Kent marching band appeals to King to save them from eviction
"It is appalling they want to sell the premises, considering that we have been part of this community for many years," Mr Faulkner added.The 59-year-old said the land at Queenborough Road had been gifted by Lord Harris in 1974 and the property built with the support of community funds.Mr Faulkner, who has been a member of St John Ambulance for 48 years, said the charity had now given them until 23 September to move out - an extension from the previous notice of 31 August.He said the band had also submitted an application to Swale Borough Council proposing to buy the building as a community asset. "We are so grateful for the community's support in our fight to save the premises," Mr Faulkner added.
'Simply not realistic'
Kevin McKenna, Labour MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, wrote a letter to the chief executive of St John Ambulance asking them to pause the sale process and launch a public consultation. He wrote: "This decision seems to reflect a growing and troubling pattern. "Essential services are increasingly being centralised, often to the detriment of communities that are both geographically isolated and economically disadvantaged such as Sheppey."Mr McKenna added travelling off the island was "simply not realistic", especially for older members and those with disabilities.St John Ambulance has offered a new property to the band 25 miles (40km) away in Rochester.A spokesperson for the charity said: "We are engaging with local volunteers and band members to secure a suitable spot-hire meeting place from several promising leads in Sheppey while we seek more permanent premises in the region." They added this approach helped ensure "effective management of our resources".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Nearly half of Brits support ending immigration and deporting large numbers of recent arrivals to the UK
Nearly half of voters support ending immigration and deporting large numbers of people who have arrived in the UK in recent years, a new poll has shown. The YouGov survey found that 45 per cent of Brits backed a scenario where no new migrants were admitted and large numbers of recent arrivals were required to leave. Such a scenario was supported by 86 per cent of Reform UK voters, while it was also backed by sizeable minorities of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters (27 per cent). But the YouGov research also suggested there was a common misconception about immigration among the British public. Almost half of respondents (47 per cent) thought there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally rather than legally. This view was held by nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) of those who wanted to see mass removals of migrants. Unofficial estimates of the population of illegal migrants living in the UK range from 600,000 to 1.2million. This is much less than the number of migrants living legally in Britain, with the 2021/22 census finding the foreign-born population of the UK was around 10.7million. But the YouGov research also suggested there was a common misconception about immigration among the British public According to the Office for National Statistics, there were 948,000 immigrants to the UK in 2024. This included EU and non-EU nationals, as well as British nationals. Meanwhile, Home Office figures showed there were 43,630 detected irregular arrivals in 2024, of which 84 per cent arrived on small boats. Matthew Smith, YouGov's head of data journalism, said: 'If the British public dramatically overestimate the number of illegal migrants to the UK - to the extent that they think that most migrants are here illegally - then the possibility arises that, in reality, those who support removals don't want to see the bulk of migrants removed.' The YouGov survey found that those who want to see mass deportations almost universally wanted to see removals of those who come to the UK to claim benefits (91 per cent), small boat migrants (90 per cent), and those coming without work visas to work in unskilled jobs (85 per cent). These numbers fell dramatically when it came to other groups of migrants. Less than two-fifths (39 per cent) of those who supported mass deportations said they wanted to see large-scale removals of asylum seekers who came to the UK via the correct legal process. Only a quarter (26 per cent) wanted to see the removal of workers with work visas coming to work in industries with skills shortages. And only one-fifth (19-20 per cent) wanted to see migrants coming on work visas to work as doctors or nurses to be asked to leave. The YouGov research was based on a survey of 8,055 adults in Britain between 20 May and 16 June, as well as a survey of 2,008 adults in Britain between 22 to 23 May.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
If you come to Britain and can't support yourself, you must leave
For the 25 years up to 1997, according to the Centre for Policy Studies, net migration was 68,000. In the 25 years that followed, however, that figure shot up to nearly 6 million. Our immigration system is out of control. It isn't just about the number of people who've come here, unsustainable though that is. Our migration system has also been highly un-selective. The vast majority of those who've arrived in the last few years haven't come to work, and didn't need to be earning a particular salary – or often anything at all – to get their visa. Even those who did come here to work are often employed in low-paid jobs, and won't be paying enough in tax to account for the pressure that they put on public services, or the costs that they'll incur later in life. According to the researcher Karl Williams, 72 per cent of those who came as 'skilled workers' in 2022-23 earned below the UK average