A committee of MPs has issued a “crucially important” call for the government to consider increasing national taxes as a way of solving the adult social care funding crisis.Two high-profile reports published this week highlighted the continuing funding crisis, one by the Commons communities and local government select committee, and the other by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).The select committee report concludes that inadequate funding was having a “serious impact” on both the quality and level of care, and said that a “long-term fix” was “urgently necessary”.It calls on the government to work with parties across the political spectrum as it prepares its green paper on the long-term funding of social care.The report says that any discussions should proceed on the basis that “all options are on the table”, including raising money from national taxation – such as income tax, national insurance or inheritance tax – purely to pay for social care. Days later, IFS published a report on changes in council-funded social care in England since 2009-10.The IFS report, funded by the charity the Health Foundation, found that spending by councils on social care per adult resident fell by 11 per cent in real terms between 2009-10 and 2015-16.But it also found a significant variation in spending between local authorities, with one in 10 spending less than £325 per adult resident, and one in 10 spending more than £445 per adult resident.About six in seven local authorities reduced adult social care spending over the seven years, with one in 10 cutting spending by more than a quarter, and one council cutting funding by nearly 40 per cent.Cuts were largest in London boroughs (an average of 18 per cent) and metropolitan districts such as Greater Manchester, Tyneside and Greater Birmingham (16 per cent), while they were lowest in southern shire counties (seven per cent) and southern unitary authorities (five per cent).Other research has shown that the number of people receiving local authority care between 2009-10 and 2013-14 fell by about a quarter, from 1.7 million to 1.3 million.Professor Peter Beresford (pictured), co-chair of the national servicer-user and disabled people’s network Shaping Our Lives, said he believed the select committee report’s recommendation to look at national taxation as a possible solution was “crucially important and in my view the only sustainable way forward” and “the first time for a long time” this had been raised.He said: “The scale of the crisis in social care funding is now reflected in the frequency and profile of major reports about it.”He added: “The respected IFS’s report reveals a disastrous and unravelling mess.“But it also paints a more complex picture than is usually offered, with significant differentials in local spend and some councils making much bigger cuts than others, as well as double whammies resulting from welfare cuts.”Sue Bott, deputy chief executive of Disability Rights UK (DR UK), said: “The cuts to social care outlined in the IFS report and the impact of underfunding of social care outlined in the select committee’s report will come as no surprise to disabled people who are reliant on social care, many of whom are effectively institutionalised in their own homes. “Once again we will all say how shocking these figures are, which they truly are, but will anything happen? “We are promised yet another green paper, giving us yet another opportunity to say what needs to happen. “DR UK will certainly engage in that process, arguing that disabled people’s support needs need to be funded and joined up so that we can enjoy independent living and play our part as full and equal citizens in our communities. “But faced with a government that is not listening we need to do much more joining with others, such as on the Independent Living Strategy Group [a network of disabled people’s organisations and their allies, chaired by the disabled peer Baroness (Jane) Campbell], and giving disabled people the tools to challenge the decisions that restrict our lives.”
