Wealden projects receive share of more than £42,000 in funding
Twelve projects in Wealden have been given a share of more than £42,000.
The funding was allocated by Wealden District Council's Infrastructure and Community Spaces Grants programme.
The programme, which is part of the Government's Rural England Prosperity Fund, aims to improve local infrastructure, community spaces, and create more accessible, sustainable environments.
In the second round of the programme, £42,878.86 was allocated to support various projects.
These include the addition of picnic benches and parasols at East Dean and Friston Cricket Club, the installation of a stair-climber for improved accessibility by Horam Parish Council, and enhancements to pathways with non-slip surfaces at Uckfield Millennium Green.
The Nutley Memorial Trust introduced solar battery storage at the War Memorial Hall, while Forest Row Parish Council created an accessible pathway to the playground.
Wadhurst Parish Council improved the woodland area by purchasing benches, a dog waste bin, and bird and bat boxes.
Councillor James Partridge, Alliance for Wealden (Liberal Democrat) lead councillor for Governance, Waste & Local Economy and leader of the council, said: "It's really rewarding to run programmes like this and be able to support local organisations with funding that makes a real difference.
"This investment helps preserve and improve valued areas across our district.
"From sports clubs and community centres to green spaces and nature areas, it's all about ensuring that our residents have access to safe, inclusive, and sustainable places that support both wellbeing and community life."
The Rural England Prosperity Fund is a new £110 million, two-year capital fund from the Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs.
It has enabled councils to support projects in rural areas of the district.
The full list of the organisations awarded funding for 2024/25 can be found on the Wealden District Council website.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A Federal Judge Orders Relief for Alleged Gang Members Deported and Imprisoned Without Due Process
On April 7 in Trump v. J.G.G., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that foreign nationals who allegedly are subject to immediate deportation as "alien enemies" have a due process right to contest that designation. But where does that leave deportees who were denied that opportunity before they were peremptorily shipped off to prison in El Salvador last March? A preliminary injunction that a federal judge granted on Wednesday supplies an answer: The Trump administration "must facilitate [their] ability" to file habeas corpus petitions and "ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process." James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, does not get more specific than that. Cognizant of the "sensitive diplomatic or national-security concerns" raised by interactions between the U.S. government and the Salvadoran officials who are imprisoning deportees at its behest, he invites the Trump administration to "propose" how it will comply with his order. But his decision underlines the importance of due process, the constitutional requirement that President Donald Trump sought to evade by invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The named plaintiffs in this case, who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "vehemently deny" any affiliation with Tren de Aragua and "claim that they were never able to challenge the accusation before being removed," Boasberg notes. They were "already being transported to the airport and loaded onto planes" bound for El Salvador before Trump published the March 15 proclamation that supposedly justified their removal based on a rarely used, 227-year-old statute that previously had been invoked only during declared wars. They "were not told" where they were going or why. It turned out they were being transferred to El Salvador's notorious Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) under an agreement with that country's government. "These men allege that they were not informed that they had been designated alien enemies or that they could challenge that designation," Boasberg writes. "Since their removal, they have been held incommunicado at CECOT." Boasberg likens this situation to the one that confronts Josef K., the protagonist of Franz Kafka's novel The Trial, who "awakens to encounter two strange men outside his room." After he "realizes that he is under arrest," he "asks the strangers why" but "receives no answer." He is told that "proceedings are under way and you'll learn everything in due course." He again asks why he is being arrested. "Now there you go again," a guard replies. "We don't answer such questions." He assures Josef K. that "there's been no mistake" because "our department" is only "attracted by guilt." Under the Fifth Amendment, Boasberg notes, the government's assertion that it infallibly identifies the guilty "does not suffice." As the Supreme Court confirmed in Trump v. J.G.G., which addressed a temporary restraining order (TRO) that Boasberg issued during an earlier round of the ACLU's litigation, "'it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law' in the context of removal proceedings," meaning "the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard 'appropriate to the nature of the case.'" Specifically, the justices said, "AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs." The Court nevertheless vacated Boasberg's TRO, ruling that AEA detainees must file habeas corpus petitions in the jurisdiction where they are held rather than challenge their deportation under the Administrative Procedure Act in the District of Columbia. But Boasberg concludes that his intervention