Dr David Lowe of the Liverpool John Moores University knows his stuff when it comes to teaching law. His lip smacking style can be mildly irritating, but his laid back easy going approach to explaining what can seem complex legal issues, is a great way to learn about the law. 

Some of our newspaper reporters and editors need to go back to school before they start printing some of the ridiculous articles we have seen recently about Article 50 and the recent High Court case. Leaving the European Union is complex; peoples livelihoods depend on getting it right and the success of the economy decides what can be paid in pensions and benefits.

We must respect the leave vote, but we must also respect the ‘remain’ voters and all those who did not vote and those who live in the UK and are unable to vote.

This video on Article 50 and how our constitution works is very well explained and may encourage you to learn more about the law. 

Today is Armistice, Remembrance or Veterans Day and a public a holiday in Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Poland, United States and Canada, marking the end of World War I (though peace was not formally ratified until January 1920, after the conclusion of the Treaty of Versailles).

Simon Collyer ABC Founder was a core team member for the Via Sacra Walk. A journey along the lines of the World War One Front Lines as they were in 1916. Simon will be appearing on British Forces (Radio) Broadcasting on Tuesday November 15th, talking about the walk and what it meant to him and why he did it.  

We hope to post a clip on this website. A Press Release about the Walk is attatched. 

Image: Vimy Ridge

This means that women are effectively working for free from 10th November to the end of the calendar year, because on average they earn less than men. EPD is calculated using the mean full time gender pay gap, which is currently 13.9%. EPD 2016 falls only one day later than EPD 2015 which means the pay gap is closing. But at the current rate of progress it will take over 60 years to close the gender pay gap. With low pay impacting on the lives of millions of women and with mounting evidence of the impact gender inequality has on our economy, campaigners say we simply can't afford to wait that long. 

Sam Smethers, Fawcett Society Chief Executive said: “A root cause of the gender pay gap is that we don’t value the work done by women. As we mark EPD this year we are focusing on the fundamental question of who and what we value and asking why it is that we don’t value women and the work they do – paid or unpaid. Equal value goes to the heart of the fight for pay equality, because the reality is that if it is a sector dominated by women the pay will be lower.” Sam also warns of the threat to equal pay caused by Brexit: “As we look ahead to a UK outside the EU and possibly the single market, we have to guard against the risk of going backwards and losing some of the rights that women have fought for over many year'.

The Fawcett Society welcomes the Government’s forthcoming introduction of mandatory gender pay gap reporting, which will mean that companies with over 250 staff will be obliged to publish both their mean and median pay gap. However, to ensure this step genuinely tackles the pay gap there should also be a requirement to publish an action plan on how employers will close the gap and there must be penalties for those who do not comply.

NEARLY 40 per cent of Scottish pubs, clubs, restaurants and hotels have a seen a decline in sales in the third quarter of the year, as trade bosses warned that hundreds of outlets face closure next year unless radical change is made to the way business rates are calculated for the industry.

Publishing its latest quarterly business insight survey today, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA) declared that outlets around Scotland continue to face “very difficult trading conditions”.

The survey, based on responses from more than 700 businesses, ranging from city centre bars to rural outlets, found that nearly four-fifths (39 per cent) said turnover was down compared with the third quarter of last year.

Some 13 per cent reported that sales were down by more than 10 per cent, while around one-third (33 per cent) of outlets said their sales position had not changed. That is despite those figures being measured against a period last year during which sales were found to have radically fallen in light of the reduction in the legal drink driving limit.

The legal limit was cut to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood from 80mg per 100ml in December 2014, and was cited by the SLTA in June as it reported that more than half of licensed outlets had seen a decline in beer sales in the first half of this year.

Trade chiefs have also highlighted the pressure on operators from the introduction of the living wage for workers aged 25 and over in April.

Now the industry is warning the forthcoming revaluation of business rates will have a devastating effect on the sector.

Article Reproduced Courtesy of the Scottish Herald. 

The country’s highest court, the Supreme Court, has ruled that the Government discriminated against a disabled woman and her husband and a severely disabled child who needs overnight care through the implementation of the ‘bedroom tax’.

Since 1 April 2013, people in the social rented sector deemed to have one spare bedroom have had their housing benefit reduced by 14% and people deemed to have two, or more, spare bedrooms have had their housing benefit reduced by 25%.

Today’s judgment finds that the Government acted unlawfully against Jacqueline Carmichael (44) and her husband, full time carer, Jayson, after their housing benefit was reduced by 14%, following the implementation of the bedroom tax.

The Supreme Court judges also dismissed the Government’s appeal in the case of Paul and Susan Rutherford who provide around-the-clock care for their disabled grandson and who have a third bedroom for overnight carers.

