it is against these benchmarks that his ability to deliver for Britain will be judged.”
Other European countries do enjoy a better relationship with the EU
Jeremy Warner writes for the Telegraph this morning, arguing that Britain is unlikely to get impressive results out of any renegotiation associated with the EU treaty. He is right that a lot of the minor changes we’ve heard rumours about would be welcome but, in the grand scheme of things, “don’t add up to more than a hill of beans”, but if the Government is more aggressive there is a real opportunity here. As our Chief Executive Matthew Elliott wrote for his blog at the Daily Mail recently, there is a “a golden opportunity to claw back powers from Europe” if the Prime Minister is willing to seize it.
Matthew gave a list of demands that we should be making, not an exhaustive platform but a very good start:
- Rejecting the European credo of ‘ever closer union’
- Providing for UK law to take precedence over EU law
- UK withdrawal from the atrocious and costly Common Agriculture Policy and Common Fisheries Policy
- A cut to the UK contribution to the EU budget – which has increased by some billions of pounds since the last Government threw away the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher
- A UK opt-out from the Social Chapter which suffocates business with red tape and restricts the prospects for job creation
- Ending British contributions to the EU’s International Development aid budget – so much of which is unaccounted for
- Pursuing multinational defence ventures through NATO and only multilaterally via Brussels on an ad hoc basis
- Allowing the UK to taking full control over Justice, Home Affairs, Asylum and Immigration policy once again
- Restoring full UK control over taxation, particularly VAT
Jeremy writes that such proposals would be “red-line issues” for both Germany and France, and as a result our “position in the internal market would become marginalised. We’d end up like Norway, forced to adopt most of the foibles of the eurozone to keep trading with it, but with no say in its constitution.”
It is actually a a myth that Norway, and the other countries in a similar position like Iceland or Switzerland, are really in that unfortunate position. Lee Rotherham wrote about this for the publication Controversies: From Brussels and Closer to Home:
The content of the [European Economic Area] Agreement is updated very regularly, but – and it is a huge ‘but’ – it can be blocked if either side does not want to include any single element of the acquis. Each individual EFTA state has a veto on the entire agreement, since it is shared between the EEA and the EU acting as two parties. This also means that national parliaments have a veto too.
He went on to cite a number of cases which show that the resulting regulatory burden is far greater than that felt by EU member states:
Firstly, according to a report by the EFTA Secretariat in Brussels for the Icelandic Foreign Ministry that was published in May 2005, only some 6.5% of EU regulations, directives and decisions had fallen under the EEA Agreement over the first eleven years of its existence, a total of 2,527 pieces of legislation. Of those only 101 required a change to Icelandic laws already in place.
[...]
There was a similar question raised in the Norwegian parliament in 2004 about how much EU legislation had been implemented under EEA terms. The then-government replied that over the period 199702993 there had been 11,511 pieces of legislation adopted by the EU. Of those 2,129 fell under the EEA agreement, or about 18.5 per cent.
[...]
From its cost-benefit analysis, Berne assessed that the cost [to Switzerland] of continuing bilaterally with the EU would run at 557 milion Swiss Francs; gaining EEA terms would cost 737 million CHF; and joining the EU would come with a net annual billion of 3.4 billion CHF, and a gross bill of 4.94 billion Francs.
Britain’s position is far stronger than Jeremy suggests. We don’t have to fear Norway or Switzerland’s fate. It wouldn’t be so bad. So the Prime Minister should be able to go and demand the repatriation of powers, that should never have gone to Brussels in the first place, with confidence.
The EU’s accounts are not signed off… again
Benjamin Franklin once observed that “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” I would venture that we could add a third: the inability of the European Union to guarantee that it has legitimately spent all of the taxpayers’ cash which the British and other EU member state governments have given it.
For today the European Court of Auditors – the body charged with auditing the EU’s accounts – has presented its annual report to the European Parliament and for the 17th – yes, seventeenth – year running, it has concluded that the payments underlying the 2010 accounts are “still affected by material error”.
Should you wish to wade through it, the full 250-page document is here, but here are the killer extracts:
“The Court concludes that overall the supervisory and control systems are partially effective in ensuring the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts. The policy groups Agriculture and Natural Resources and Cohesion, Energy and Transport are materially affected by error. The Court’s estimate for the most likely error rate for payments underlying the accounts is 3.7 %.
“In the Court’s opinion, because of the significance of the matters described [above] on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts paragraph, the payments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 are materially affected by error.”
What does all that actually mean?
As the ECA’s press release this morning explains, the “error rate” represents “the degree of non-compliance with the rules governing the spending, such as breaches of public procurement rules, ineligible or incorrect calculation of costs claimed to EU co-financed projects, or over-declaration of land by farmers”.