Only about a third of local authorities have taken action to protect wheelchair-users from discrimination by drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles, more than eight months after the government gave them new powers to do so.The figures, compiled by transport access campaigner Doug Paulley, also show that nearly half of local authorities across England, Wales and Scotland have no firm plans in place to apply the new laws.On 6 April, the government finally brought into force legislation that imposes fines of up to £1,000 on drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles who refuse to accept wheelchair-users, try to charge them extra, or fail to provide them with appropriate assistance.But the new laws only apply in those areas of England, Scotland and Wales where the local authority has drawn up a list – under section 167 of the Equality Act – of all the wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles in their area.The government had already been encouraging councils to start drawing up such lists for seven years before the law was brought into force.The Department for Transport (DfT) has also said that it should take no more than six months from April this year to bring in the new measures.But responses to freedom of information requests to local authorities from Paulley (pictured) have painted a bleak picture of progress since the law was finally implemented, he says.He already has information from more than 300 of the 347 local authorities that could use the new powers – if they choose to do so – and just 37 per cent have created a section 167 list; while another 15 per cent intend to do so by the end of March 2018.A further 21 per cent say they intend to create a list but have no timescale for when they will do so; 15 per cent have not made a decision on whether they will do so yet; and 12 per cent – nearly one in eight – have no current intention to draw one up.That is a slight improvement on the figures from his previous research, at the time the laws were introduced, when 18 per cent were undecided on whether to produce a list and 26 per cent had no plans to set one up.But Paulley, a wheelchair-user himself, said progress since April had been “inadequate”, despite some improvement in understanding by councils of the law and why the lists are required.He said the freedom of information responses showed “a complete disregard for disabled people’s rights and an incredible administrative inertia amongst authorities”.He also said that he feared they showed the new laws were “clunkily constructed and unusable” because – from the responses he has received so far – not a single driver has been prosecuted since they were introduced, even though discrimination is widespread.And he said the new figures were particularly worrying because of the stagnation in the numbers of wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles in England and Wales, which fell from 50,065 in 2013 to 49,421 in 2015 and then rose slightly to 49,516 in 2017.He said there was also a postcode lottery in availability, with many areas having few if any wheelchair-accessible taxis or private hire vehicles.Disability News Service (DNS) has contacted three of the local authorities that told Paulley they have no plans to create a section 167 list: Nottingham City Council (NCC); Rushcliffe Borough Council, in Nottinghamshire; and Liverpool City Council.Nottingham’s refusal is particularly controversial because the council originally told Paulley earlier this year that it would not be creating a list, but when subsequently contacted by BBC’s The One Show, insisted that it would be doing so.Now its latest response says once again that it “does not currently have any documented plans to produce such a list”.An NCC spokeswoman said the council instead publishes a list of companies that provide wheelchair accessible taxis, because a list of wheelchair-accessible vehicles would “become out of date very quickly”.But it has failed to explain why it appears to have lied to The One Show, or why it does not want to protect wheelchair-users from discrimination.A Liverpool City Council spokesman said there was a local bylaw that allowed it to act against drivers who discriminate against wheelchair-users.It took the council more than five days to provide a copy of the bylaw, and when it was eventually emailed to DNS it showed that the rules only cover equipment and physical access to the vehicle, and say nothing about driver behaviour and discrimination against disabled passengers.By noon today (Thursday), Rushcliffe had not been able to explain why it has refused to create a section 167 list.A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: “Disabled people must have the same opportunities to travel and access to transport as everyone else.“In April we implemented legislation to ensure wheelchair users travelling by taxi or private hire vehicle receive the assistance they require.“We strongly encourage councils that have not already done so to use these powers.”She said the department was “encouraged” by the response from those local authorities that had already created section 167 lists but “would like to see more authorities making the most of these powers”.
