#Care Home Policies UK

[cloudoc2022]

The Essential CQC Policies Every Care Home Must Have

Cloudoc is a cloud-based software delivered via the internet that helps you manage and protect your entire clinical documentation system. It's fast, secure, and flexible, so you can access patient records anywhere at any time. ClouDoc will help keep you with CQC Policies and Procedures in Care Homes. To know more visit us now.

[lexlawuk]

Health and Care Worker Visa: Brief Guide

The Health and Care Worker Visa is an essential pathway for qualified professionals such as doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and adult social care workers seeking employment in the UK. As part of the Skilled Worker Visa category, this visa not only enables eligible individuals to contribute to the UK’s healthcare sector but also opens a pathway to settlement after five years. Below,…

[gaysindistress]

Things that I feel like would happen when you’re in a relationship with Simon Riley.

Simon Riley masterlist

1. First off he hates the word ‘boyfriend’.

Maybe it’s because he’s in his mid thirties or something but he can’t stand being called your boyfriend. He’s more than that but also not at the same time. You live together, have access to each other’s bank accounts (which is only because he hates it when you try to fight him about him giving you money), and you’re each others emergency contact. He thinks of himself as your husband. The man wears a silicone ring when he’s home and a necklace with the ring that’s totally not a wedding band when he’s working. Price has seen the chain once or twice and smirks, shooting him a knowing look but never says a word.

Simon cannot stand it when people get nosy and want to know what your relationship status is. You’re together and that’s all that matters. No one needs to know that you’re the beneficiary of his will and life insurance policy or that he’s put you on all of his accounts. No one needs to know that he buys you anything you want but has only ever bought you two rings; a thin gold band with a flower engraved on it and its twin a matching emerald ring. No one needs to know that when he gifted them to you, there were tears and promises of safety, love, and happiness whispered against feverish skin. No one needs to know that he has your name woven into his chest tattoo.

No one needs to know any of that because your relationship is between him and you only.

2. You are not some submissive little house wife. You are a strong independent woman and he prefers it that way.

I know this one goes against what most people say but hear me out on this. Simon has been independent since birth practically. He’s only had himself to count on for years. Even in the military, he’s only been able to rely himself. Sure the others watch out for him but if it came down to it, he’s the only one who’s going to get himself out alive.

The thought of someone else relying on him in that way is terrifying. He can’t even fathom what it would be like to look at another person and fully trust them in that way. Half the time he feels like he can’t even be trusted to take care of himself let alone another human. In theory a sweet docile housewife is great with the meals and clean house but not for him. He needs to know that you can hold your own. He needs to know that you can be independent and carry on without him if something happened while he was working. He needs to know that you will be okay if he doesn’t come back.

You have to be okay without him no matter how much it pains him to think about it.

Like I said before, he’s made you the beneficiary of everything so he knows you’ll be set financially but that’s not enough. He’s made Price promise to keep an eye out for you. He’s made you promise to let Price do that and you agreed because it’s Simon who’s asking but you’d tell anyone else to fuck off.

In addition to all of that, he’s installed the best security system the government has to offer in your house. You have a very expensive and large safe in your shared closet that he’s instructed you to only open if you feel unsafe. While you might not like it, you agree to go shooting with him so he can sleep at night knowing that you could protect yourself if he’s not home. He’s gone as far as to make sure you have all of the licenses and certificates that are needed to legally own firearms in the UK.

He’s not leaving any opportunity for you to be vulnerable or have your ‘safety checks’, as he calls them, taken away.

3. Simon Riley is a godless man…until he meets you.

Now this is entirely my own headcannon with no evidence to support it so bear with me.

Simon had a shitty childhood where his mom would pray to a god who never listened and his dad would shout verses at him when he was drunk. God was a mythical figure that he was told stories off with nothing to show for it. He did believe at one point but then his dad never got better, his mom wore bruises of every shade, and his brother found comfort in drugs.

He found himself praying when he was being tortured by the Mexican cartel. Between the flashbacks of his abusive past, he prayed to a god who had failed him so many times before to help him. He prayed again as he dug himself out of that Texas grave with the major’s jaw bone. He wailed his prayers when he found his family executed after Sparks tried to kill him.

After that he deemed himself a Godless man. Years of praying had passed with nothing. This god had decided that Simon was not worthy of a miracle so why would he continue to worship him?

That was until he met you. He finds himself praying before every mission, every time he has to leave you, every time he’s on his way home, and just about any other time he thinks of you. He doesn’t know what exactly he’s praying for other than for you to be there when he gets back.

He whispers his prayers to an absent god against your skin as he worships your body, soul, and heart. He promises to be devoted to you until his last breath and vows to find you again in whatever afterlife awaits you. He pledges to find solace in you and only you when his haunting nightmares return. He makes an oath to your heart that it will never weather another storm alone again for his will take whatever beating that comes your way. He shows you that he will love you in the same manner as a Hozier song; putting you above all else because you have become his religion, his faith, his beliefs, his life.

You have become all that he is and he thanks the god he once believed in for you. He prays again but to you, his heart, his love, and his beacon through the enteral storm of life.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive (Daily updates!)

By Karam Bales

The decision to further restrict access to vaccines “will leave many vulnerable people unprotected” warn academics and health professionals

Acoalition of academics and healthcare professionals have backed an open letter critical of the Government and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s (JCVI) decision to restrict access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Campaign group Clinically Vulnerable Families (CVF) has expressed concerns over vaccine access for autumn 2025 and spring 2026.