And that 3.7% error rate is as a proportion of the EU’s annual budget of €122.2 billion (£104.2 billion), which means that serious questions remain about a staggering €4.5 billion (£3.9 billion) of payments which have been made by Brussels – a figure which has increased since 2009.
And the error rate across the “Cohesion, energy and transport” budget alone was no less than 7.7%.
The fact that this happens year after year does not make it any more acceptable. Moreover, it underlines just how outrageous it is that the European Commission is seeking another increase in its budget when there are question marks over billions of its spending.
UPDATE: With a press release that anyone who knows the first thing about accounting concepts like material error would find hilarious, the EU is claiming that failing to get their accounts past the auditors yet again is some kind of triumph. They claim that: “For the fourth year in a row, the EU’s annual accounts have received a clean bill of health from its external auditors.”
Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, Bill Nighy would steal from savers and give to the politicians
This evening, Channel 4 News at 7pm will be screening a debate between me and the actor Bill Nighy on proposals for a Financial Transactions, or Robin Hood, Tax. UPDATE: You can watch the video after the break.
Bill Nighy wrote for the Guardian recently arguing that the Financial Transactions Tax was an all-round wonderful idea only scuppered by bankers not wanting to pay their way. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. The reality is that the people who would pay this tax would be savers struggling to afford a comfortable retirement. Already struggling with high inflation, they would be hit again as the share prices that underlie the performance of most pension funds would be depressed. In the longer term, particularly if the tax isn’t applied globally, workers would suffer too with fewer opportunities and lower wages as investment went elsewhere.
Bill Nighy in a video promoting the "Robin Hood" Tax
He hides that problem with the misleading statement that according “to the IMF it would be paid predominantly by the richest”, which he then translates for the rest of his article into this money coming out of the pockets of the likes of Goldman Sachs executives. The reality is that the IMF paper he is referring to says that burden would “fall on owners of traded securities, at the time the tax was introduced, as the value of stocks, bonds and derivatives subject to” the new tax. In other words, savers.
Of course people with savings are generally significantly better off than those without them. For example, people on benefits aren’t saving and their retirement income will depend on the level of state pension entitlements rather than investment returns. The other group this won’t affect as much – though they are actually relatively well off – are public sector workers, whose unfunded, defined benefit pensions also aren’t dependent on investment returns.
Savers will pay and, while they are on average significantly better off than people who aren’t saving, they aren’t all plutocrats. We are talking about plenty of normal people struggling to save and invest, to build up a pension fund and provide for themselves and their family. This certainly isn’t a tax on the banks.
British politicians are constantly urging people to save, that’s why things like tax free ISAs are available. Hitting them with a new tax would achieve precisely the opposite and further put people off putting money aside for their old age. That means taxpayers will have to pick up the bill instead and poses a mortal threat to the long term stability of our public finances with an ageing population.
In the longer term, by making it more expensive for companies to raise finance this measure would depress investment. Particularly in an open economy like ours, and if the tax wasn’t truly global, capital would “flow out until its after-tax return was restored to the world market level.” Less investment means fewer jobs and lower wages. As the IMF say: “In the long run, capital owners would therefore not bear the burden of the STT; it would fall on workers, who as a result of the smaller capital stock would be less productive and receive lower wages.”
Other countries have seen that these taxes don’t work. Australia abolished a stamp duty on shares in 2001, for example. The IMF reported that these taxes have been in steady decline internationally in recent years. We do have a stamp duty on shares in Britain but it is a disastrously inefficient tax, despite some differences in the conditions making it less onerous than a pure transactions tax.
In 1999, researchers at the London School of Economics found that while other transaction costs for UK equities had more than halved while Stamp Duty had remained constant. As the Forsyth Commission reported (pgs. 103-104), those higher transaction costs depress share prices by up to 10 per cent. One study suggests that if it were abolished the increase in the market capitalisation of the FTSE All Share could be in the region of £150 billion. That suggests the around £4 billion a year the tax raises is pretty poor value. If the Robin Hood Tax is supposed to raise much more money than that, then it will do even more to destroy share prices.
And stamp duty on shares also makes it more expensive for companies to raise the finance they need to grow and compete with rivals abroad. Oxera found that abolishing the tax would reduce the cost of equity by 7 to 8.5 per cent on average, but technology companies for example might pay up to 12 per cent less. That means abolishing the tax would increase investment, and bring more jobs and higher wages for British workers. Bill Nighy wants us to go in the opposite direction.
This tax would be bad for the City, but that doesn’t make it good for the rest of us. It would be an immediate disaster for savers and a longer term disaster for workers. It would also increase volatility in financial markets, as I have written before, thereby increasing risk.