Some of the country’s top football clubs have been told by the equality watchdog to spend some of the millions of pounds they receive when promoted and relegated from the Premier League to improve access for disabled fans.The call to spend part of the “balloon” and “parachute” payments on disability access came in the final report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on the accessibility of Premier League football stadiums.The report found significant improvements since the watchdog sent a letter to all 20 Premier League clubs in December 2016 to ask for information on the steps they had taken to meet their legal obligations to make reasonable adjustments for disabled supporters.The total number of wheelchair spaces has risen from 3,024 in April 2017 to 3,724 in April 2018, while the number of clubs providing the recommended number of amenity and easy access seats has risen from eight to 17.All 20 of the clubs that were written to in December 2016 now provide accessible toilets to the required standard, compared to just 10 in April 2017.And all 20 also now provide support or aids to support people with sensory impairments, compared to seven in April 2017.One of the richest Premier League clubs, Chelsea, has signed a legal agreement with EHRC to improve access at its Stamford Bridge stadium.The commission had written to Chelsea last October warning that there could be “unlawful acts” taking place that were “contrary to the club’s duties as a service provider under the Equality Act 2010”.Two other clubs, Burnley and Watford, have signed informal agreements with EHRC to fulfil their obligations under the act.But the watchdog said it was “disappointing” that four more clubs – Manchester United, Crystal Palace, Hull City* and Sunderland* – had refused to sign informal agreements, although they each promised to improve their facilities for disabled fans.The watchdog warned that if they “fall short against the improvement plans that they have shared with us” it will use its legal powers to “ensure they meet their obligations towards their disabled supporters”.Among the report’s recommendations is for the Premier League to redraft its handbook to place a greater emphasis on the access pledge first made by its members in September 2015 that they would comply with guidance on accessible sports stadiums laid out in the Accessible Stadia guide.When a club is promoted to the Premier League, it is given two seasons to meet these standards, but the handbook currently makes no mention of this.The report adds: “The Premier League is the richest football league in the world and cannot use affordability as a barrier to undertaking work.”The report also calls on the Premier League to consider insisting that clubs that are promoted or relegated from the league should ensure they use some of the millions of pounds they receive in “balloon” (for promoted clubs) or “parachute” payments (for relegated clubs) “to improve disability access at their grounds more quickly”.Clubs that have been relegated can expect about £100 million over three years if they do not return to the Premier League within that time.A Premier League spokesman said that its 20 current members would be asked to consider the two recommendations.The commission also plans to meet governing bodies of other football leagues and “seek to influence other sports’ governing bodies” so they take a “strong leadership role on the issue”.Tony Taylor, chair of Level Playing Field, which represents disabled sports fans, welcomed the report and supported the use of parachute and balloon payments to improve access, although he said it was important to be “pragmatic about the art of the possible”.But he said: “The Premier League pledge has demonstrated what can be done in a relatively short period of time, but in reality disabled fans have been treated unfairly for many years.“It is going to take time to regain their trust and for them to have the confidence that they can enjoy their match day experience.”And he said the Premier League pledge was not “aspirational” but should instead be “the very minimum that disabled supporters can expect of their clubs”. Taylor said: “It is pleasing that some clubs have taken this on with some gusto, but others still have a way to go and we will continue to monitor and press for more than the bare minimum.”He added: “There is little doubt that it has taken the threat of enforcement by the commission to drive change at some clubs, but the overall picture is positive.“Clubs now recognise the importance and benefits of good access and there have been increases across all facilities for disabled fans.”He said Level Playing Field would continue to work with the clubs and governing bodies to provide advice and support. David Isaac, EHRC’s chair, said the commission had seen “some excellent examples of how clubs engaged with disabled fans to introduce many positive changes” but had also “met some resistance”.He said: “It’s pleasing that so many clubs – including Chelsea, one of the world’s biggest – have taken our threat of legal action seriously and are now working with the commission to deliver real change. It’s important that all clubs make disability access a priority.