The Rutherfords had successfully challenged the bedroom tax scheme in the Court of Appeal which held the policy unlawfully discriminates against children with disabilities who need overnight care.

The Carmichaels’ case

Mrs Carmichael from Southport, Merseyside, has spina bifida and needs a special hospital-type bed in her bedroom with an electronic pressure mattress, specially designed to fit a single hospital bed. She has to sleep in a fixed position and cannot share a bed with her husband. There is no space for an additional bed in the room and so they require a two bedroom flat.

In a previous case the Court of Appeal found that the Government had discriminated against the Gorry family, whose disabled children needed separate rooms, in relation to the imposition of the bedroom tax. The Gorry case was referred to in today’s judgment:

“Mrs Carmichael cannot share a bedroom with her husband because of her disabilities. Her position is directly comparable to that of the Gorry children, who could not share a bedroom because of their disabilities. But Mrs Carmichael is caught by Reg B13 because para (5)(ba), which was introduced to meet the Gorry situation is confined to “a child who cannot share a bedroom”.” [Para 44]

“There is no reasonable justification for these differences. The Court of Appeal … was persuaded … that there was an objective reasonable justification for treating Mrs Carmichael less favourably than a child in like circumstances, because the best interests of children are a primary consideration. I can see that there may be some respects in which differential treatment of children and adults regarding the occupation of bedrooms may have a sensible explanation. Expecting children to share a bedroom is not the same as expecting adults to do so. But I cannot, with respect, see a sensible reason for distinguishing between adult partners who cannot share a bedroom because of disability and children who cannot do so because of disability. And the same applies also to distinguishing between adults and children in need of an overnight carer.” [Para 46]

Rosa Curling from the human rights team at Leigh Day said:

“We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has ruled in our client’s favour. They must now be provided with a housing benefit that meets their needs.

“It is very concerning that the Government thought it appropriate to drag this case through the Courts, for nearly 3 years, leaving Jacqui and Jayson scared and confused over their future in their home. With this ruling, they can now start to make future plans again.

My clients would like to thank the Legal Aid Agency for funding this claim through the Courts. Without their support, this case would not have been possible.”

In a joint statement Mr and Mrs Carmichael said:

"We are overjoyed at Supreme Court decision. We have been through almost four years of the sheer hell of the Bedroom Tax policy, and this decision vindicates our long and difficult fight.

"Out of this human rights victory over the bedroom tax we ask Theresa May to now reconsider the whole policy for everyone.

"We would like to thank everyone who has supported us from day one, and hope others get justice too."

The Rutherfords’ case

The Rutherfords care for their severely disabled grandson Warren in a specially-adapted three-bedroom bungalow in Pembrokeshire.

Warren has a rare genetic disorder, Potokoi-Shaffer Syndrome, and is unable to walk, talk or feed himself. Both Paul and Susan have disabilities themselves and can only care for Warren with the help of paid carers who stay overnight on a regular basis.

The couple was hit by the bedroom tax for their third bedroom which they need for the carers to stay in overnight. Following previous case law, the housing benefit regulations allow for an additional bedroom if a disabled adult requires overnight care. This provision however does not extend to protect a disabled child in the same situation.

In 2013, the family launched a judicial review challenging the ‘bedroom tax’. They have been receiving discretionary payments from the local authority to cover the shortfall in rent but the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that there was no justification for the different treatment of children and adults who have the same needs within the same regulations.

The Court found that there was “an ironic and inexplicable inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s approach” [Para 47] to the justification of the difference in treatment between disabled adults and disabled children.

The Court upheld the earlier Court of Appeal ruling that the policy unjustifiably discriminates against children with disabilities and that the Secretary of State had failed to have regard to the best interests of children when devising the regulations. 

Sophie Earnshaw from the legal team at Child Poverty Action Group, who acts for the Rutherfords, said:

“Today’s judgment at last establishes that disabled children have the same rights to accommodation for care as disabled adults. It is a just result, -  any other outcome would have been nonsensical.

“In this case, disabled children were being treated worse than adults. For Paul and Susan Rutherford, the judgment lifts an enormous burden of uncertainty about their grandson’s future – an uncertainty they’ve had to live with since 2013 when the legal process started.

“The Rutherfords’ legal ordeal is finally over. These are ordinary grandparents who have dedicated their lives to caring for their grandson; they have won much-needed rights for families who care for disabled children who need overnight care. We are all in their debt that they were prepared to stick with it to the end.”

Paul Rutherford said:

"We are happy and hugely relieved with today's result.

“It has been an extremely stressful and long three years and we are glad that it is has come to a close. We never imagined this would happen to us – our priority has always been Warren’s happiness. We can now move on with our lives secure in the knowledge that we can continue to care for Warren at home."

Today’s judgment follows a three-day hearing which began on 29 February 2016 in front of seven Supreme Court judges at which lawyers representing adults with disabilities, adult carers and a child with disabilities, went to the Supreme Court to argue two sets of cases.