And that’s before we get onto how the money will be spent. Bill Nighy’s idea is that it will go on aid for poor countries. But even if you think the rapidly rising development budget – while taxes are rising and spending is being cut here in Britain – isn’t enough, European politicians appear to have other plans. They want to use it to finance their wasteful spending and grand plans in Brussels. Is that where you want your savings spent?
This is a bad plan and the Government should reject it regardless of whether international agreement can be secured.
Further EU waste exposed ahead of Commons referendum vote
Disappointing but not surprising news from Brussels has revealed a discrepancy of over £80 million in expense claims for European Union bureaucrats in 2006 alone.
Robert Galvin, a British accountant who looked over the EU’s books, found a discrepancy of £81 million in “personal entitlement” payments to EU civil servants in 2006, and saw there was “considerable risk” of further abuses. For the EU to misuse taxpayers’ money like this is simply unacceptable.
David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, has responded to the findings by saying that “reports such as these are worrying and further emphasise the need for increased transparency across all EU institutional budgets”.
That’s very easy for him to say, but will anyone ever really be held to account for these failings? I fear we all know the answer to that one, given the EU’s record on dealing with financial mismanagement.
It’s not as if this is the first financial controversy to hit the European Union. In 1999, the entire European Commission, then led by Jacques Santer, resigned following a report “exposing fraud, corruption and mismanagement at senior levels”. While then-Shadow Foreign Secretary (and now Cabinet Office Minister) Francis Maude said that “British taxpayers need to be protected from being short-changed in Europe”, it is a disgrace that this warning still applies today.
Last year the European Court of Auditors refused to sign off the EU’s accounts. For the 16th year in a row. Yes, that’s right – EU accounts haven’t been cleared for 16 years. The two largest areas of EU expenditure – agriculture and regional spending – continue to be “materially affected by error”. Yet the Brussels machine still has the audacity to be demanding even more of our money.
I have previously written about how Members of the European Parliament and EU civil servants don’t seem to live in the real world – and they don’t seem like returning to reality any time soon.
MPs will today vote on a motion to give the British people a say on our relationship with the European Union for the first time in over 36 years. Given the waste that continues to come from Brussels (and Strasbourg), can they afford not to listen to the people?
Deferendum
Today, the House of Commons will be having a debate over holding a referendum on Britain’s future in the EU. It may help to put this into context.
The last time people in the United Kingdom were given a real choice on Europe was in 1975. In that year, the Wilson Government lived up to a pledge for a vote on whether to remain in the EEC.
If you can’t remember the Wilson Government, you are already onto a loser. If you can’t remember the EEC – well, that rather proves the point.
To have actually voted, it means in effect you would have had to have been born before the Suez Crisis. Everyone born after Anthony Eden became Prime Minister has, in a sense, been disenfranchised.
We could even coin a new word for this – Macmillanisation. For decades we have been voting in general elections for parties in which the European issue was but one policy amongst many affecting our ballot, while a number of Prime Ministers (starting with Macmillan himself) increasingly sought to get us into the European Community or, in changing treaty after treaty, marched massively away from the 1975 remit. Meanwhile, only people born before this process began have had a genuine say on it.
Some will argue that having a referendum today is a breach of our traditions as a parliamentary democracy. That argument would hold water had there not been such a raft of referendums over the past decade, on elected local mayors, regional devolution (including changes to London Government), Scottish devolution, and Welsh devolution (twice).
Under David Cameron’s government, there has been a referendum on the Alternative Vote, which was in no manifesto, but none on a referendum on the European issue, on which all three major parties have made a commitment that they have failed to deliver while in power. Meanwhile, the UK Government has said it “will not stand in the way” of a referendum on Scotland’s future, with David Cameron even calling upon First Minister Alex Salmond to accelerate the process. National independence can be an issue for plebiscite, then, providing the blue on the flag is of the right hue.
The very nature of today’s three line whip, uniting the leadership of the major parties, demonstrates the need to remove this decision from the hands of the party managers. In general elections, all three big parties find it within their leadership’s interests to smother any debate on the EU. On the issue of EU membership, the UK is still locked in continental-style consensual politics, deepening the split between the public and its representatives. Nothing could be more dangerous for democracy.
Whatever your viewpoint – whether you believe the UK should leave the EU tomorrow; that the country needs a powerful mandate to negotiate a new system from within the structures of the existing treaties; or even and particularly if you genuinely believe in a democratically-developed and accountable federal system for the continent – wherever you come from, the time has come for two new generations of voters to be asked our opinion. Because, increasingly across the country, we find people holding strong opinions, but silenced ones.