“We’re proud of the important part we’ve played in ensuring Premier League football clubs change their ways and the experience of their disabled fans.“There was no excuse for the poor standard of facilities we saw at some clubs last year. As a result of using our powers this won’t be the case in future.“Disabled people must be able to participate equally in all aspects of life.”Bill Bush, the Premier League’s executive director, said: “In the last three years clubs have made huge improvements to disabled access for their fans.“The scale and scope of the work undertaken – from enhanced car parking and ticket purchasing options to increasing the wheelchair bay provision – is unprecedented in any other sport or entertainment sector.“The league and the clubs are considering the details of the EHRC report and will respond in due course.“We will continue to engage constructively with disabled supporters and are committed to making future improvements to keep pace with rising standards.”Sarah Newton, the minister for disabled people, said she was “so pleased that the Premier League is making significant progress on accessibility, setting an example to clubs all over the country to do right by all of their fans.“But there is still more work to be done, and I would urge all clubs to ensure they’re meeting the standards required by law.”*Both Hull City and Sunderland have been relegated from the Premier League since EHRC wrote to them in December 2016Picture: Some of the accessible facilities at Premier League club Watford
Well, they did that. Our paper of record also offered Sheehy a bit of free psychoanalysis based on his “rambling” answers: “It was almost as if Sheehy were tacitly asking us to do him a favor by endorsing his opponent.” They did that, too. Sheehy resents the above passage. And, for what it’s worth, he offered us an answer that was anything but rambling when we asked why he’s gone through so many consultants: “Consultants suck.” He smiles, sheepishly, and walks that statement back. But only a little. “I take the blame for it. I am not a good fit with a consultant. A consultant,” he pauses, “is, like, a weird concept.” Consultants, like, try to figure out how to get more people to vote for you than your opponent. Consultants try to get Candidate A to tailor Messages B, C and D to Voters E, F and G who live in neighborhoods H, I and J. This does not appeal to Jeff Sheehy. “My view is, ‘What is the right thing to do?’ I want to keep talking about the right thing to do, even if it doesn’t poll well.” Sheehy has, by and large, undertaken this approach during his year and change in office after Mayor Ed Lee tapped him to replace Scott Wiener. And, lo and behold, it doesn’t poll well. The fledgling supervisor has, whether he means to or not, made his independence into his defining political trait. On Jan. 23, he voted to retain London Breed as mayor but found himself outvoted. He then went on to provide the deciding vote for Mark Farrell, along with five of his left-leaning colleagues. Sheehy was, clearly, voting against his self-interest — his move alienated him from much of the city’s right and did little to endear him to much of the city’s left — and for what he claimed was the “right thing to do” — for one person to serve as both mayor and board president for an extended period of time, he says, is untenable. “One of the things that surprised me about the vote is, why would anybody be surprised?” he reflected months later. “I am notoriously independent. Ask people who knew me from 20 years ago. ‘Sheehy! No one knows what he’s gonna do!’” This has left him isolated in the political gang warfare of City Hall; moments after Breed was ousted as mayor and pandemonium ensued, Sheehy turned to me and deadpanned, “I guess Ron Conway won’t run an independent expenditure campaign for me.” But you’d think voters wouldn’t be affected by these internecine pressures and allegiances. You’d think voters would want their leaders to act independently from pressure brought or dictums laid down by political figures or special-interest groups or big donors. You’d think voters would appreciate a leader unafraid to tell you when something sucks. Well, you’d probably be wrong. Sure, voters say we want our representatives to do the right thing. The morally right thing. The people-over-special-interests thing. That’s what we say. But that’s not what we mean. “What we mean,” says San Francisco State University political science professor Jason McDaniel, “is we want them to do what we want them to do because what we want is the right thing.” Independence, then, needs to be tethered to something. It’s not clear Sheehy — whose district includes Dolores Park, Mission Dolores and the Valencia corridor — is tethered to anything. “I