salary, with 54 percent likely earning less than half of that average. But after just five years here, most of these people will qualify for Indefinite Leave to Remain, or ILR. With ILR, migrants can access welfare, social housing, and free healthcare, as well as stay permanently in the UK and apply for citizenship. On average, the Government spends £34,000 looking after somebody in the last year of their life. Only a small minority of recent migrants will pay enough in tax to cover those costs over the entire time that they're here – let alone to cover the cost of the benefits and services that they and their family will use over their lifetimes. It's going to cost us hundreds of billions of pounds. We simply can't afford it. But it can be fixed. Earlier this year, the Conservatives proposed a plan to reform our immigration system, including by introducing a hard cap on visas and stopping ILR from entitling people to state support. We also proposed extending the qualifying period from five years to ten. This wouldn't just mean that it takes longer for migrants to be eligible for ILR status. It would also give us an opportunity to review the visas of those who are already here. Those who come to Britain from abroad must be able to support themselves, and must be earning enough to contribute more in tax than they will cost over their lifetime. If they can't, their visa must not be renewed, and they must leave. The Government voted against that plan, but they've committed to a consultation on ILR in the autumn. We must use that opportunity to push them not just to extend the qualifying period for ILR, including for those who are already here, but also to refuse to reissue visas to those who won't end up contributing enough. The era of mass migration has been a disaster. People can see it in their rising rents, in the pressure on their public services, and in their increasingly divided communities. Most disgracefully of all, the British people have voted to avert that disaster, time and time again. Government after government has failed to heed their warning. It's a complete scandal, and it's probably the single biggest reason why trust in our political system is in such short supply. Rebuilding that trust means building a migration system that's limited and selective – but it also means undoing the harm that has already been done. We can still avert the coming disaster around ILR, and we must.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump attacks ‘seriously woke' Jaguar Land Rover as company names new CEO
Donald Trump has attacked Jaguar Land Rover's divisive rebranding strategy, hours after Britain's largest carmaker announced its new boss. Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that the auto company, owned by India's Tata Motors, was 'in absolute turmoil' and claimed that the 'CEO resigned in disgrace'. His post on Monday evening also described JLR's recent much-criticised advert – which showed a diverse group of models in brightly coloured clothing set against a vibrant backdrop and was designed to launch the company's rebrand – as a 'stupid, and seriously WOKE advertisement'. 'Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad?' Trump asked. The post came shortly after JLR announced that PB Balaji would become its new chief executive, and would take the reins in November. The group finance chief of JLR's parent company, Tata Motors, since 2017 will become the carmaker's first Indian CEO. He will replace Adrian Mardell, who is retiring after three years as JLR's chief executive and following 35 years working for the company. Balaji said in a statement it was his 'privilege' to lead JLR, adding: 'I look forward to working with the team to take it to even greater heights.' Mardell said he believed he had 'cemented JLR's position in the automotive industry during a time of incredible change', and wished Balaji success in his new role. In recent months, JLR has been hit by the impact of Trump's tariffs, and reported a 15.1% drop in sales in the three months to June, after a temporary pause in exports to the US. It has also opened a voluntary redundancy scheme for up to 500 managers in an effort to save costs. Sales are expected to improve after the introduction of a UK-US trade deal, which will implement lower 10% tariffs on the first 100,000 exports. The company has reported a profit for the past 10 consecutive quarters after a turnaround effort. However, the Guardian revealed in July that JLR was delaying the planned launches of its new electric Range Rover and electric Jaguar models to give it time for more testing and to allow demand to pick up. The electric Range Rover, which will be made in JLR's main factory in Solihull, in the West Midlands, will not be delivered until 2026, instead of late this year, as previously planned Jaguar models are also expected to be pushed back by several months. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion JLR has been slower than some of its rivals to embrace electric vehicles, but has recently made investments in building hybrid cars as well as preparing for electric vehicle production. During Mardell's tenure, JLR released a controversial 30-second social media clip with the tagline 'copy nothing', before the unveiling last November of a new electric concept car. JLR's rebrand and advertising campaign, which did not feature a vehicle, immediately drew more than 160m views on social media, but also brought an online backlash late last year, including from Republicans and rightwing commentators in the US. The owner of X and boss of Tesla, Elon Musk, posted on the platform: 'Do you sell cars?' It prompted the carmaker's managing director to say he was disappointed by the 'vile hatred and intolerance' in the comments directed at the models in the video. JLR was approached for comment.