Managing Incontinence with Style
Even with the information that an estimated 25 Million Americans are living with incontinence, there is still a social stigma placed on incontinence that can terrorize your spark for life if you put up with incontinence .
Many Americans who are incontinent also live with some sort of depression issue because of the social stigma attached to incontinence issues. Incontinence issues affect all walks of life – baby boomers and everyday people like you and me, not just seniors as is the common misconception. So the bias that it affects predominantly seniors is fading!
While adult briefs (aka adult diapers) have been available to consumers for many years, it was only recently that incontinence issues were boosted to break room chitchat. In a much talked about recent tv tv commercial, Whoopi Goldberg exposed the truth – to the relief of millions. It was Whoopi’s larger than life character that unconditionally made it acceptable to talk about the issue of incontinence. Of course, the timing for that tv advertisement was slotted for maximum exposure – becase the ad aired immediately in front of the Oscars.
Many of those who know incontinence struggle with locating excellent incontinence products from adult briefs (aka adult diapers), to bladder control liners (absorbent liners) and many don’t discern that there is another alternative – good ‘ole fashioned underwear! But we’re not talking granny panties! We’re talking about gorgeous, complimentary, beautiful, stylish skivvies!
To help do away with the stigma of incontinence, Eversures Incontinence Underwear fashioned a line of incontinence unmentionables that are not only effective, but classy, too. Comprehensive consumer research disclosed that people coping with incontinence are wishing for products that are more like real underwear. Products that help make them feel more normal and positive. Eversures Incontinence Underwear were manufactured to meet end users’ emotional and psychological needs as well, with a product that looks more like regular unmentionables, because they are real underwear!
* No inserts or disposable pads required
* Available in different absorbencies from light to moderate – or heavy.
* Sewn-in, super absorbent Unique-Dri pad traps liquid for built-in protection all day
* Waterproof outer layer prevents leakage for double protection
* Antimicrobial fibers eliminate the bacteria that cause odor
* Easy-care machine wash and dry
* More economical than disposables because they are good for 200-250 washes
* Available in sizes from SMA to 10X (depending on the style).
* Available in different colors (depending on the style).
Incontinence is a medical infirmity – so it’s important to shop for the right products you want to deal with it and allow you to get on with your life, feeling collected and in control.
So now you have no reason to sit at home and stare at those 4 walls because you’re ashamed of your medical problem! Go on, get out and enjoy life again – wearing real underwear. Eversures Incontinence Underwear are well made and in-vogue undergarments for men or women!
Before you go anywhere – visit DryDiapersPlus for the revolutionary super absorbent <a href=" adult diaper, based on NASA technology – with true deals on all of your incontinence supplies and ABDL needs. At DryDiapersPlus we provide great customer service, affordable pricing and discreet packaging.
Tammy Chamberlain is an incontinence products specialist at DryDiapersPlus,
Buy your adult diapers online at DryDiapersPlus. Serving the US and Canada (visit DryDiapersPlus.ca for Canada Shoppers)
EU debate announced
At the start of the month we held a joint debate with the Daily Express about Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Aptly titled “We need to talk about Europe”, the point was made time and time again that discussion about Europe was being stifled despite the fact that it is an issue so many people feel strongly about, one way or another.
Apart from a minority of politicians who have consistently championed the issue, and debates over some statutory instruments, there has not been a substantial discussion about Britain’s relationship with the EU in the House of Commons for some time. It appears things might be about to change.
On tuesday, the backbench business committee approved David Nuttall MP’s motion for a debate on whether there should be a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU. On Monday 24 October MPs will discuss this motion:
“This House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom
(a) should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
(b) leave the European Union; or
(c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.”
The motion was originally scheduled to be debated on Thursday but has been brought forward to Monday under the auspices of allowing the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to attend.
While any vote in the debate will not bind the Government, it will take place against a highly-charged political background. While Greece burns and European leaders pontificate about how to get out of the debt crisis engulfing the Eurozone (tip: the answer is not more debt), there is growing anger at both the damaging effect of EU regulations in the British economy and the waste and profligacy that is commonplace across EU institutions. The latest example of the Eurocrats’ bizarre spending habits was exposed when we learned the £15 million cost of the EU’s new propaganda temple, the EU Parliamentarium.
The Daily Politics show visited the EU theme park and found EU officials more interested in eating cake than saving hard pressed taxpayers’ money:
It’s also worth noting that on Saturday The People’s Pledge will be holding their Congress for an EU referendum in Methodist Central Hall, Westminster. Speakers attending are from across the political divide, including both those supporting and opposing Britain’s membership of the EU. I will be there, along with our Political Director Jonathan Isaby and our Research Director John O’Connell. You can still get tickets and feel free to introduce yourself if you see us.