was appointed,” he notes. “So I didn’t have to figure out how to put together a team. A base.” And that shows. If he’d done that, his base would tolerate and perhaps even celebrate his occasional unpredictable votes. Sheehy’s predecessor, Scott Wiener, did that. He would occasionally carry legislation or make votes that defied expectations. But he also built up that base, and a reputation as a housing guy, a transit guy, the quality-of-life guy, and a supervisor who wrote so many ordinances that he was referred to by a colleague as a “legislative Pez dispenser.” Independence, then, is something a politician must earn from his or her voters — once he’s earned voters. “You earn voters, then you become independent,” explains Jim Ross, a campaign consultant who ran Gavin Newsom’s successful 2003 mayoral run and now specializes in more left-of-center endeavors. “You don’t become independent, then earn voters.” Ageneration ago, more voters had deep city roots, and the time — and financial ability — to study up on political issues or even get involved in campaigns. That’s no longer the case. Now more than ever, it would seem, voters are looking for “shorthand” to decide on candidates and the sometimes dozens of measures put before them. And, in this city, you’re either a so-called “progressive,” or a so-called “moderate,” with the backing of the political clubs and unions and captains of industry unique to one or the other. Or, you’re like Sheehy, suddenly a long-shot candidate whose behavior is so baffling to this city’s political handicappers that they believe he’s intentionally self-sabotaging himself (he says he is not).The plight of Jeff Sheehy is a prime example that the divide between “progressives” and “moderates” is not a construct. “I didn’t realize these teams were so set,” he admits. And these distinctions are not meaningless. There is a popular narrative that San Francisco’s political offices are held by a battalion of interchangeable political lefties and one candidate for office is really no different than another and, by extension, it doesn’t matter who wins and it doesn’t matter who you vote for. If someone is telling you this, it means one of two things: 1. They don’t know enough about San Francisco politics to be offering you their opinions, or; 2. They know plenty enough and are trying to mislead you for their own ends. San Francisco, like most every big American city, is an ideologically left-of-center place led by ideologically left-of-center officials. But cities don’t run on ideology; the issues that divide us are municipal, not ideological. Every leader in San Francisco is progressive enough, until the question arises of how to pay for something. You can argue about the nomenclature “progressive” and “moderate,” but, for sanity’s sake, the most expeditious way to define them relates to how they view regulation and land-use. “Progressives” would tend to favor taxing and regulating businesses and extracting concessions from developers. “Moderates” would tend to favor allowing businesses and developers to flourish. “Moderates” favor market solutions. “Progressives” are wary of the market. This is all fodder for a panel discussion, but the point here is, as Sheehy has learned, that politicians here are incentivized to walk a line. “It gives politicians networks to plug into,” he says. “Support. Money.” Lots of money. “There were always conversations, like, there will be resources that will come into your race that you won’t be able to talk to people about,” Sheehy says. “There’s just an undercurrent of that on the moderate side. If you’re on one team, things like that are gonna happen. If you’re not a team, nobody is coming for you. This is one of the things that motivates people to be on a team.” The team dynamic, Sheehy says, is something Tony Winnicker reviewed with him prior to his fateful Jan. 23 vote. While progressive supervisors accused Ron Conway of arm-twisting for votes on Breed’s behalf, Sheehy describes his conversations with Winnicker — a former advisor to Mayor Ed Lee who now serves as a consultant to Conway and other businesses and nonprofits around town — as cordial. “Everybody understands everything,” Sheehy explains. “You support your team or you don’t.” The consequences hardly need be explained. Winnicker declined to go into specifics regarding his conversations with Sheehy. “I have tried to be helpful and supportive of his chances for re-election.” And, not inconsistently, he did urge him to back Breed. “At the time, I told Jeff that Mark Leno is supporting his opponent, and London Breed was supporting him,” recalls Winnicker, “My point was, you win in politics by having allies. Loyalty matters.” Not so long after Winnicker imparted this advice to Sheehy, I witnessed a city worker take a call from him and, to avoid the prohibition against doing campaign work on city property, actually climb out the window. Sheehy, in his own way, climbed out the window as well. “Jeff Sheehy makes his own decisions,” sums up Winnicker. “He charts his own course.” “You earn voters, then you become independent. You don’t become independent then earn voters.” 0% Subscribe to Mission Local’s daily newsletter Email Address SupervisorJeff Sheehy is on his third political consultant in his quest to retain his District 8 seat, a fact that has been much repeated to portray his campaign as one in disarray — and, none too subtly, claim it’s a campaign he doesn’t even really desire to win. The San Francisco Chronicle did all of that, endorsing his opponent Rafael Mandelman, a move as inconceivable only a few years ago as the paper hiring a full-time marijuana editor. Tags: Elections • politics Share this: FacebookTwitterRedditemail,0%