The first set is brought by Jacqueline Carmichael, James Daly, Mervyn Drage, JD, and Richard Rourke. An anonymity order has been made for JD to protect the identity of her severely disabled daughter.

The second set includes the case of Paul and Susan Rutherford who care for their severely disabled grandson, Warren. Today’s Supreme Court decision is a final ruling on both sets of cases.

The Carmichael and Rutherford appeals were the only ones successful today at the Supreme Court.

Karen Ashton of Central England Law Centre, solicitor for Mr Daly, Mr Drage and Ms JD said:

“The Supreme Court’s decision remedies the anomaly whereby disabled adults and children were treated differently if they needed a bedroom for overnight carers or where a bedroom could not be shared. This is to be welcomed. But their judgment leaves thousands of disabled people - who need larger accommodation for other reasons connected to their disability - without an entitlement to housing benefit to pay their full rent, despite the fact that they are unable to work to find the extra money. The court may have found this to be lawful, but that does not mean that it’s fair.”

Nearly a quarter of all people in Wales now struggling to make ends meet

A shock new report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that almost a quarter (23%) of everyone living in Wales is experiencing poverty.

The study, which also found that poverty is costing Wales £3.6bn a year, has provoked a strong reaction from Plaid Cymru, which has called for all governments to renew their focus on eradicating poverty.

The report released today (Tuesday) found over 500,000 three-day emergency food supplies were given out across the UK in the first half of this year, and over 188,500 were for children. This is an increase of 2% overall, compared to the same time last year. 27% were referred primarily due to benefit delays, 25% due to low income and 16% due to benefit changes such as change of circumstance resulting in loss of income, or a sanction.

Mhairi Black has introduced a Private Members Bill regarding the unfair sanctions regime. The Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill 2016-17 already has cross-party support from Tory MP Andrew Percy, Labour veteran Dennis Skinner, Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts, Green MP Caroline Lucas and her fifty four SNP colleagues among others.

Hillary Clinton is poised to become the United States’ first female president, 100 years to the day after Jeanette Rankin became the first woman elected to the U.S. Congress (before most states allowed women to vote). Clinton is leading final polls, by an average of three points nationally and by smaller margins in most of the battleground states she needs to win. More on election day as we go:

Alice Cooper - Elected (1972)

I'm your top prime cut of meat, I'm your choice,
I want to be elected,
I'm your Yankee doodle dandy in a gold Rolls Royce,
I want to be elected,
Kids want a savior, don't need a fake,
I want to be elected,
We're all gonna rock to the rules that I make,
I want to be elected, 
Elected, elected
Respected, elected

I never lied to you, I've always been cool,
I want to be elected,
I gotta get the vote, and I told you 'bout school,
I want to be elected, elected, elected,
Hallelujah, I want to be selected,
Everyone in the United States of America.

We're gonna win this one, take the country by storm,
We're gonna be elected,
You and me together, young and strong,
We're gonna be elected, elected, elected,
Respected, selected, call collected,
I want to be elected.

"And if I am elected
I promise the formation of a new party
A third party, the Wild Party!
I know we have problems,
We got problems right here in Central City,
We have problems on the North, South, East and West,
New York City, Saint Louis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles,
Detroit, Chicago,
Everybody has problems,
And personally, I don't care."

Jobcentre Plus  are holding a 'disability confident' job fair in Plymouth on the 29th November. These fairs sound like a good idea, but we have yet to hear what the disabled think?

Not everyone with a disability wants to advertise the fact they are disabled and it would be interesting to hear other opinions? 

It is not clear what 'disability confident'  means? Many disabled people are very confident? It sounds strangely close to disability competent? Having assisted ‘Time & Tide’ the first disabled crew in the Chay Blyth, BT Global Challenge yacht race, that took sailors the 'wrong way around the world against the prevailing winds. We helped the crew and their management raise funds. The team subsequently competed and finished successfully.

We found that many of those with disabilities wanted to be treated simply as ‘normal’ people.

Some of the crew were truly amazing. One man running for his train had slipped and the last bogey wheels cut his legs clean off.  He stated he was conscious throughout. 'It bloody hurt Simon’ I seemed to remember him telling me. Another had his back broken when a go-kart at a corporate event crashed into the back of his machine. These people had their lives changed in an instant. They were one of the most amazing bunch of people I have ever come across.

Whilst we wish this initiative all the best, we are reminded of our initial goals of founding an association that speaks for people receiving state funding, not for those who think they know what’s best for them, however well intentioned.

We are in favour of initiatives like this if it is what claimants want and not just the DWP. We wish the show's organizers all the best however.

The race to the White House is on the last lap. Real Clear Politics are the pollsters to follow.