g.man wrote:

The problem is that for decades, successive Labour and Tory governments have farmed off virtually all governmental responsibility for anything controversial that could have been a pie in the face come a general election, to the private sector, councils, or just any Tom, Dick & Harry who happened to be passing through with their eye on a quick buck.
It's been a downward spiral of passing the buck rather than taking responsibility for decades now, and this is the inevitable shitty mess that we end up in.

Liveinadive wrote:

Governments and councils aren't totally blameless either. Letting things go to shit and then trying to quick fix stuff quick allows standards to slip and private firms to dictate regulations.

Community Gateway A Con
The "Community Gateway Model" is just another word for stock
transfer - privatisation. It is no more than a rebranding exercise.
It is not true that it gives tenants any more power than ordinary
stock transfer. The crucial point is that tenants on the board of directors
have a legal obligation to the company - not to other tenants.
Having more or less directors doesn’t change this
fundamental relationship.
Government claims that with the Community Gateway Model
there will be a majority of tenants on the board - but this is false.
In Preston, the authority which is ‘piloting’the first community gateway,
the shadow board has been set up with seven tenants out
of fifteen places: so tenants are still in a minority, and still bound
by company law to represent the interests of the company. The
tenants in Preston, believing they were empowered, tried to
change the standard model for the legal set-up of the new company.
They wanted to add ‘community empowerment’ as one of
the companies legal 'objects', but the Housing Corporation wouldn't
let them do it:
"According to a report on the progress of the project, the Housing
Corporation has raised concerns about the effect of increasing
tenant involvement on the company's governance system.
The corporation said the inclusion of 'community empowerment'
as an objective in the gateway's rules would contravene the 1996
Housing Act. Report author Nic Bliss said: 'The '96 Act has very
specific rules about what housing associations can have as an
objective, which is basically just to provide social housing and
nothing else. Community empowerment is something we would
like to have as an objective but it would require an act of parliament
to do it.'
The aim of the gateway project is to set up a stock transfer company
that gives tenants more of a say in the way the organisation
is run, [Preston Council's former head of housing] Deacon explained.
… Tenants are, however, unlikely to be able to directly influence
decisions taken by the board, according to the report.
' At this stage the tenant steering group cannot be said to be a
tenant democracy.' "

dynamiteReady wrote:

For me, I'd at least like the authorities to concede the number of people officially declared missing. Because they can definitely do that now.

Yossarian wrote:

They have. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5943b011e4b06bb7d2724ac6

Responding to these claims, Faulks said: “Oh come on. I’m not saying it’s a tiny thing, for them it’s a huge thing and its very upsetting.

“But the council are in the process of trying to house 400 people. They’ve got people in hotels. They’ve put a social worker for every single family who is triaging them into a wraparound service.

“I’m sorry to hear that happened, but that person will have a one person connection to go to to explain that’s happened to sort out.”