People of Spalding not being ignored by Trading Standards
Regarding Lynne Harrison's story 'Dip in raids on shops selling illegal goods'.
Lincolnshire County Council takes very seriously its responsibilities to control the sale of illegal and counterfeit goods. Its Trading Standards activities include the inspection of high risk premises, the seizure of fake and counterfeit goods, the prosecution of offenders, consumer safety advice in relation to fake alcohol, illegal and even e-cigarettes and dealing with scams.
Working with partners, Trading Standards played a significant role in Scam Awareness Month in June and as recently as last month there was a successful prosecution in relation to a large quantity of fake Nike and Adidas clothing seized at Ingoldmells Market.
Specifically in relation to illicit tobacco sales, in the current calendar year, one case has been prosecuted, seven are in the system and four are being worked into the enforcement stage.
There was also a productive raid on a Fag House in Lincoln last week, so the apparently small number of inspection visits which you have highlighted should not be taken as evidence of inactivity on the part of Trading Standards.
Increasingly stock held at shop premises is only the tip of the iceberg and resources are being deployed to tackle the organised crime which often hides behind the shop fronts.
It would be self-defeating to give further details of planned operations but the people of Spalding can rest assured that they are not being ignored.
Barry Young
Executive Councillor
Seeing a real person has worked for years
So the latest bank to close is Lloyds in Holbeach that will join the seemingly never ending list of other banks up and down the country in the relentless march to get everybody to change over to internet banking.
Nice concept - if it works.
Bearing in mind (and still ongoing as I write) the mess that TSB got themselves into when they ‘upgraded’ their system a few months ago, it can be fraught putting it mildly with one quoted figure in the media of costing them upwards of £170million plus.
The faceless people behind these decisions, no doubt on mega bonuses and who will be bunged a knighthood as part of the culture nowadays, more than likely don’t rely on small country banks for their considered normal everyday and traditional needs as in coin or notes of the realm which a home-based computer, tablet or mobile phone cannot dispense plus can’t accept cheques or other forms of payment either.
Then again with the rubbish/pitiful at times broadband 'service' we have - our personal experiences in recent years is the stuff of ‘Carry On’ films but sadly not laughable in our instances - as if we have a thunderstorm or similar occur we lose our connection and likewise recently with 'Heatwave Hattie' we loose it again although we can’t blame BT too much (wanna bet?) as they seem more interested in buying up sports events for their sport channel, so we have to make allowances but in essence we seem to have a ‘hot and cold’ connection and it ain’t the plumbing responsible.
We won’t mention the on-line fraud and/or hacking - nothing to do with jackets of the same name - with the current wonder of the age being shoved down our throats that is internet banking as so far its not as safe as we are led to believe, although going through a door and seeing a real person has worked for years with not many hiccups but as most banks seem to be heading this way, perhaps a market for making metal strongboxes to fit under the bed might be the next step and perhaps something to sleep on.
John Ward
Moulton Seas End
Some truth in the old epithet
Mrs May's outline negotiating position for Leaving the EU, the Chequers Plan, has been codemned by the Brexiteer Ultras, some Remainers and by the EU negotiators as unworkable.
One common objection has been the Custom Facilitation Agreement. Mrs May is trying to honour the spirit of Brexit, whatever that means, while maintaining a trading and co-operative relationship with our European cousins, Britain's largest trading partner.
Britain already collects tariffs due on imports entering the EU through British sea and air ports, retaining a fee for collection and remits the balance to the EU Commission. Room for compromise.
Since the Referendum vote, Trade Minister Liam Fox has with his officials and presumably with May's approval, agreed with their Brussels counterparts to pilot a process for tracking imports to the final destination of the small tariff-free quotas of imported agricultural products.
One legacy from Britain's maritime heritage was the infrastructure and the marketing expertise for transit trade in imported agricultural produce into northen Europe. These exemptions, largely at Britain's insistence, are still available in Britain's shops. The three-year pilot scheme is to find out where they are sold and charged the appropriate tariff. Scope for compromise.
So why are the EU negotiators so opposed? They are not hostile, they are being polite.
Trade is built on trust.
It is not possible for customs officers to open and check the contents of each individual package of imported goods. The common basis for assessing tariff liabilities is weight and factory gate prices in the country of origin.
In 2017 the EU Commission published a report it had commissioned on the effectiveness and efficiency of the tariff/tax collecting authorities of the member states. In Britain's case the report concluded that Britain's HMRC massively undervalued goods imported from the USA and Far East by excessively failing to conduct sufficient thorough customs checks
An EU Anti-Fraud Office report in 2016 suggested that deficiencies in HMRC cost the EU some €2billion of lost revenue between 2013 and 2016.