Until now, COVID policy prioritised protecting “at risk” groups such as those with chronic heart failure, COPD, or diabetes, but using a bespoke, non-standard cost-effectiveness assessment developed by the Department of Health and Social Care, the JCVI has advised that only the following groups should be offered vaccination in spring 2025:

adults aged 75 years and over residents in a care home for older adults individuals aged six months and over who are immunosuppressed (as defined in the ‘immunosuppression’ sections of tables 3 or 4 in the COVID-19 chapter of the Green Book) The JCVI is also withdrawing its offer to pregnant women, despite them having been recognised for years by the NHS as being at increased risk.

Vaccinating pregnant women helps protect their babies; COVID has been linked to developmental issues. The UK is now one of only a small number of countries including Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Turkmenistan, which doesn’t recommend COVID vaccines for pregnant women.

Professor Christina Pagel of University College London and Professor Sheena Cruickshank of the University of Manchester expressed their concerns about the JCVI’s decision in a piece for The Conversation, urging the JCVI to “either reverse its criteria on vaccination in pregnancy or provide a much more detailed and transparent explanation for why it has been discontinued”.

CVF’s letter highlights how restricting access to vaccines doesn’t align with “evidence based public health principles, as supported by the WHO, as we do for the NHS flu vaccination programme”. It prioritises a range of at risk groups including those with diabetes and asthma, and frontline health and care workers.

The JCVI has not released the full calculations and evidence base to explain the discrepancy in its approach to COVID compared to flu.

The study provided by the JCVI notes data for clinically vulnerable groups is limited, meaning the most at-risk could fall through the cracks.

CVF are concerned the JCVI is sending a message to at risk groups that the vaccine is no longer necessary and that they are safe, a signal many may trust and believe.

At risk individuals have the option of paying for vaccines, but this financial barrier will add to inequality.

The open letter notes that private COVID vaccinations are priced around £100 per dose “an amount far beyond the means of many at-risk people”. The price of vaccines supplied to the NHS are approximately £35.04.

“Private charges will leave many vulnerable people unprotected, amplifying health inequalities and increasing the need for recourse to antiviral treatments, ultimately leading to an increase in hospitalisations,” the letter explains.

Eligibility criteria for COVID antiviral treatments is at odds with the JCVI’s decision on vaccination, the letter notes.

In January, NICE (the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) recommended COVID antiviral treatments for those over 70, or with conditions such as diabetes, a BMI of at least 35 kg/m², and heart failure, acknowledging the strong evidence of a heightened risk to these groups.

The JCVI’s decision to withhold vaccines from this group is therefore both inconsistent with known risks and contradictory, as it will increase their reliance on more costly treatments.

CVF say “prioritising ‘cost-effectiveness’ over vulnerability sends a chilling message: That our lives are less valuable because protecting us isn’t deemed ‘efficient’.”

The focus on age-based thresholds ignores the reality for younger vulnerable groups, a 30-year-old in heart failure could face far higher risks than a healthy 70-year-old, yet this new policy would exclude them from protection.

The JCVI’s cost benefit analysis only took predicted hospitalisations and deaths into account. No consideration was given to Long COVID despite increasing evidence vaccination reduces risk.

Kit Yates Senior Lecturer in the Department of Mathematical Sciences and co-director of the Centre for Mathematical Biology at the University of Bath asks “Why wouldn’t you take long COVID into account when considering who should be vaccinated?”.

Yates continues, “quite apart from the health issues of the people who get it, it clearly has an enormous economic impact.”

Yates cites a recent paper estimating the economic burden of Long COVID in the UK to be over £20 billion per year from real cohort data due to functional limitations and fatigue.

The JCVI’s focus on hospitalisations and deaths is based on incomplete data. COVID hospital data is now significantly under-reported.

Since April 2023, most patients with COVID symptoms are no longer tested to confirm if they have it, unless they are in a vulnerable group eligible for antiviral treatment, meaning data on COVID hospitalisations and deaths will not be accurate.

There are also other post-COVID consequences besides Long COVID, for instance COVID has been linked to increased risk of heart attacks, strokes and neurological harm.

The JCVI cites hybrid immunity, a combination of vaccination and infection acquired immunity as the reason they’re further restricting access to vaccines, however Professor Stephen Griffin, virologist at the University of Leeds, has criticised the JCVI’s reasoning, saying: “There are dozens of the usual platitudes, including the magical ‘endemic’. In my opinion, these are little more than misinformation, including the soothing balm of infection-induced immunity.”

Griffin warns, “we seem to value ‘normal’ over better, especially if it’s expensive up front, or gets in the way of ‘normal life’…but, complacency, ultimately, is also a devastating killer.”

[necros-writing-stuff]

Foxes and Minxes: Collabo'ween Day 21

GN!AFAB!Reader/M!Teacher!Bailey

Warnings: Me being very British with everything referenced here (sorry); Alcohol; Gloryhole; Hints of Yandere Reader; References to bullying; Condoms; Bailey POV and he feeling guilty; Only pronouns for reader are they/you.

Word Count: 4010

Notes: This is the telepathy mixed with teacher prompt! Bailey is not the telepathic one, though, and I kept it subtle methinks. It's also just fun to think of where Bailey might have ended up if he hadn't become the caretaker.

His paycheck is late. Again. Leighton has been holed up in his office all day yelling at delinquents, telling Bailey to come back later every time he'd popped his head in. The first round of students had set a bin on fire in the cafeteria. The second had been encouraging someone to moon passing cars at the gates. The third had popped River's tires. 

Sure, the kids here were usually shitheads, but to this level? It had to have something to do with graduation coming soon - they were all in their final year of Sixth Form afterall. Most of them being 18, but not fully grasping that they were adults yet and that they could be arrested for what they had been up to. 

