Plan to tackle bins 'blighting' Tewkesbury to be explored
The civic society petition urged the council to only provide wheelie bins to those with access to appropriate storage within the town's conservation area. It suggested using blue bags or community storage for those who do not have space for a bin and asked the authority to consider fining those who leave their bins out on the streets, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service."Tewkesbury's unique conservation area is being severely degraded by domestic and increasingly by commercial bins," Mr Purkiss said at the meeting on Tuesday."People do and will flee such an environment. Rights of way of prams and wheelchairs are often compromised."
Independent councillor Mike Sztymiak said: "Bins are a nuisance."We spent a million pounds plus on the centre of town and then we go and spoil it by putting bins in front of all these shop windows. It does detract from the area."Councillors agreed for the issue to be looked at by the overview and scrutiny committee over the next four months, with any proposals to be brought back for approval by full council.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fears raised over future of Angelina Jolie and William Hague's anti-sexual violence programme after Starmer's aid cuts
Fears have been raised about the future of an initiative launched by and William Hague to tackle sexual violence in warzones which has been plunged into chaos in the wake of Sir Keir Starmer 's aid cuts. A funding settlement for Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative (PSVI) was due to run out on Thursday, with critics of the prime minister's decision to reduce international aid calling for him to urgently agree a new budget for the programme. An annual review of PSVI in October called for it be extended as it 'retains a strong strategic fit with current government priorities '. But Sir Keir's cuts, which he used to fund a boost in the defence budget, came just four months later. Government officials insisted the programme will be funded until the end of 2026, with millions of pounds set aside for the next financial year. But the money appears to have come from stretching its initial settlement over a longer timeframe, with experts warning the programme faces months of uncertainty until a new multi-year deal is announced. October's review said the programme had 'demonstrated impressive results', giving survivors of sexual violence access to medical, psychological and financial support to rebuild their lives. It also highlighted a need for PSVI to lean into current crises, including ongoing conflicts in Sudan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Sources in the foreign aid sector expressed hope the government will agree a new budget for the scheme when the funding picture becomes clear after Rachel Reeves' autumn Budget. But they warned that it faces a period of chaos and uncertainty because of Sir Keir's foreign aid cuts, leaving huge uncertainty about what will come next and even fears it could be axed. It is believed the programme faces at least six months of limbo at a time when it is more important than ever to invest. Tory former foreign minister Andrew Mitchell said British leadership in 'truly awful places' was being put at risk by the cuts. The MP said: 'After all the great British leadership - in truly awful places - where women are abused and their lives blighted by the use of rape and violence as weapons of war, it surely cannot be that a Labour government is going to turn its back on preventing sexual violence in conflict and the great programmes the last Conservative government set up and supported.' PSVI was founded in 2012 by former foreign secretary Lord Hague with the support of Hollywood actress and former UN special envoy Ms Jolie. It came after an End Sexual Violence in Conflict global summit in London, at which Ms Jolie promised to help ensure governments are held to account over ending sexual violence in warzones. At the time, Ms Jolie said: 'We are here for the nine-year-old girl in Uganda, kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery. "We are here for the man in Bosnia, years after rape, still stigmatised, unable to earn enough money to buy bread for his family. "We are here for all the forgotten, hidden survivors who have been made to feel ashamed or been abandoned. "And for the children of rape - we want the whole world to hear their stories and understand that this injustice cannot be tolerated, and that sorrow and compassion are not enough." As well as October's review lauding the initiative, the government's recently appointed special representative on PSVI said the scheme has helped Britain secure its place as 'a global leader in addressing conflict-related sexual violence'. Its funding has helped more than 55,000 survivors access legal aid and other justice services in the past three years as well as providing more than 3,000 survivors with medical, psychosocial and financial support to rebuild their lives. But Sir Keir's aid cuts have put the PSVI at risk as its funding ends on Thursday, and the prime minister is facing calls to restore the scheme. Dr Paul Kirby, an academic specialising in gender and armed conflict, said: 'The global coalition against sexual violence in conflict is already reeling from the destruction of USAID. 'The UK government has compounded the crisis by neglecting PSVI during its first year in power, and then with unprecedented aid cuts, from which there will be no relief this parliament. Reducing protections for people around the world in the name of homeland defence is a false economy and a waste of progress made in the last decade.' The government said it is providing £3.85m to fund the programme for the next year after allocating up to £12.5m for the previous three years. An annual review of PSVI will be published later this year, officials said. It comes after the Foreign Office last week accepted that its cuts to foreign aid will likely see global deaths rise, with the spending reduction having the biggest impact on women and girls' education and on projects across Africa. Sir Keir in February took an axe to the foreign aid budget as he bowed to pressure from Donald Trump to boost Britain's spending on defence. The prime minister told MPs he would fund the rise in defence spending by cutting funding for overseas aid from 0.5 per cent of national income to 0.3 per cent by 2027. The move, which Sir Keir told MPs he was not 'happy' with, will allow him to meet the target of spending 2.5 per cent of Britain's GDP on defence also by 2027.
Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Epstein scandal won't break Trump. It might bring down the Democrats
These facts mean this issue fails to pass the test I use to judge whether a political issue is truly damaging. For something to really cut through, it must meet four conditions. It has to tell voters something new that confirms their worst instincts about a politician. It has to have high salience: so top of mind that it is impossible to ignore. It has to have a personal, emotional resonance. And it has to break away the most loyal of a politician's voters. Let us apply the tests to another scandal on the other side of the pond: Partygate in the UK. Boris Johnson was widely seen as chaotic and unserious, but not cruel. Then Partygate happened. Revelations of Downing Street parties while the country was locked down during the Covid pandemic confirmed voters' worst suspicions: that the Tories simply did not care. Test one achieved. Test two: it was completely inescapable, with blanket coverage for months. Members of Parliament broke ranks and turned on the prime minister. With people enjoying freedom from lockdown, and with the worst of inflation yet to bite, it dominated the agenda. Test three: it was personal. People couldn't visit dying loved ones; in No 10 they were cracking open the wine. Test four: it turned lifelong conservatives, those who had stuck with the Tories through thick and thin, against the party. Compare that to the Epstein situation. Does it tell us something new about Trump? No: we have known for decades that he was once associated with Epstein. If 'grab 'em by the p----' did not kill Trump in 2016, this is not going to. It is not high salience. It does not touch everyday voters' lives. And the key voters that underpin Trump's support are still firmly in his camp. The issue fails all four tests. There is a deeper danger for Democrats. Focusing on Epstein doesn't only fail to wound Trump, it also risks self-harm. With Bill Clinton's links to Epstein well-documented, it invites scrutiny of Democrats' own skeletons. Any serious campaign on the issue would provoke a 'whataboutism' war the Left will not win. More importantly, though, it is a distraction from the issues that do cut through. Democrats won the 2018 midterms by pounding healthcare and exposing Republican threats to protections for pre-existing conditions. They made a dry policy issue salient, emotional, and personal. In 2026, the Democrats face a similar opportunity. The Republicans' Big Beautiful Bill includes Medicaid cuts. If Democrats want to win, they need to make that the battleground. Time, money, and attention are finite. Every minute Democrats spend talking about Epstein is a minute they're not talking about Medicaid, inflation, or abortion. Every minute of ad time on Epstein is a minute not talking about healthcare. And it is a minute they lose with voters who just want someone to talk about their lives, not re-litigate a sex trafficking scandal whose political potency peaked in 2020. The Epstein scandal won't take down Trump. If Democrats aren't careful, it might just take down their own midterms campaign instead.
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: When I lost my job, I took anything going. My generation learnt that if you wanted anything out of life you had to earn it. Today's graduates must do the same
Norman Tebbit, the best Prime Minister we never had, was laid to rest today. Requiem for the Conservative Party, somebody called it. He certainly embodied a lost England, where hard work and self-sufficiency were valued and reliance on the State was a source of shame, not a lifestyle choice.