is necessary to vindicate that right for deportees who were denied due process. "We are skeptical of the self-defeating notion that the right to the notice necessary to 'actually seek habeas relief'…must itself be vindicated through individual habeas petitions, somehow by plaintiffs who have not received notice," the Supreme Court said last month in AARP v. Trump. That comment, Boasberg argues, supports his preliminary injunction. "Absent this relief," he warns, "the Government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action." The ACLU says more than 130 people deported before the Supreme Court's order "remain imprisoned at CECOT." Boasberg's injunction applies to a class consisting of "all noncitizens removed from U.S. custody and transferred" to CECOT on March 15 and 16 "pursuant solely to" Trump's proclamation. It therefore excludes people who were deported under separate legal authority. But it includes people who were subsequently transferred to a different facility. Otherwise, Boasberg says, "they would be arbitrarily excluded from that class—even though their underlying injury meriting injunctive relief would remain unchanged." After the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. J.G.G., Boasberg notes, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official described "the current parameters of the process the Government believes adequate." It involves "an English-only form that makes no mention of the right to file a habeas petition," coupled with "oral interpretation or assistance" for detainees who do not speak English or cannot read. A detainee then has 12 hours to "express" his "intent to file a habeas petition." If he hits that deadline, he has another 24 hours to file the petition. The Supreme Court subsequently cast doubt on the Trump administration's understanding of due process. AEA detainees "must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief," the justices said in AARP v. Trump. "Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster." Lower courts addressing this question "have uniformly agreed," Boasberg notes. "The amount of time they have deemed constitutionally sufficient to enable detainees to file habeas petitions after receiving notice has ranged from 10 to 21 days—but never as few as 36 hours or even close. Courts have also held that the notice to detainees must be provided in a language they understand [and] must offer enough information for detainees to pursue their right to seek judicial review. At least one court has held that the notice must inform individuals of the 'particular allegations' establishing the Government's case for alien-enemy designation." The plaintiffs in this case "got none of that," Boasberg observes. They did not even benefit from the farcical version of due process that the government now claims is adequate. Several federal judges have rejected Trump's dubious interpretation of the AEA, saying it makes no sense to describe alleged Tren de Aragua members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that has launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." Boasberg does not address that issue. Nor does he reach any conclusions regarding the plaintiffs' status under the AEA. "Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act," Boasberg writes. "Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But—and this is the critical point—there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so. Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made. And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations." A government "confident of the legal or evidentiary basis for its actions has nothing to fear" from respecting due process, Boasberg writes. "It is, after all, 'central to our system of ordered liberty.'" Trump has condemned Boasberg as a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!" But it is Trump, who treats the right to due process as an inconvenience that can be overridden by presidential fiat, who is proposing a radical change to our legal system. The post A Federal Judge Orders Relief for Alleged Gang Members Deported and Imprisoned Without Due Process appeared first on
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Trump and Elon Musk trade insults and accusations as public feud reaches new heights
Trump says he's disappointed by Musk criticism of budget bill, Musk says he got Trump elected Washington — The relationship between President Trump and Elon Musk broke down in dramatic and public fashion on Thursday, with the president threatening to cancel Musk's lucrative government contracts and Musk claiming that Mr. Trump could not have won the presidency without him, a feud that erupted over Musk's opposition to Republicans' tax and budget bill. In the afternoon, Musk dropped what he called "the really big bomb," alleging that Mr. Trump's name appeared in the files related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in federal in 2019 while facing charges of sex trafficking. @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public," Musk wrote on X. "Have a nice day, DJT!" The president did not immediately react to Musk's explosive accusation. Trump officials vowed to release the files related to the Epstein case when the administration took power, but the Justice Department's release of unredacted versions of files that had been public for years was met with criticism by conservatives who have demanded more transparency. The break between the president and the world's richest man originated over Musk's ongoing criticism of Republicans' "big, beautiful bill" on Capitol Hill, which cuts taxes by trillions of dollars and implements Mr. Trump's domestic agenda, including cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in spending. Musk has railed against the