Some of them were in his class: economics. Or rather, missing from his class today. They'd been put in the isolation room to write out lines at desks with screens on them so they couldn't talk to each other. Bailey had been in there once or twice as a kid, hell, Winter had been the one to put him in there a few times. Strange that they were now colleagues. Strange that Winter hadn't applied to be head of the school (or at least deputy) after all these years. 

As it was, with the shitheads mostly missing, his class was quiet. Sixth Form classes were smaller than the secondary education classes, the other teachers who had to handle both levels had it worse. Typically UK schools have all of the desks pushed into larger tables to facilitate group work and to make larger use of the room's space, but with how bad the students are here all of the desks had to be separated to discourage certain behaviours. 

Right up front was his favourite. A shy kid, huddled up with their notebook. He couldn't tell whether or not they were doing the work or absently doodling while their mind wandered. He didn't care either way. They'd finished their exams, the only reason they were still here in class was because they all had to be until they walked out with their grades or failed and were pushed out anyway. School policy. One that severely annoyed everyone who wanted a free period to wander around. 

His favourite kept mostly to themself, barely interacting with the others even though they were silently chatting amongst themselves or watching the documentary he had put on to keep some of them occupied. Only educational programmings allowed. Yet another school policy. God, it was miserable here. He'd be watching Breaking Bad otherwise, all of these students had hit 18 so he wouldn't get in trouble from parents about it. But no, instead he'd had to throw on some bullshit scaremongering thing about the dangers of ecstasy pills he'd found on YouTube. 

Funny thing, growth. Back when he was their age, he'd have bullied his favourite. He was as much of a little shit as the rest of them are today. Now he finds solace that at least one of them paid attention. And they'd be gone soon, replaced by another bout of insufferable 16 year olds who would be eager to push him to his limits - only to find that he knew their games and wouldn't be putting up with them. Same old song and dance every new year. 

Which is why he wanted his fucking paycheck. He goes home bordering on having an aneurysm every night, the least he can have in return is his rent money. He's not late, not yet, he'd saved up enough to have reserves, but it still felt better to have it. Plus, he'd be able to get himself a takeaway tonight. That Chinese place he likes is open on a Tuesdays. Some egg fried rice, noodles, chicken curry, those salt and peppered chips. A lovely break in his recent health kick he'd been on. 

Bailey sinks into his seat, sighing at the thought as he chews on a pen cap. His favourite looks up from their notebook, their eyes passing over him quickly before going back down. Not a new thing. They're a jumpy little thing like that. He'd bumped into them once and they'd whimpered as though he'd struck them. Kinda reminds him of all of those videos of foxes just squealing because they can - so he'd nicknamed them after the animal.

He's not a stranger to the signs of an abusive upbringing - the bullying couldn't have helped either. But he's not the one to offer support beyond letting them use his classroom instead of the library. They could go to Doren if they wanted a shoulder to cry on. 

The bell rang then, the students mostly springing up and rushing out to head to the cafeteria. His favourite was stayed put until everyone else left. 

"What you got today?" Bailey reaches under his desk, fetching a box from his bag and his homemade panini with it. Ham, lettuce, and tomatoes filled it up. 

"Same as usual," you respond with a small smile. Which means…

Bailey catches the Yorkie when you throw it over to him, and in return he tosses a bag of Maltesers. That's your usual deal. You bring the Yorkie, Bailey exchanges it for whatever sweet snacks he has that day. Whichever parent it is that always packs the bars for you clearly hasn't clued in to the fact that you've grown sick of the chocolate. Luckily for you, though, Bailey could inhale a whole four-pack in ten minutes. 

And with it not being a class, that also means he doesn't have to abide by the 'educational' videos only rule. At least, that's the excuse he'll tell Leighton if he's caught putting on fucking Hannibal. 

But it's a nice time, eating with his favourite as they watch the show over the lunch hour. Sure beats the fucking staff rooms. Bailey might just quit if he has to hear River complain about that Whitney kid again. 

It's quiet again (save the chewing), but this time it's a comfortable quiet rather than the eternally tense silence of a classroom full of kids a moment away from doing a crime to lull the boredom. 

Little Foxie relaxes now that they're alone, your shoulders sloping and your eyes focused rather than shifting. Poor damn kid. But, not his circus, not his monkeys. He won't see you again after next week anyway. 

"Which exam do you have left?" 

"Just physics. I'm dreading it, though. Sirris kinda does best with biology, so I've had to teach myself quite a bit. Just wish Leighton would hire more teachers - Winter's started nodding off in class apparently." 

Yeah, you aren't wrong there. Overworked, underpaid. And that's what separates you from the other student. That empathy you have for others. How you've held onto it for this long despite the torment of your peers never fails to amaze him. 

"I'm excited to head off to uni, though. It'll be way different than here and I won't have to be around people I don't want to see." There's hope I'm your tone. 

"What'd you pick again?" Bailey can barely speak intelligibly with all that chocolate stuffed in his mouth. Like he's ever been one for good manners though - and it seems to entertain you enough when you smile at him.

"I'm still not sure. Psychology's an option, but creative writing or even zoology sound cool, too."

"Zoology? Didn't know animals were your thing." 

"I started thinking about that after that field trip to the forest last month. You know how Winter is trying to find all of those ruins but there's the bears and stuff that could hurt him? It would be good to work to keep people who work there safe by taking care of the animals. Oh, and the fact that they're extinct everywhere else in the UK. They're important." 

Eden would disagree, but his old friend would keep to himself so long as he was left alone out there. 