So how likely is it that the vote will pass? It’s reported that the Prime Minister may order Conservative MPs to vote against the referendum despite it containing a “third-way renegotiation option” similar to Conservative party manifesto commitments. A number of Eurosceptic Tories will undoubtedly defy the whips but the Government may face a wider rebellion from new intake MPs, fed up of being bossed around and unhappy at pressure to vote against a referendum they support. For many, the renegotiation option will be highly appealing and may encourage them to support the motion on Thursday. MPs facing local constituency re-selection meetings as a result of the boundary review might not want to face Eurosceptic activists, having voted against giving the public a chance to vote on the relationship with the EU (a vote that no one under the age of 54 has ever had in this country).
And what will Labour do? They face the same questions over whether they want to give the public a say in Europe, with the added political dimension of the chance to inflict a bloody nose on the Coalition Government who could be split over this issue, given that the Liberal Democrats tend to support the European Union.
The congress on Saturday and the debate on the 24th are likely to be lively. Regardless of the outcome, one thing is clear: we need to talk about Europe.
Even more money for the EU
MEPs have voted to increase their budget by 4.2 per cent compared to last year, to €132.7 billion (£116 billion). That is what the European Commission originally proposed – before it was cut back to €129 billion by member states in July.
A spokesman for the British Government said, “In such challenging economic conditions, high growth in EU spending is both unaffordable and out of kilter with the tough measures that many countries are taking to consolidate public finances.” Nice words, but it is vital they don’t acquiesce to increases in the budget again when it is discussed by MEPs and EU ministers later this year.
The European Union’s bloated bureaucracy will be a big winner – in particular, its diplomatic service. Earlier this year, Foreign Secretary William Hague had to warn against a power grab by the European external action service, which might try to “usurp the functions and powers of national foreign ministries”. A report by Dr Lee Rotherham for the TPA in September 2009 warned that this was already happening. Baroness Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, has been working hard to expand her budget and powers.
Last month I wrote about how EU officials have refused a minor change in their working hours which would have saved £870 million. MEP Lajos Borokos summed up what many taxpayers would have felt on hearing the news: “The European Parliament is once again showing itself to be out of touch with the real world”. Sadly, at a time when ordinary taxpayers face tax rises and inflation, and EU member states are making difficult budget decisions themselves, this vote for a budget increase only goes to confirm Mr Borokos’ point.
Brussels’ new £15 million propaganda temple
It may well have escaped your notice – probably because you have better things to do than to be looking for things to do in Brussels – but as of this week the Belgian capital has become home to a new “tourist attraction”.
On Friday the so-called Parliamentarium is opening – a brand new European Parliament visitor centre which has been paid for by the hard-pressed taxpayer at a cost of £15.5 million – nearly £5 million over budget and opening three years later than originally planned.
The official blurb about the exhibition – which aims to present the history of the EU to its citizens – could not make it sound more ludicrous:
“A highly varied presentation spread out over three floors holds the visitor’s attention. It consists of carefully harmonised narrative spaces, which lend three-dimensional expression to the contents of the exhibition… The Parliamentarium conveys the motto of the European Union, “United in Diversity”, in an emotional manner.”
And be in no doubt, it is propaganda central. The room entitled “United in Diversity” features “a walk-on map spread out over the floor, showing a Europe without borders” and enables visitors to “interactively acquire information on events that caused the European Parliament to draw up regulations that are valid and applicable throughout Europe”.
It includes a “light installation” entitled “Sky of Opinions”, while a special effort has been made to indoctrinate children of the need for the European Union to exist, with a mock-up of the Parliament chamber. Again, according to the official blurb, this will enable them to “learn what it means to actively participate in the idea of a united Europe”.
Some have dubbed it the EU’s very own theme park; I’m not sure about that, but it certainly seems like we’re being taken for a ride…
‘We Need to Talk About Europe’
Speeches from our Freedom Zone event ‘We need to talk about Europe’ in association with the Daily Express, featuring Douglas Carswell MP, Tim Montgomerie and Patrick O’Flynn, Chief Political Commentator at the Daily Express. You can watch our other event videos on our video page.
Councils can return to weekly bin collections
Yesterday the Coalition announced it is to provide £250 million to enable local authorities across the UK to switch back to weekly bin collections. In June I wrote about our disappointment that the Conservatives had backtracked on their manifesto pledge to end to fortnightly collections. However, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles yesterday made the offer councils will hopefully find impossible to refuse.
