Department store holds ‘Rachel Reeves closing down sale'
'The Government carefully worded their manifesto to say they would not increase taxes on working people', he said.
'But I consider myself a working person, people who run businesses are working people.
'It was manipulative of the Government to give the impression that all the increases in costs to businesses would not impact working people.'
Beales was founded in Bournemouth in 1881 and grew to have branches all over the country.
But in recent years it has been hit hard by the problems facing UK high streets, including high rents, crippling business rates and competition from online.
It went into administration in January 2020 and most of the 22 branches closed in March that year after the Covid pandemic brought an early end to clearance sales.
Beales in Poole, which employs 30 people, is the last remaining store.
John Grinnell, manager of the Poole Dolphin Centre, said: 'We're very sorry to see Beales go after so many years here.
'Our hearts go out to everyone affected by the store's closure, and we'll do everything we can to support former Beales employees to find employment elsewhere.
'We're alarmed to see this happening to lots of retail businesses because of the new budget and National Insurance increase.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Judge denies DOJ's request to release Epstein grand jury docs
Donald Trump was handed another blow on Wednesday when a federal judge denied his administration's attempts to release grand jury testimony from the Jeffrey Epstein case. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman deemed Trump's Justice Department did not provide adequate reasoning to unseal the highly-protected materials. He also said that the grand jury motion was likely a 'diversion' coming from the Trump administration. '[T]he court denies the government's motion to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts and exhibits,' the Clinton-appointed judge wrote in his Wednesday decision. It comes after Attorney General Pam Bondi moved at the direct of the president this summer to request the documents be unsealed in attempts to satisfy Americans who were enraged over the lackluster review of the Epstein files. The request came only after weeks of bemoaning from the MAGA base claiming there was a 'cover-up' and that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel were not being as 'transparent' as Trump promised they would be. 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social account last month amid the backlash. On July 18, Bondi filed motions in the Southern Districts of New York and Florida to have judges grant release of grand jury testimony from the [sexual] trafficker's cases in the respective states. Florida swiftly denied the request, while SDNY requested the government send their reasoning for requesting the years-old documents be drudged up. Trump's government argued in its reasoning that 'the passage of time has not dulled the public's interest in these cases.' It also revealed that there were only two witnesses in the case – an FBI agent and New York Police Department officer, both of whom are still alive. But Judge Berman claimed that the reasoning was not sufficient for him to grant the request to unseal the grand jury testimony. 'The Government is a logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein files,' Berman wrote in the Wednesday decision. 'By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breath and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession.' He also said that Trump's administration did not exhibit there were any 'special circumstances' that would justify unsealing the documents. Berman has come under fire from Trump and his supporters in the past for being a partisan judge. Bill Clinton appointed Berman to the bench in the Southern District of New York in 1998, where he has worked ever since as a judge and then a senior judge starting in September 2011. It's widely known that Clinton and Epstein had personal, professional and philanthropic connections. Epstein donated $1,000 to Clinton's presidential campaign in 1991 and two years later contributed $10,000 to the White House Historical Association for a redecoration project. This got him and longtime girlfriend and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell a ticket to a White House donors' reception hosted by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maxwell is still serving out a 20-year sentence in relation to the child [sexual] trafficking crimes. She even spoke for nine hours over the course of two days with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in Florida last month to answer questions about Epstein's crimes. She was transferred to a prison in Texas days after the interviews and appears to be angling for pardon from Trump. Flight logs for Epstein's private plane the Lolita Express show that Clinton took at least 17 flights between 2002 and 2003, often with staff, Secret Service agents and Clinton Foundation supporters. Trump also has links to the disgraced financier and appears on his flight logs. Epstein attended Trump's wedding to his second wife Marla Maples in 1993. The deep connections to those most influential in political and business circles is what Americans think is stopping the release of files related to his crimes and his sketchy death. Conspiracies still float online claiming that Epstein was killed in prison in August 2019 and that it was made to look like he took his own life – even though Trump's DOJ concluded that Epstein did [kill himself].