"That, and well… animals are honest, you know? I don't have to worry if they'll be bad like people. They'll let me know what they want, I just have to learn the body language." 

Bailey snorts, finishing his Yorkie as he nods. "Aye, good point there. They say never work with kids or animals, but I used to work at the dog pound when I was your age and wrestling screaming huskies into the bath tub was easier than these lot." 

You return to being pensive, head cooking to the side. "How many of them do you think will go to uni?" 

How many of them will you have to avoid, you mean, judging by the nervousness that eases back into your voice. 

"Not many. They'll be the better ones who do anyway." 

No more chatting after that. There's not much more to say - you don't exactly go into personal stuff with your students. You've covered what was appropriate to talk about, and that was enough. That's how it always is. It's how it continues in the week to follow, until you graduate. 

He'll miss you. Just a little bit. The chocolate coated apple you leave on his desk with a thank-you note with a voucher for the local Chinese place is a nice touch, too. Did he even tell you he liked that place? He can't remember, but probably. 

Bailey knows why he harbours such feelings toward you. You're the kind of kid he'd hope to have if he was ever unlucky enough to spawn. 

"Good luck, Foxie," he whispers to himself as he eats the apple - and what do you know - it's melted Yorkie chocolate. Maybe you should have added confectionary to your list of things to study. 

A bittersweet heaviness settles in his chest, causing Bailey to rub the area as he frowns. Your note didn't have a social media handle, and now that you'd graduated you could add him on there. He'd like to keep an eye on your progress, but if you'd rather not then he understands. It's a new start for you, and he was a part of a difficult past even if he'd tried to offer safety in the storm. 

He still couldn't help but feel left behind. And not for the first time, he thinks. 

Dwelling on his sorrows won't do, though. It's better to get your demons out before they dig dens: so to Darryl's club it'll be tonight.

Bailey stays to fix his classroom up and get everything he needs for the summer. The kids left screaming for joy - his work hasn't stopped just because it's a holiday. He'll have to check his units and adjust all of his educational bullshit. 

His flat is small, just a single bedroom and a joint kitchen and living room, but it's enough. He guesses. Bailey's younger self would kick him in the balls for ending up here instead of as some big-shot lawyer or whatever he'd had in his head back then. 

Chucking his box of work shit onto his coffee table, Bailey pushes his dark hair back out of his eyes and heads to the shower. He can afford to spend half an hour in there, Leighton had sent the paycheck over. Its just what he needs, the scalding water loosening his muscles up and getting any sweat off of him from the summer heat. 

The outfit he chooses to wear is simple, but it's tailored just right to make his body look it's best. Dress shirt in white, black slacks, Italian loafers, his woolen long coat. He doesn't put it on until he's eaten, though, opting to shovel pasta into his mouth with his towel around his hips. 

It's still bright when he heads to the club even though the hour is late. Bailey finds himself thankful for it, the setting sun keeping some warmth as he waits for the bouncer to thin the line out and let him in. 

The environment inside is energetic, music pulsing through the building as lights are focused on various dancers performing on the stages in various stages of undress. People sit around watching with drinks in one hand and money in the other, ready to throw the cash when they find a dancer that gets them going enough. 

Bailey didn't bring change. Instead, he's off to the bar, taking an empty spot and ordering a whiskey. Then, he waits. Tourists come to this town for the beach (and the underground sex industry), many of them in the club tonight. Many of them good looking and looking for a fuck without ties. Luckily for one of them tonight, so is Bailey. 

His eyes scan the crowd, trying to scope out some cute thing he can make eye contact with and smile at so they'll either come to him or he can go to them. Sadly, the club's occupants tonight seem to be mostly local. And he isn't paying for one of the dancers either - Bailey likes it here and he'd rather not end up banned and have to venture over to Briar's seedy little hole. 

With no luck, Bailey settles for watching the dancers and listening to the conversations of groups around him for a while as he sips his drinks. Yes, multiple. If he can't fuck, he'll get a buzz and go home feeling merry at least. 

That time closes in, his eyes feeling heavy before it even reaches one in the morning. Fucking hell, he's feeling his age these days. He's not fourty yet, but it's coming, and his back especially is feeling it. 

Placing his latest empty glass on the bar, Bailey goes to get up when something catches his eye. Red hair, pretty face, young. Someone he doesn't recognise. He thinks. He's had enough to drink at this point that he can't see the best - but what he can see he likes. 

Now it's just about getting their attention. 

Another drink is ordered - this time a virgin cocktail. He's had enough alcohol, he'd like to be able to walk home without falling over. Then it's back to lounging against the bar, staring at the pretty red-head and willing them to look his way. 

And willing. And willing. And… shit. Yeah, they're not interested. Plus, Bailey needs to piss. 

The crowd goes up in cheers as one of the favourite dancers comes onto center stage, everyone glued to their spots as the music switches to their routine's soundtrack. It fades away as the door to the toilets swings shut behind the dark haired man. There's barely anyone else in there, and the two that are hurry to get out to watch. 

Not wanting to risk having some creep take a photo of his dick while he pisses, Bailey stumbles into a stall rather than over to the urinals. He's surprised to notice a gloryhole in the side of the stall; the owners here don't like that shit happening in the open. And it's a bug fucking hole, too.

A deep sigh leaves his lungs when he relieves himself, his head falling back and his eyelids closing. 

The door squeaks open, footsteps echoing as they make their way over to the stall right beside his own. Swearing under his breath, Bailey keeps an eye out for a phone coming under or above the stall. The stalls don't save you from pervs with cameras, but it does mean you can trap them in the stall and threaten them until they hand the phone over and you can delete what they took. 