Council tax has almost doubled over the last decade and for many the most valued and visible service in return is waste collection. While councils across the country reassess their priorities after reductions in their central government grants, many are reluctant to return to weekly collections. But we regularly publish stories and produce research that shows there are savings to be made in council budgets.
While it is not ideal that the Government felt forced to bribe councils to provide the weekly service, as with the council tax freeze introduced earlier this year, it is often the only tool Ministers have. But this decision places power back in the hands of local residents. Councils will find it difficult to go against their will.
There will be some who claim that offering an incentive to local authorities goes against the localism agenda. Firstly, the offer is optional. The councils that genuinely believe a weekly collection is what their residents want but who find it financially prohibitive have the funds available, those who strongly believe in fortnightly collections can refuse. Secondly, the eye-watering landfill taxes councils frequently moan about emanate from the European Union, the very anathema of localism. Meddling from the EU in council affairs severely restrict the service they can provide residents. If councils want more power, they should first tell the Government to stop accepting diktats from Brussels.
Offering his immediate reaction to the news, our Chief Executive Matthew Elliott said:
“Weekly bin collections are the number one service which council taxpayers expect to receive from their local authorities, so it is terrific to hear that councils will no longer have any excuse not to provide this to every resident in their area. Rubbish collection may not be seen as a sexy issue to the chattering classes in London, but it is one which is of great concern to ordinary hardworking taxpayers. It’s good to see a manifesto promise delivered despite the difficult financial times we live in. Woe betide the councils who do not reinstate weekly bin collections or who persist with plans to scrap this basic service, causing misery to local residents.”
Meanwhile our Campaign Director, Emma Boon, was on Sky News discussing the announcement:
Ignore the European Commission’s legal threats over welfare payments to EU nationals
The European Commission has threatened to take legal action against the British Government over the rights of foreigners to claim benefits in Britain. British nationals are automatically considered to have the ‘right to reside’ but people of other EU nationalities are subject to an assessment first.
Discriminatory, says the Commission, which has given Britain a two month deadline to allow foreigners easier access to welfare in Britain, warning:
“Otherwise, the commission may decide to refer the UK to the EU’s Court of Justice.”
Changing the law to meet the demands could cost British taxpayers £2 billion a year as thousands of jobless EU nationals arrive with immediate eligibility for means-tested, residence-based benefits. The Commission is attacking not only the right of every member state to decide who is eligible for its benefits and why, but also the foundations of current welfare reform plans. The Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, spoke out against the move:
“This threatens to break the vital link which should exist between taxpayers and their own government. I sense this is part of a wider movement, coming in the same week as the proposals for a financial transactions tax across Europe which threatens to punish UK banks by decreasing their competitiveness abroad.”
Duncan Smith is rightly outraged at a ‘rising tide of judgements’ from European institutions, but taxpayers should be equally furious that a useful policy for preventing fraudulent use of our benefits system is being attacked by the unelected and the unaccountable. If Britain gives in to Brussels’ sabre-rattling the link between contribution and eligibility will be effectively destroyed.
The Government should simply ignore the warning and, if it becomes necessary, challenge the Commission in the EU Court of Justice. If the Commission wins, the Government should consider whether that decision might provide the circumstances for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
When will Eurocrats get it?
The European Commission has asked its staff to work an extra half hour each day in order to save €1 billion – around £870 million – by 2020, but trade unions representing the EU’s 55,000 staff have not accepted this minor change. Extravagant salaries, generous holiday, gold plated pensions and free lunches; it’s a tough life, working for the European Union.
With the crisis in the eurozone, and the situation in Greece only likely to get worse, this is another slap in the face for hard-pressed taxpayers. The extra 30 minutes per day would increase their working week to 40 hours – still below the average British full time worker’s 41.5 hours. Even so, there is talk that EU workers could strike.
A letter from Equipe d’Union Syndicale, the European Parliament’s trade union, has rejected the idea. They complain that “the attractiveness of the European civil service would deteriorate”. Further proof that they don’t realise the EU gravy train needs to stop.
It is said often enough, but this is yet another example of civil servants in Brussels living in an entirely different world to the rest of us. They don’t understand that ordinary taxpayers simply cannot afford to continue funding cushy working practices they don’t enjoy themselves.
Why is British taxpayers’ money supporting Argentina’s finances?
Nile Gardiner at the Heritage Foundation has written for the Telegraph blog about the strong statement that the Government had to make at the United Nations in New York last week. In response to Argentina’s “increasingly belligerent stance”, as Nile puts it, the British delegation stated t
hat we remain “fully committed to defending the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to determine their own political, social and economic future.” That raises a critical question: why are we financially supporting a country that is threatening British territory and people?