Lyft ‘geofencing’ program also being tested on Chestnut Street in the Marina, AT&T Park, and near the Westfield Mall The decision to permanently divert rides off the three-block stretch of Valencia Street followed a three-month pilot that shunted half of customers requesting rides on the popular Mission thoroughfare onto lesser-traveled sidestreets. “With so many different users of the street and a street design that has largely remained unchanged, it’s no surprise that the corridor has experienced growing safety concerns — particularly around increased traffic, double parking, and bicycle dooring,” reads the blog post by Debs Schrimmer, a senior transportation policy manager at Lyft. Lyft’s decision to implement the program permanently was first reported on Monday by the Examiner. Mission Local was the first to report on the pilot program in March.The March experiment used so-called “geofencing,” which limits where drivers can pick up their passengers. From March to June, the pilot took place on the identical streets as the future permanent program: Valencia Street between 16th and 19th streets, the three blocks that account for 27 percent of all Lyft rides on Valencia, per the company. “Given the findings of this pilot program … we decided to move our project from a pilot to a permanent feature within the Lyft app,” Schrimmer wrote. “This means that currently, anyone requesting a ride on Valencia Street between 16th Street and 19th Street will be redirected to a pickup spot on a side street.” But Lyft acknowledges that its geofencing efforts are not enough to improve the corridor’s safety conditions. The pilot, which attempted route pickups and dropoffs to loading zones along Valencia’s side streets, found that “existing curb space is insufficient and that the city needs more loading zones.” This, according to the company, will help its program on Valencia Street. Obtaining city-approved curb space, akin to a taxi stand, has long been a goal of Lyft, Uber and other ride-share outfits in San Francisco — and the subject of contentious negotiations. Other bike-friendly experiments are underway on Valencia Street. In March, the city installed flex-posts along portions of Valencia Street to prevent cars — as well as Lyfts and Ubers — from pulling up next to bulb-out curbs and putting cyclists in danger. Lyft cited protective bike lanes as another strategy to reduce harm to cyclists along the corridor. While Valencia is in the Vision Zero High-Injury network — the 13 percent of city streets accounting for 75 percent of severe and fatal collisions — it is not the only corridor where Lyft is diverting pickups and dropoffs: The effort is being duplicated in the Marina on Chestnut Street between Fillmore and Scott, also a busy corridor, according to a Lyft spokesperson. Lyft is also utilizing the geofencing technology at frequently visited locations and event venues — including AT&T Park, some BART/Muni Stations, Westfield San Francisco Centre, and San Francisco International Airport. Uber did not respond to Mission Local’s inquiries about whether it is considering similar policies. From here on out, all Lyft pickups and dropoffs on Valencia Street between 16th and 19th will be diverted to side streets, the ridesharing company announced in a blog post last week. The move is the latest in an ostensible ongoing effort to improve cyclist safety along the busy corridor, on which from January 2012 to December 2016, 204 people were injured and one died in 268 reported collisions. Portions of Valencia Street, unsurprisingly, are among Lyft’s most-visited destinations. Subscribe to Mission Local’s daily newsletter Email Address