"Hey, sorry, I couldn't hear you out there." 

Bailey's eyebrows crease as he shakes his dick and puts it away. Are they talking to him? 

"Yeah, no, I'm in the bathroom now. What did you call for?"

Nope, not for him. Nice voice though, bit of an accent. Definitely not from around here. Could be his tourist. 

"I- really? Really? You promised I'd be able to stay out the full night! You always do this, you always-" 

Oh, yikes. Controlling partner, it sounds like. Bailey knows he should go, but to leave now while they're arguing? To interrupt it? That feels more awkward than to hide and pretend he isn't there until they leave first. 

That accented voice only gets more upset, causing Bailey to cringe and hold his breath. 

"No! No, I'm not doing this anymore. We're done, you fucking freak! Yeah? Yeah? Go ahead, burn my shit, like I care." 

Oh, good for them, he guesses. He can still hear the tears in their voice. Tears that evolve into sobs when they hang up and, by the sound of things, sit down on the toilet seat. Time to go, Bailey thinks. He'll be really quiet about it, though. 

Which he fails at. Immediately. His loafers slip against the tile and his fist flies into the wall. Bailey doesn't hurt himself, but those sobs cease immediately. 

There's some flashes of movement beyond the glory hole, flashes of red hair going past while Bailey remains completely frozen. 

"Are you okay in there?" 

"I should be asking you the same thing," he shoots back. "But yeah, I'm good. Caught myself." 

"Guy from the bar, right? You were looking at me." 

Ah, so they're avoiding the question. Fair enough. He can't blame them for not wanting to tell a stranger about the partner they just broke up with. 

"Yeah, sorry, didn't know you were taken." He grunts as he finally stands back up right, smoothing out his shirt and working on tucking it back in. 

"Were." It's whispered, accompanied by the shuffle of clothes. He'll leave them to it, he supposes. 

"I, ah. Good luck with your-" 

They weren't pulling their pants down to take a piss. They were pulling them down to press their pussy against the glory hole, giving Bailey a good view of it. 

"You have a condom? I'm free now so…" 

Bold little minx, aren't they? Forward with what they want, but responsible enough to ask for a condom. Which Bailey would have forgotten if they hadn't mentioned. 

"Yup," is all he says, the 'p' popping as his pants come down again. Fishing out the condom from his wallet, Bailey keeps the packet held between his teeth as his hands get to work. One wraps around his cock, the other pressing against their pussy and thumbing their clit. 

Such a cute giggle they have, such a cute little cunt they have. Just what he needs to keep make his day after all of the goddamn stress. He's clumsy though, the drink and the two different movements of his hands making his ministrations rough. Not that the minx next door seems to mind. 

He's quick to harden, ripping the condom packet open before rolling it down on himself. 

"Just spit on me, I don't want to wait longer." 

Fucking hell, yeah he can do that. Leaning down, Bailey rolls his tongue around in his mouth, gathering spit before drooling it all over their cunt. And he just can't resist giving it a lick when he picks up how good it smells. 

They laugh again, wiggling their hips so that his tongue teases their clit for a few seconds before he pulls away. Then it's right to what they both want. 

The angle is awkward, standing up so straight his back leans away from the wall as he presses himself in. Completely worth it when he feels how tight and warm it is - even around the condom they feel like heaven. 

Reaching up, Bailey tightly grips the top of the stall dividing wall to keep himself steady while he pumps in and out. Nice and slow to start, nice and slow to find the angle he likes and a rhythm that makes sense. He keeps his head down, watching himself sink in. Such a good sight to commit to memory. 

The minx starts whimpering, gyrating their hips to demand more from Bailey. Strange that the whimper seems familiar, flashing images of a certain fox-like ex-student through his head. And a flash of heat through his lower belly. 

"Fuck," Bailey hisses, shaking his head and trying to focus on the here and now. Completely inappropriate to think of you right now. He's never thought of you that way, and he won't start now. 

But then the minx whimpers again, leaving Bailey with the thought of his little Foxie bent over his desk, taking him rough and hard while they both watch the door from fear of being caught. 

You're gone. He won't see you again. It's not like he'll have to look you in the eye on Monday and face the shame of having had these thoughts. What's the harm in indulging in them when they make his skin feel so aflame? 

"Yes, Sir, more!" 

Oh that fucking helps. Sends his mind reeling about how nice you always were, how you knew what he wanted from you whether it was your behaviour, work, or conversation. It would translate into the bedroom, Bailey knew that much. You'd be such a good little one for him, on your back with your knees held to your chest so he could get a good view of what's between your legs. What he'd be tasting, savouring. 

"So good, Sir, so good," the minx whines, that one fucking title the sweet spot in it all. 

Bailey snarls, pumping hard and fast right into them, right into you, his brain stuck in a world where you're in his apartment, laying in his bed and clinging tightly to him while he makes your anxiety seem out of your body with every hit against the slick, gummy walls of your sweet cunt. 

It creeps up on him, electricity sparking up his spine as his balls tighten. Bailey hasn't come this close to finishing so quickly in years, a realisation that sobers him for a second. His teeth dig into his lower lip, but it doesn't slow down the building explosion that hits him. 

He loses control of his hips, feeling like they're being pushed forward by an unseen force as he buries himself into the minx, spilling spurt after spurt of his seed into the condom. It drains that burst of energy he'd had, his cock slipping out of the minx as he struggles to stay standing. 

"You okay in there, handsome?" There's no mocking in their voice, just amusement. 

"Shit - sorry. I'll finish you off, here-" 

"Nah, it's all good. My phone won't stop going off and if I don't answer that bastard really will burn my shit. I left my mother's necklace over there so I should head over." 