Britain is a major shareholder in the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and rightly has considerable influence over the World Bank’s policies and priorities. Argentina owes the bank over $5 billion. New programmes are regularly being approved, like $30 million for a project aimed at improving public sector management, among other things, in the Province of La Rioja earlier this year.
It isn’t just the World Bank. An EU aid programme running from 2007 to 2013 is providing €65 million to Argentina. We pick up the tab through our contributions to the EU budget. We are responsible for over ten per cent of total gross contributions, which means we are paying nearly €8 million (nearly £7 million at the current exchange rate) to Argentina.
The Government should be fighting against this misuse of our money by Brussels. But there is a more immediate opportunity at the World Bank.
The Obama administration in the United States is resisting further programmes in Argentina. At a hearing of the House Committee on Financial Services, Representative Robert Dold asked why the World Bank was supporting a country which was refusing to pay many of its debts and ignoring international arbitration judgements, despite sitting on over $50 billion in reserves. The Assistant Secretary for International Markets and Development – Marisa Largo – said that a country which “falls squarely within the ranks of middle-income countries” and failed to engage properly with creditors shouldn’t be getting funding and the United States would continue to “vote no”.
Please write to your MP – this website makes it easy – and ask them to tell the UK Government to fight EU programmes sending our money to Argentina, and support the US move to ensure we aren’t backing loans to them from the World Bank.
Have they no shame?
On the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) website, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is hailed as being “focused on reducing economic disparities within and between member states by supporting economic regeneration and safeguarding jobs.” Sounds grand, but the reality is another example of taxpayers’ money being collected by an unaccountable European power then re-distributed to a narrow elite of chosen institutions and causes.
It emerged earlier this week that the fund hasn’t just been dishing out grants, but slapping fines on our institutions too. The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at DCLG, Bob Neill, replied to a question posed by Burton’s Member of Parliament, Andrew Griffiths, regarding how much money has been paid back by British organisations to the European Union as a result of breaches to the fund’s rules. Griffiths specifically referred to infringements relating to the publicity of the fund on the part of the organisations that received the financial support. Neill’s answer was nothing less than startling.
He revealed that in excess of £436,000 has been paid back to the EU by thirteen different organisations; Advantage West Midlands (AWM) and the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce being the worst hit. The latter organised an event without suitable acknowledgement of the ERDF contibution; a flat rate penalty of 10 per cent was imposed and £77,609 repaid. The former, thankfully soon to be wound up, received a £201,801 bill for not using the EU logo on area publicity material in an attempt to simplify its brand image.
You will comply
Most recently, the University of Northampton was fined £56,477 by penny-pinching bureaucrats after it failed to display the European Union logo outside a building whose facilities had been part-funded by the ERDF. Michael Ellis, Conservative MP for Northampton North, criticised the fine as “astronomical” and demanded the EU return the cash:
“It’s outrageous. These European dictocrats shouldn’t be worrying about their egos or wasting taxpayer’s money on investigating these matters. This is British taxpayer’s money being wasted on absurd self-publicity. There’s not an ounce of common sense being used here.”
These fines ultimately come out of the pockets of British taxpayers; we’re being stung once for contributions to the EU, which are then handed to the ERDF before being handed back to us, and then again when we’re fined for not following their petty rules. Outrageous. Why does the European Union insist so vigorously on promoting itself and its brand? Why must individual member states be forced to assume an additional financial burden to the already monumental sums they already contribute annually for Union membership?
In Neill’s answer, the full version of which can be found here, he said:
“We have to operate existing ERDF programmes according to the regulations. However, the Government believe that the regulations should be focused on ensuring that ERDF meets its objective of promoting economic competitiveness. We will be arguing strongly with the Commission that in the next programme, penalties for things that do not contribute to this objective, such as failing to publicise the programme, should be swept away.”
British taxpayers will be astounded at this current situation. Thankfully, the Government is slowly waking up to this and we can only hope that it will apply sufficient diplomatic pressure to make sure this nonsense is stopped. The EU truly is bloated if it can afford the time and money to waste on pathetic pedantry and bothering people for not flying the right flag or displaying the correct logo.
If the Government accept a bailout of Portugal, they will be betraying the interests of British taxpayers
The European Union is already very expensive. In 2009, it cost British families £5.3 billion in net contributions but last year that rose to £9.2 billion. That’s a more than 70 per cent rise in a single year and it means families are paying over £350 a year each in net contributions to the EU. Even that understates the real cost as a lot of the money that we get back, which is netted off in that figure, is tied to wasteful projects we wouldn’t choose to spend money on ourselves.