Bi-Rite Creamery on 18th and Dolores Streets this month rolled out a solar-powered truck that will be serving its ice cream as the creamery’s normal brick-and-mortar storefront undergoes a seismic retrofit. And, this being San Francisco, it required an act of municipal legislation. Bi-Rite is perhaps the first entity to use an ordinance passed in December that allows businesses undergoing a mandatory soft-story retrofit to more easily do business out of a food truck in front of its shop.The law, sponsored by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, created a so-called “Temporary Mobile Caterer” permit that bypasses ordinary food truck restrictions –requirements that call for a stack of permits to run a mobile eatery. Instead, a business can obtain the one temporary permit and not have to worry about being close to a school, 75 feet from another business, or operating during the same hours as an affiliated establishment. Email Address “We’re really excited to have the Bi-Rite Creamery truck parked on 18th Street while our scoop shop is going through the seismic retrofit and redesign,” said Sarah Holt, Bi-Rite’s director of marking and community. “It’s incredibly important to us to be able to serve our community and take care of our staff during the renovation … ”Decarlis Wilson and his friend Kat B. had just stopped by the truck on a recent Monday. Kat B. needed to be honest — this was a sub-optimal run to the solar-powered gourmet ice cream truck. “I’m bummed out they didn’t have rainbow sprinkles,” she said, noting that she generally orders them on her usual “Vegan Strawberry Coconut” ice cream. She also recommended that, now that Bi-Rite has some wheels, “the truck should venture out to show the Marina kids what’s up. We’re spoiled here,” she said. Wilson was unconcerned about the rainbow-sprinkle deficit. It was his first time eating Bi-Rite ice cream — from a truck or otherwise. “It’s exactly what I needed,” he said. Subscribe to Mission Local’s daily newsletter
With the Super 8s just two weeks away Justin Holbrook’s side produced one of their most committed performances to date.The first half in particular was the best this season as they led 24-6.Danny Richardson and Theo Fages were at the hub, complemented by the lively James Roby and Jon Wilkin.They then weathered a strong Trinity second half fightback before running in two more tries.Richardson opened the scoring in the eighth minute after his deft kick forced a drop out.The pack did the damage and then the youngster backed himself, dropped his shoulder and sliced through the defence.But from the restart Saints dropped the ball and Matty Ashurst scored against his former employers.Saints spurned chances to get back in front but in the 18th minute the evergreen James Roby took his chance.This time it was Fages with the kick – Roby following it up and having the awareness to pounce after it had hit the bottom of the left post.It didn’t take long for Saints to increase that advantage too.Richardson set Ryan Morgan away on the right hand side; he popped it into the hands of Tommy Makinson who chipped over the top and then reclaimed the ball.Majestic stuff from the winger.Saints had their tails up and on the half hour mark scored again.Fages pushed his nose through and was hauled down by the defence but a quick play the ball saw Zeb Taia combine with Mark Percival to set Regan Grace flying down the left side side to touch down.24-6 to the Saints at half time.Clearly well the front foot, Saints needed to start the second half as they did the first – but they conceded within the first couple of minutes.A knock on gave the hosts to the chance to take advantage and Scott Grix profited.And five minutes later it was almost game on as Saints had to defend back to back penalties.But Wakefield spilled the ball.Scrappy play was affecting both side’s attacking capabilities but Saints D was called up on numerous occasions to quell Trinity’s fast play.But Percival added his fifth goal of the afternoon to edge Saints out after Taia was dragged back as he went for a Richardson kick.Wakefield aren’t a top four side this season for no reason through and on the hour mark a free-flowing passing move saw Mason Caton-Brown pull his side to within 10 points.Percival added another penalty in the 67th minute to settle the nerves before LMS came up with the gamebreaker.Richardson’s monster kick was tapped back by Makinson and it was sent through hands for prop to scorch over.Zeb Taia then crossed following a Fages’ break.And Danny Richardson capped a great performance with a drop goal as the hooter sounded.Match Summary:Trinity: Tries: Ashurst, Grix, Caton-Brown Goals: Finn (2 from 3)Saints: Tries: Richardson, Roby, Makinson, Grace, McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Taia Goals: Percival (8 from 8) Drop: RichardsonPenalties Awarded: Trinity: 9 Saints: 4HT: 6-24 FT: 16-41REF: J ChildATT: 5580Teams:Trinity: 1. Scott Grix; 5. Ben Jones-Bishop, 4. Reece Lyne, 3. Bill Tupou, 24. Mason Caton-Brown; 14. Sam Williams, 7. Liam Finn; 33. Adam Walker, 9. Kyle Wood, 17. Craig Huby, 32. Dean Hadley, 11. Matty Ashurst, 16. Tinirau Arona. Subs: 8. Anthony England, 12. Danny Kirmond, 20. David Fifita, 34. James Hasson.Saints: 1. Jonny Lomax; 2. Tommy Makinson, 3. Ryan Morgan, 4. Mark Percival, 28. Regan Grace; 6. Theo Fages, 24. Danny Richardson; 14. Luke Douglas, 9. James Roby, 16. Luke Thompson, 36. Zeb Taia, 18. Dominique Peyroux, 12. Jon Wilkin. Subs: 8. Alex Walmsley, 10. Kyle Amor, 13. Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook, 20. Morgan Knowles.