"Don't go alone if you can help it," Bailey grunts, putting his clothes to right again and disposing of his condom in the bin. Next door, he hears the minx putting their clothes to right as well. 

"Yeah, I'll grab my friend on the way out. She's probably out of money at this point anyway." 

Their stall opens, footsteps heading off. Bailey isn't long behind. 

Two seconds. Two seconds of seeing them clearly in the mirrors above the sink as he passes. Two seconds where he sees them fixing their hair - an obviously fake wig that he can make out clearly since the drunkenness has faded. Two seconds where he can make out their face in the bright light of the bathroom.

One extra second when you turn back, panic in your eyes at the knowledge that he'd realised who you are. The panic fades though. Instead, you're smiling in a way he's never seen you smile before. It's confident. Fox-like. 

"Or maybe I'll just head back home since there's no ex-boyfriend. Could go back to yours. Bet you'd like more of a taste, Sir. I'll even hold my legs apart for you." 

Bailey can't move. Can't chase after you and demand answers as you scurry off, your hips swaying in that outfit. Can't believe his cock is hardening again, and that you'd know just what he wants. Just like he'd thought you would. 

Why do you always know what he wants?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

In defense of Deliverism

There are many ways to slice up the coalition that is the Democratic Party, but one important axis are the self-styled adults-in-the-room, who declare themselves to be realists, and the party's left wing, who are dismissed as idealists who don't understand politics: neither how to win elections nor how to wield power.

The "realists" are the ones telling us that we can't have nice things. They say that if the Dems promise bold action - protecting abortion, controlling assault weapons, funding infrastructure, raising the minimum wage, providing health care - they will lose elections. When Dems do win elections, they insist that none of these things are possible: the Supreme Court will strike them down, or the GOP will filibuster them, or the business lobby will subvert them.

For these realists, every negotiation is a grand bargain in which all the grownups meet in smoke-filled rooms where they niggle and cajole and flatter their way into tiny, incremental policy changes, "signature achievements" that are so modest that the enemy can't possibly weaponize them as the deeds of radical socialists who will bring the country to ruin.

To do otherwise, the realists say, is to court catastrophe. Wielding power will destroy the "comity" that makes the legislature effective. It will "delegitimize" the institutions whose trustworthiness is key to enacting sound policy. When they go low, we must go high - not out of a sense of decorum, but to preserve the republic itself.

This kind of politics - the "triangulation" politics beloved of the consultant class - took over the Democratic Party in the Bill Clinton years (see also: UK Labour under Tony Blair). But its foremost practitioner - the Triangulation GOAT - was Barack Obama.

Obama's inside/outside game was indeed remarkable. He assembled and steered a massive, grassroots get-out-the-vote campaign that leveraged his skills as a once-in-a-generation orator to inspire huge numbers of historical nonvoters to show up and cast their ballot (recall that nearly every US election is won by "none of the above," so GOTV is a winning strategy, if you can pull it off).

Then, after the election, he switched off that grassroots.

Literally.

At the time, Obama's grassroots was the most successful netroots in history. Talented coders and digital strategists figured out how to leverage the internet to identify, mobilize and coordinate volunteers across the country. And while netroots activists did their work across the whole internet, their home base was a server the Obama campaign controlled. Once Obama won, they switched that server off.

You see, the rabble is useful when you're out there, trying to turn voters out to the polls. But if you plan to spend your term in office playing eleven dimensional chess, you don't want the mob jostling your elbow and shouting in your ear.

If FDR's (possibly apocryphal) motto was "I want to do it, now make me do it"; Obama's was "I want to do it, now go away." Rather than surrounding himself with the great unwashed, Obama created a cabinet of technocrats, grownups from the upper ranks of industry and the consultant class.

Think of Tim Geithner, Obama's Treasury Secretary, who counseled that the banks should be bailed out with no strings attached, not even a requirement that they halt the seizure and liquidation of swathes of Americans' family homes. When Geithner told Obama he had to "foam the runway" for the crashing banks with the roofs over everyday Americans' heads, there were no grassroots organizers foaming at the mouth in outrage. Thus did Obama end the Great Financial Crisis - by creating the Great Foreclosure Crisis:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/06/personnel-are-policy/#janice-eberly

But Obama's signature achievement wasn't his economic policy - it was his healthcare policy. The Affordable Care Act was a carefully triangulated compromise, one that guaranteed a massive flow of public cash to America's wildly profitable health insurance monopoly and steered clear of any socialist whiff that Americans would get their care from the government.

The ACA was an technocrat's iron-clad dream policy. It would work! After all, it "aligned the incentives" of healthcare investors and "harnessed markets" to drive efficiency. No one could accuse this policy - which was copypasted from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's RomneyCare - of being "socialist." It was invented by a Bain Capital consultant!

Sure, the left would carp about Medicare For All and whine about the unjust enrichment of insurance barons. And sure, the right would try to convince "low information voter" lumpenproles that the individual mandate was an imposition on their Freedumb (TM), but in the end, more of us would get covered, prices would come down, and America would flourish.

That's not how it worked out. Prior to ACA's passage, 85% of Americans had health insurance. Today, it's 90%. That's not nothing! 5% of the US is more than 16m people. But what about the 85% - 282m people - who were insured before the ACA? Their insurance costs have doubled - from an average of $15,609 for a family of four in 2009 to $30,260 today. Obama promised that ACA would lower the average family's insurance bill by $2,500/year - but instead, insurance costs increased by some $15,000.