In 2008 the EU Fraud Office advised the HMRC, and submitted evidence of, a major fraud. HMRC challenged the veracity of this evidence. The fraud continued. Now the EU Anti-Fraud Office has launched a legal challenge claiming compensation of €2.7billion.
In my youth the epithet associated with my country by our European cousins was too often 'Perfidious Albion'.The older I get the more more I can recognise there is some truth, greatly exaggerated, in that epithet.
Paul M Walls
via email
Views on Brexit are changing rapidly
Back in June 2016, Lincolnshire was "the Leave Capital of the UK", recording the highest and second-highest proportional Leave votes across the UK in Boston & Skegness and South Holland & The Deepings. So, imagine what sort of feedback members of the European Movement, manning a 'street stall' in Stamford last month and seeking to capture feedback from passers-by on the topic of "What do you think about Brexit two years on?", received in response to the following statements:
1- Brexit is going well?
2- Brexit will be good for jobs?
3- Brexit will be good for the NHS?
4- We need a People's Vote on the final deal?
Surely, in Lincolnshire, you'd expect passers-by to say "Yes" to the first three of these four questions and "No" to the fourth.
In practice, passers-by were given stickers to place on a large piece of paper to indicate their opinions under the following three headings: "Yes", "Don't Know" and "No".
So, how did they actually respond?
1- Brexit is going well: Yes, 2.9%; Don't Know, 8.6%; No, 88.6%;
2- Brexit will be good for jobs: Yes, 15.4%; Don't Know, 9.2%; No, 75.4%;
3- Brexit will be good for the NHS: Yes, 10.4%; Don't Know, 14.9%; No, 74.6%.
4- We need a People's Vote on the final deal: Yes, 75.6%; Don't Know, 2.6%; No, 21.8%.
These results suggest people in Lincolnshire are beginning now to recognise that, when leading Brexiteers, like John Hayes MP, told them in 2016 that voting Leave would lead them to "the sunlit uplands of prosperity", "the exact same benefits", "the easiest trade deal in human history", "they need us more than we need them", "we can have our cake and eat it", "£350million a week" extra for the NHS, etc, these claims were merely unfounded assertions.
However, we need to pay attention, as the futures of ourselves, our children, our friends, our workplaces and our country as a whole are all at stake. And, sadly, our party-politically-obsessed politicians in Westminster (albeit with a few, praiseworthy exceptions) are demonstrably not helping.
Personally, I'm fed up with hearing Brexiteers locally telling me: "Everyone knew what they were voting for in 2016" (i.e. leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market, relying on WTO rules, and being worse off for some indeterminate period in future, currently estimated by Jacob Rees-Mogg, interviewed recently on Channel 4, as up to "50 years"). Let's remember, though, in contrast, that back in 2016, Vote Leave was telling us we'd all be better off, in every respect, if we voted to leave the EU.
So, on the day that the Daily Telegraph (owned by the Barclay Brothers, who happen to own the Ritz and live in their tax haven of Brecqhou in the Channel Islands – no, I couldn't make this up) confirmed that our Government will be building "stockpiles of food, medicine and blood" and is also promising to deliver "adequate food supplies", I have a new challenge for Brexiteers locally. Specifically, I'd like to hear from the first Brexiteer locally willing to state, in public, that "When I voted Leave in 2016, I knew that we'd need to stockpile food, medicine and blood in advance of Brexit."
Hopefully, this supremely confident local Brexiteer will also be brave enough to state, in public, that, "When I voted Leave in 2016, I always knew that Jacob Rees-Mogg's investment firm, Somerset Capital Management, would need to establish a second office in Dublin (within the EU27) in order to sustain its profits after Brexit."
Meanwhile, if readers come across anyone seeking to convince them that trading exclusively under WTO rules can conceivably be good for the UK, simply ask them, "How many sovereign nations currently trade exclusively under WTO rules?" . . . and, then, watch as they squirm.
Incidentally, the correct answer is: only Mauritania... but even Mauritania benefits from a special arrangement with the EU for some of its products, as it's classified as a 'developing country' – an arrangement from which the UK cannot conceivably benefit after March 29, 2019.
So, my question to readers is this: do you really wish to watch your country being destroyed, before your own eyes, by people who don't even begin to understand the implications of trading under WTO rules? I sincerely hope not.
Alan Meekings
via email