They want to alleviate overcrowding at school likes Ashley, Laney and New Hanover High schools. Overcrowding in those schools is significant with more than 300 students taking classes at Laney compared to what the school can hold. Middle schools like Noble, Roland Grise and Murray middle are in need of reorganized class sizes as well. Murray middle has also 300 more students than the school is capable of holding.School board members voted to push back middle school redistricting to 2019-2020. They did that so that renovations at schools like Myrtle Grove Middle and Roland-Grise will not make the changeover in students an even larger headache.They want more information on high school redistricting.Related Article: Radiothon raises money for Women’s & Children’s Hospital“I don’t think when this meeting was convened it was really intended to give us hard numbers of what would be the impact of doing this and doing that,” said New Hanover County School Board Chair Edward Higgins. “I am looking for the next meetings to give us those kinds of numbers of what’s the impact especially at the high school level.”The school board will look at several options for redrawing the districts for high schools when they reconvene in January. The New Hanover County School Board holds a workshop on redistricting on Dec. 19, 2017. (Andrew James WWAY) WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) – Overcrowding in New Hanover County high schools and middle schools has the school board debating redistricting.That was the center of a Tuesday afternoon workshop. Board members reviewed two options for redistricting middle and high schools either in 2018-2019 or 2019-2020. The school district has already set redistricting to take place for elementary schools for the 2020-2021 calendar year.- Advertisement –
Shopping carts block one entrance at Leland Walmart on Jan. 5, 2018. (Photo: Kirsten Gutierrez) LELAND, NC (WWAY) — Shoppers who went to one Walmart found out they couldn’t get in or out one door because the entrance was blocked off.One viewer was concerned it was a fire hazard so we reached out to Leland Fire Chief John Grimes.- Advertisement – Some shoppers we spoke with were confused as to why shopping carts were blocking some of the entrance ways.Chief Grimes stopped by and determined it was a fire hazard and Walmart employees cleared the blocked doors.While some people were upset, others say it was too icy to go in that way.Related Article: Brunswick County woman scores big with Panthers pride; wins $200,000“I think they’re low staffing and I think they’re trying to just kind of coordinate people into one entrance to where they can keep a hold on people coming in and out,” shopper Heath Settlemeyer said. “There’s some places that didn’t even try to open today so I’m kind of glad they made the effort to come in their workers probably had trouble trying to get in too.”We reached out to Walmart’s corporate office to find out why they blocked the doors with shopping carts. We have yet to hear back.Chief Grimes says he plans to hold an educational session with the staff in the future.
St. Patrick’s Day is Saturday, and Krispy Kreme is “going green” to celebrate. (Photo: Krispy Kreme) WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — St. Patrick’s Day is Saturday, and Krispy Kreme is “going green” to celebrate.The doughnut store will be selling their special St. Patrick’s Day Green O’riginal Glazed Doughnut on Friday and Saturday.- Advertisement – “Krispy Kreme O’riginal Glazed Doughnuts are fun to eat all on their own, so we thought there is no better way to dial up the fun than going green for St. Patrick’s Day,” Jackie Woodward, Chief Marketing Officer of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts said. “We know many people also celebrate the holiday Friday, so we’re making the O’riginal Glazed Doughnuts available that day, too.”The green treat is made using a specially formulated green dough. The company said the doughnut is then”glazed hot in traditional Krispy Kreme fashion.”The Krispy Kreme in Wilmington is located at 2822 South College Road.