ACA wasn't just about cost, though: it was supposed to end discrimination, by forcing insurers to take on customers without regard to their "pre-existing conditions." On this score, too, Obamacare has failed: thanks to the ACA's tolerance for high-deductible plans, the number of Americans enrolled in plans that force them to pay for their chronic care out of pocket has skyrocketed from 7% to 32%. Yes, your insurer can't discriminate against you for having diabetes, but they can make you pay an extra $2,000 in deductibles every year before covering any of your diabetes care.

Now, maybe business-as-usual would have been even worse. Perhaps not passing the ACA would have left Americans poorer and sicker. But we're not comparing ACA with doing nothing - we're comparing ACA with more muscular, direct programs, like M4A. What if Obama had enlisted his grassroots, summoning up a left-wing answer to the Tea Party that turned the GOP into the party of no (including no compromises)? What if he'd jettisoned comity, appointed new judges, sent every executive order the Supreme Court rejected back to the court to be struck down again?

What if he'd governed like Lincoln, or FDR:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/20/judicial-equilibria/#pack-the-court

There's a name for this kind of politics: it's called deliverism:

https://prospect.org/politics/case-for-deliverism/

Deliverism is the idea that if you promise things to the voters, they will vote for you. It's the idea that if you deliver things to the electorate, that they will re-elect you.

Deliverism is a subject of hot debate in the Democratic Party, because Biden is an empty vessel that gets filled by different party factions, which means that his policy is incoherent, but includes some of the muscular, get-stuff-done politics of the Dems' Warren-Sanders wing, but that agenda is often undermined by the "responsible grownup" do-nothing Schumer wing.

The responsible grownups say that deliverism is dead, because voters mostly respond to hot-button cultural issues, while material improvements in their lives barely move the needle:

https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/the-death-of-deliverism/

In support of this proposition, deliverism's critics point to Obamacare, lauding it as a policy that made Americans better off, but still failed to win enough support for the Dems to defeat Trump at the end of Obama's second term.

In their rebuttal in The American Prospect, David Dayen and Matt Stoller point out that for most Americans, Obamacare didn't produce any improvement to their health care. The ACA made their care far more expensive, and the ensuing concentration across the sector (mergers between insurers, and between insurers and pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies) made their care worse, too:

https://prospect.org/politics/2023-06-27-moving-past-neoliberalism-policy-project/

The rise in health care costs is no mystery: monopolies have taken over healthcare. In particular, healthcare is now the domain of private equity rollups, where a fund buys and merges dozens or hundreds of small businesses:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/18/wages-for-housework/#low-wage-workers-vs-poor-consumers

Every layer of the healthcare stack is has grown steadily more concentrated since the Obama years: "Hospitals, doctor’s practices, health insurance, pharmaceuticals, ambulances, nursing homes, rehab facilities." As Stoller and Dayen put it:

> Every part of our health care world is increasingly controlled by greedy bankers who kill people for money.

The same corporate concentration has eroded wages, meaning that workers are paying for higher healthcare cost out of smaller paychecks.

Stoller and Dayen argue that the polls show that politicians who make material improvement to voters' lives do win popularity. Take the Child Tax Credit, which lifted more American children out of poverty than any initiative in history. The majority of voters who received the credit favored the Democrats. After Joe Manchin killed the credit, that support flipped, and that cohort now supports the GOP by a 15% margin.

Sure, Biden couldn't order Manchin to support the Child Tax Credit. But he could have gone to WV and campaigned for it with Manchin's base. He could have loaded the bill with pork for WV that was linked to the credit, and dared Manchin to vote against it. He could have "fought dirty" (which is what the grownups call "fighting to win").

The grownups say that if Biden had done that, he might have alienated Manchin and lost future votes, or caused Manchin to run as a Republican in his next election - but that presumes that Manchin won't switch sides anyway, and it presumes that failing to deliver the Child Tax Credit wouldn't also jeopardize the Dems' legislative majority.

The grownups in the Democratic party say we can't win by campaigning on economic issues like monopoly, nor on pocketbook issues like M4A. But when Biden slashed the cost of insulin, his approval numbers shot up.

The grownups' claim that they should steer Democratic electoral strategy is grounded in the idea that they can win elections, and without electoral victories, the Dems can't do anything. The grownups' claim that they should steer Democratic governing strategy is that they can win policy victories, and that these will get the Dems re-elected.

But neither of these claims hold water. Far from being pie-in-the-sky idealists with no theory of change, the party's left is incredibly good at getting stuff done. Take the antitrust enforcers Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, as well as the recently departed Tim Wu. They aren't mere idealists - they're brilliant tacticians and proceduralists who have figured out how to use their existing authority to do more than decades of their predecessors combined:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

By contrast, the grownups in the party - people like Pete Buttigieg - have notably, repeatedly failed to master the procedural technicalities needed to exercise comparable authority. You can't be a technocrat unless you understand the techniques:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

As for electoral strategy, the consultant class puts all its focus into eking out these incredibly marginal wins - the name of the game is to guarantee a 50.1% win and then move on to the next fight, which ensures that governing will be impossible. Meanwhile, union organizers like Jane McAlevey seek out 97% majorities for strike votes, in the teeth of voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money and disinformation campaigns that are far worse than anything we see in a general election. And yet it's the party's labor wing that is smeared as unserious about electoral victories:

https://doctorow.medium.com/a-collective-bargain-a48925f944fe

It's true that the right has been scoring electoral wins with appeals to ideology and identity rather than by promising concrete, material improvements for their supporters' lives. You can win elections that way - but only by demonizing half the country as the enemy and then promising to make their lives miserable.