legislation as "outrageous" and "a disgusting abomination." The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Wednesday that the bill would lead to an increase of $2.4 trillion in total deficits over the next 10 years, a conclusion that Republicans and Mr. Trump dispute. The president was asked about Musk's criticism for the first time publicly during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office on Thursday. "Elon and I had a great relationship," Mr. Trump told reporters. "I don't know if we will anymore." Mr. Trump said Musk, the CEO of Tesla, was around for the whole process of crafting the bill. The president claimed he "never had a problem" with the legislation until provisions dealing with electric vehicle subsidies were eliminated, threatening Tesla's business. The bill would roll back some of the clean energy tax credits under the Biden-era climate and health care law, phasing out a tax break for clean energy vehicles. "I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot," Mr. Trump told reporters, adding that Musk "worked hard" and did a "good job." President Trump speaks during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 5, 2025. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images "And I'll be honest, I think he misses the place," the president continued. "He's not the first. People leave my administration and they love us. And then, at some point, they miss it so badly. And some of them embrace it and some of them actually become hostile. I don't know what it is. It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it." Appearing to respond to Mr. Trump's comments in real time, Musk wrote on X: "Whatever. Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill." In another post, he denied that he was aware of the details in the bill when it was crafted, writing that "this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk went on. "Such ingratitude." Musk spent roughly $277 million to elect Mr. Trump and Republican lawmakers last year. Mr. Trump volleyed back with attacks on Truth Social, claiming that he asked Musk to leave his administration and upset him with the legislative proposal ending the tax credits for electric vehicles. "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" the president wrote. He also threatened to cancel Musk's federal contracts, citing such a move as a cost-cutting measure. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" Mr. Trump said. Shares of Tesla plummeted following Mr. Trump's threat, dropping by as much as 15% in late trading. The president's comments expressing disappointment wiht Musk were a swift about-face. Less than a week ago, Mr. Trump gifted Musk a key to the White House as an expression of gratitude for his work with the White House's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Musk wrapped up his time in the federal government Friday, as he reached the maximum amount of days he could serve as a special government employee. Mr. Trump said then that Musk was "really not leaving. He's going to be back and forth, I think, I have a feeling." Musk's opposition has raised questions about whether Republicans can remain united around the centerpiece legislation of Mr. Trump's second-term agenda, but GOP leaders in Congress appeared undeterred Wednesday, as the Senate forged ahead on the legislation. Musk and House Speaker Mike Johnson are expected to speak Thursday about the bill's path forward. Mr. Trump's comments about Musk came as Merz and the president met to discuss trade and tariffs, as well as Russia's war in Ukraine and tensions in the Middle East. But the part of the meeting that was open to the press was dominated by the questions about Musk. "It's an honor to have you," Mr. Trump told the German leader, calling him a challenging negotiator but adding that he's a great representative for Germany. It was their first in-person meeting since Merz, leader of Germany's center-right Christian Democratic Union party, won a parliamentary vote to become chancellor last month following an election in February. Merz brought a gift for Mr. Trump to the White House — an original copy of the birth certificate belonging to Mr. Trump's grandfather, Friedrich Trump, in German and in English. Mr. Trump's 50% tariffs on imports from the European Union are set to take effect July 9. The EU, which includes Germany, has said it's preparing "countermeasures" to hit back. The 50% tariffs were set to start June 1, but Mr. Trump delayed the heavy tariffs after speaking with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Twenty-seven nations make up the EU. President Donald Trump, left, speaks as he greets Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci / AP The Trump-Merz meeting also comes hours after the president signed a proclamation Wednesday banning foreign nationals from a dozen countries, including Afghanistan and Haiti. Earlier in the day, Mr. Trump said he spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping about tariffs and trade for roughly 90 minutes Thursday morning. The president told reporters in the Oval Office Thursday that he's accepted Xi's invitation to visit China, and will go there with first lady Melania Trump "at a certain point."
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Portugal Says It May Reach 2% Defense Spending Target in 2025
Portugal will try to reach its defense spending target of 2% of gross domestic product in 2025, four years ahead of its initial goal, Prime Minister Luis Montenegro said. Montenegro said he would announce that plan at the next NATO summit, which is scheduled to take place in the Hague on June 24-25. Montenegro's center-right government, which began a second term on Thursday, will complete the defense spending plan in the coming days, he said.