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent
What next? As ministers digest the High Court ruling on the use of a hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers, they have very limited options in front of them, none of them good ones. The High Court should not be attacked for making a ruling that takes no account of politics or even practicalities, for that is not its job. It has, though, made a bad situation very much worse. It is hardly helpful to anyone, in such circumstances, for Nigel Farage to exploit a delicate and sometimes combustible situation by calling for more peaceful protests. From bitter experience, we know how such demonstrations can degenerate into minor disorder, or worse. In fact, given the force of the High Court judgment, there is even less need for such protests now. Instead, Mr Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, as usual, are playing on the fears of people and behaving in a way that is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. Mr Farage's interventions in the riots last year only added to the campaign of disinformation underway, and most recently was made to apologise for claiming that the Essex police had 'bussed in' counter-demonstrators in Epping. The Conservatives, mesmerised by the rise of Reform UK, are in a constant losing battle to out-Farage Farage, and they should know better than to propagate myths about asylum seekers living in 'offensively luxurious' conditions, which was today's unhelpful sideswipe from former Tory MP Damian Green. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp and the shadow communities secretary James Cleverly should bear their share of the blame for the mess the asylum system is in, and offer some constructive alternatives and call for calm. They will not recover as a serious alternative party of government until they too come up with a plan for the asylum system. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, often talks of such a thing, but it is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, her undeclared rival, Robert Jenrick, appears to be constantly dialling up tensions. The position is serious. Were the Bell Hotel the only place to be affected by the ruling, then it would not be such a challenge to relocate its 140 residents by the date set by the court of 12 September. However, the judgment also sets a clear precedent, albeit largely based in planning law, for the end of the use of hotels to provide emergency housing. It does so with near-immediate effect. That means some 32,000 individuals will need to be rehoused, at absurdly short notice. Already, local authorities controlled by Reform UK and the Conservatives are expected to bring their own cases, which, as the Home Office lawyers warned the High Court, will make the dilemma of finding shelter for them even more acute. In practice, too, it will encourage many more local protests and increase the pressure on police forces to maintain order. One other immediate effect will be to increase the pressure in areas where Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green councils may still try to stick to a 'refugees welcome' policy. This only creates a sense of unfairness that the task of finding shelter for the immigrants is not being properly shared across the country. And, in any case, all, including the refugees and other migrants affected, agree that using hotels is a far from ideal solution in any case. Contrary to some of the anti-refugee propaganda, these hotels, whatever their nominal star ratings, are unsuitable for long-term residence, and are not the lap of luxury. Concierge is not available. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, they are given shelter and a minimal allowance to stave off destitution, some medical attention and, courtesy of some councils, access to some recreational activities. They are not cosseted in the way some seem to imagine. There is talk of the migrants being placed in flats, which would be relatively expensive, student accommodation, and houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). These create their own problems, particularly because the tendency will be for the irregular immigrants to be moved in disproportionate numbers to parts of the country where rentals are relatively low. The effect there will be to push rents up for the locals, and create more friction in host communities. It may also prompt more action by some local councils to frustrate the strategy, such as using their powers to block the conversion of houses across large areas into HMOs under Article 4 of the town and country planning acts. Even where HMO accommodation is found for families or smaller groups of asylum seekers, they will be more vulnerable to any aggressive demonstrations organised by neighbours alarmed by extremist misinformation about them. Such incidents will be much harder for the police to control. It may be that some form of emergency legislation will be required to delay the implementation of such High Court orders, although that in itself may not be constitutional. The only course then open to government is to redouble its efforts to process the backlog bequeathed to them by the previous administration, speeding up the grant of leave to remain for genuine refugees, or issuing deportation orders in expedited fashion for rejected claimants. It will take too long to build vast detention centres, while the old army barracks that have been commandeered in the past have been found to be completely unsuitable. The High Court has listened to the representatives of the people of Epping Forest and made its decision, and it is right that the judges should do so. Citizens have a right to have their cases heard impartially and have their grievances aired. The courts will no doubt soon be issuing many similar orders. Yet there are other people with a stake in these cases. Perhaps the most lamentable aspect of this latest episode in the migration crisis is that the voices of the immigrants themselves have been so rarely heard, and their plight disregarded. They have their human rights, too, enforceable by law – though many would cheerfully seek to deny them that. Indeed, the tendency in the media has been to demonise these fellow human beings as malevolent monsters determined to wreak crime and havoc in whatever neighbourhood they find themselves bussed to. Whether refugee or economic migrant, they are entitled to be treated properly in a civilised society, and not portrayed, as cynical politicians pretend, as an 'invasion' of 'fighting-age' men. They are not an alien army, but individuals who want a better life. Many would have preferred to stay put, were it not for war, persecution, famine and poverty. In a land such as Britain, with severe labour shortages, they have much to contribute, as have previous waves of immigrants. They could help to fix the 'Broken Britain' we hear so much about, and do the jobs that need doing. Yet they are all too often regarded as terrorists, rapists and murderers. The police at the hotel demos fare hardly any better, berated as 'paedo-defenders' and verbally and physically abused for doing their duty and preserving the King's Peace. The wider challenge for ministers now is to persuade the public that they are doing all they can to restore order to the asylum system – and to rebuild confidence in it. That task just got a lot more urgent.
STV News
35 minutes ago
- STV News
Scotland lacking emergency response to drug deaths crisis, expert says
Scotland is lacking an emergency response to the country's drug deaths crisis, despite the Scottish Government describing it as an emergency, an expert said. Kirsten Horsburgh, chief executive of the Scottish Drugs Forum (SDF), said public policy was heading in the right direction. But she warned that 'intent without action' was the 'major problem' facing the country. Speaking during an event at the Festival of Politics at Holyrood chaired by SNP MSP Audrey Nicoll, Ms Horsburgh said drug legalisation should be 'on the table' as part of the solutions to the crisis. And she said safer drug consumption rooms, such as the one in Glasgow, should be rolled out 'at scale'. Ms Horsburgh told an audience at the Scottish Parliament: 'There are things we are doing well in Scotland and there are obviously things we are not doing well. 'The things we are doing well is finally reaching a point where we have the right policy direction. 'But policy intent without action, the implementation gap and pace are the major issues here.' She added: 'All these things require urgency. 'We've described the issue in Scotland as a public health emergency but what we've done so far is far from a public health emergency response – it's lacking in pace and attention that the issue really needs.' Ms Horsburgh said pilots such as the safer drug consumption room in Glasgow, the first of its kind in the UK, should be done 'at scale'. The SDF chief executive said policies such as drug legalisation should also be 'on the table', but admitted it was something unlikely to be looked at by the UK Government, which controls drug laws. Catriona Matheson, professor of substance use at the University of Stirling, also appeared on the panel. She said poly-drug use, the use of more than one drug by a person, was now common in Scotland. Prof Matheson said the Government had to adapt and respond quickly to a drug market that 'changes all the time'. The academic stressed the importance of 'psycho-social' support for people with addiction that could help get to the root of the issue, which the panel said included issues such as trauma, poverty and mental wellbeing. But she warned that 'previous negative experiences' from people seeking rehabilitation services acted as a 'barrier' in the support offered to those in need. 'That's something that needs to be overcome,' Prof Matheson said, 'and it's not easy to fix.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