And that is just the EU budget. The amount we pay to actually sustain the EU’s institutions and their spending programmes. The EU is also used as a vehicle to impose all sorts of costly regulations, bypassing accountable national politics. Directives are agreed in Brussels and then become immutable rocks that domestic policy has to be formed around. Once they get back here, officials and politicians gold plate them.
We saw an example of that at the Budget recently. In Brussels they agreed the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) which puts limits on industrial emissions and results in higher energy prices for consumers and manufacturing industry. I would bet that 99 per cent of the British public haven’t even heard of it, and there was certainly no real democratic debate before it was implemented, but we are all paying a significant price for it. With that policy in place, the Government introduced a new regulation, ostensibly to make it work better called the carbon floor price. That isn’t being implemented in other European countries, who are content that the EU ETS remain less effective but cheaper. By 2015-16 the Government’s carbon floor price alone is expected to raise £1.4 billion – about £50 a family. That’s just the gold plating on one regulation. The total will be immense.
Now we’re being asked to bailout Portugal. There is no credible case that it will remedy the dire situation the eurozone is in. Countries like Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain (often known as the PIGS) have suffered because they had very low interest rates set for a then sluggish Germany and that led to a huge boom. Now that boom has turned to bust and they are sitting on an impossibly large liability for failed banking systems and unaffordable spending. Their economies are hopelessly uncompetitive but they can’t devalue relative to a now booming Germany. The European Central Bank have been forced to raise interest rates in order to curb inflation but that will make it significantly harder for the PIGS economies to recover. Again they are getting almost exactly the monetary policy they don’t need. As Allister Heath – Chairman of the 2020 Tax Commission – wrote today in City AM, the euro is a one size fits all straitjacket and there is no way that a proper recovery will be possible until the PIGS are cut free. They will still be facing a very tough situation and some banks will make significant losses, but there is just no sense in kicking the can down the road. That’s why the bailout for Ireland was a bad idea and we opposed it.
Andrew Lilico, Director and Principal at Europe Economics and a member of the 2020 Tax Commission, wrote a brilliant article yesterday setting out why the Portuguese bailout is a particularly bad idea. While others came looking for a bailout so it would be easier for them to adjust to living within their means, the Portuguese are coming because they can’t pass an austerity plan. Martin Callanan, the leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, wrote arguing that we shouldn’t take part and that we could fight the bailout politically and legally.
If the Conservative leadership can’t even muster up as much eurosceptic backbone as their MEPs then they will have spectacularly let down taxpayers. They can’t just keep going with the blame game about whether or not the last Government is responsible. At the moment it looks very much like that is an excuse to play along and put good relations in Brussels above looking after our money. There is no way that British taxpayers should be paying to sustain monetary union, a mistake they didn’t make. We shouldn’t be paying for politicians on the continent just to kick the can down the road.
Medway Council lead the way against EU funding growth
Dan Hannan scourge of the EU has started a new campaign following the initiative of Medway Council in their action comparing the reduction of UK Government funding of local councils and the increases of government funding to the EU budget.
Every penny saved by local council cuts is cancelled out by BrusselsOne of the budgets that genuinely is being cut, in absolute terms, is the block grant given by the Treasury to local councils. With our debt now above a trillion pounds, and our deficit still growing, many local authorities face reductions of ten per cent or more in their funding.
Some are looking for economies in a spirit of national solidarity; some are wearily resigned; some are downright furious. All, though, should be able to agree that, at a time when money is tight, it is outrageous that the EU budget, uniquely, should continue to grow.
A few days ago, Medway Council passed a resolution condemning the EU budget hike, and mandating the three local MPs to vote against any increase in Britain’s contribution (see text below). The motion was supported by Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem councillors, and was voted through unanimously.
If you are a local councillor, why not move a similar resolution in your own chamber? If you’re not, why not suggest to your local councillor that he or she move one on your behalf? If you do plan to table such a motion, please let us know at the Direct Democracy website, so that we have an idea of how many resolutions are going through.
Here, meanwhile, is the text of Medway’s resolution. Thanks and congratulations to the councillors of all three parties who backed it:
The Council notes, with indignation, that whilst Medway is facing a massive 11.9% reduction in its financial settlement in 2011/12, the UK ‘s contribution to the European Union (EU) is set to rise by 60% over two years.
This Council notes that, despite the opposition of some Conservative MPs, and Labour and Conservative MEPs, it is likely that the government will agree to a further 2.9% increase in the overall EU budget.
This Council believes the EU should be treated the same as the other tiers of government and in these austere times should share responsibility, along with central and local government, for public spending reductions. Sharing the burden would result in less severe cuts for local authorities, and give more assistance to councils to protect front line services.
This Council therefore urges Medway’s three MPs not to support an increase in the EU budget.