That doesn't invalidate deliverism as a strategy for winning elections. People may not have the time or interest to follow politics in detail. They may not understand how the ACA's internal technical workings are structured. The ACA has a lot of deficits - for example, it doesn't allow people to discover which insurance companies deny the most claims:

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-often-do-health-insurers-deny-patients-claims

But even if that data were out there, there's only so much attention people can or want to pay to their insurance policies. People want health care that works: that takes care of their illnesses and injuries, without bankrupting them. Something like the VA (at its best). Or Medicare (at its best).

Improving peoples' lives isn't merely good governance - it's also good politics. Playing hardball is hard and can be unpleasant, sure, but most of the risk from taking big swings while in office is that the voters won't stand with you and give you the political capital to score big wins.

"I want to do it, now go away" guarantees that there will be no polity at your side, giving you political capital. The politics of grand bargains only produces unimpressive, incremental change.

For all the failings of the GOP's radical wing (and there are many such failings), there is this one virtue: they get stuff done. The GOP has taken massive swings - seizing the courts, dismantling the administrative states, stacking elections, and siphoning off trillions for its donors:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/16/that-boy-aint-right/#dinos-rinos-and-dunnos

The Democrats don't need to copy the GOP's abandonment of material policy for ideological hardlines. Indeed, it shouldn't: when they go low (culture war bullshit), we go high (delivering real benefit to voters). But the Democrats' left wing could sure stand to learn a trick or two from the GOP's right - namely, how to turn "I want to do it, now go away" into "I want to do it, now make me do it."

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/10/thanks-obama/#triangulation

The Clarion Science Fiction Writers’ Workshop (I’m a grad, instructor and board member) is having its fundraiser auction to help defray tuition. I’ve donated a “Tuckerization” — the right to name a character in a future novel:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/clarion-sf-fantasy-writers-workshop-23-campaign/#/

[Image ID: An old fashioned tickertape parade. In an open-top convertible, surrounded by security, is a kicking Democratic Party donkey colored red, white and blue.]

[collapsedsquid]

The other is the environment. Despite their bucolic image, Britain’s farms now emit more greenhouse gases than its power stations. They cause more river pollution than the country’s hated sewage companies. Batters was a progressive voice on climate change, but she has backtracked. She wants politicians to focus on producing more food, even though the UK’s agricultural sector hasn’t reduced emissions in the past decade and is now dealing with climate havoc. In the 18 months to March, England saw the most rain since records began in 1836. Partly as a result, farmers’ business confidence was the worst since the NFU started surveying it in 2010. “It’s just been horrendous, hasn’t it?” she says. [...] Johnson dropped a trade deal with the US, which would have allowed imports of hormone-injected beef into Britain, but signed deals with Australia and New Zealand with few safeguards for British farmers. His free-trading successor, Liz Truss, was “awful”. Didn’t she care about the sector? “She cared about Liz.” But Batters is positive about Rishi Sunak, who has shifted from green goals to talk of food security. Critics say the prime minister confuses food security with national self-sufficiency: relying on any one region for our food might make us less secure, given the impact of extreme weather. Anyway, his plans to grow more fruit and vegetables in Britain are hampered by his own migration policy. “In 2020 the Home Office, with Priti Patel, was saying you can have 10,000 seasonal workers. We were saying that wipes out the sector: the sector needs a minimum of 70,000. You’re not going to be producing any asparagus, strawberries, raspberries.” [...]

“My daughter’s doing a nursing degree. She works in a care home in the holidays. She’s the only British worker. This is in south Wiltshire. That’s bonkers.” Batters wants young people to be obliged to do a form of national service, potentially in agriculture.

[...] But farming is just 0.6 per cent of UK GDP. Doesn’t it already get more political attention than bigger sectors, such as gaming or the arts? Farming “underpins pretty much all of the rural economy”, says Batters. “That GDP figure is totally fraudulent.”

being driven insane by this interview

[eaglesnick]

“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

Malcolm X

I’m no fan of Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves but the deliberate lies and distortions concerning her budget both before and after the event are derisible. For a society to flourish successfully the media must adhere to a certain degree of honesty. Different opinions, backed up by evidence and logical argument, are fine, indeed, welcomed, but the continual peddling of untruths and half-truths by the media is an existential threat to the very democracy many of these media outlets pretend they are defending.

Before the budget the Financial Times, one of the most respected mainstream economic newspapers in the UK had this headline:

“Bankers fear Rachel Reeves is preparing UK Budget tax raid on sector” (11/09/24)

 On the day after the budget we have this headline:

“Reeves spares banks from tax raid after lobbying”  (City AM: 30/10/24)

This glaring headline from the Express is another example of our dishonest media:

“Labour blasted as 'anti-motorist' as Rachel Reeves ‘set to raise fuel duty in budget." (18/10/24)

After the budget we get the true story.

“Rachel Reeves announces fuel duty freeze as motorists spared from Budget tax rises."  (Independent: 30/10/24)

The Financial Times spoke of the “fear” our honest bankers felt concerning Reeves pending budget. Quite why bankers were “afraid” is unclear, especially as Reeves had already promised:

“Banker’ bonuses: No cap under Labour. Says Reeves." (BBC: 31/01/24)

After the budget, when it was clear there would be no tax raid on bankers, it was because she had “spared" them. Spared them from what? She had already promised there was to be no cap on their bonuses. Despite record profits at the six largest British banks (£48bn) Reeves decided not to increase the bank levy introduced by the Coalition government in 2011, or the corporation tax surcharge imposed by a Conservative government in 2016. In short, the banking sector has been left untouched by Reeves budget and this whole notion of “fear" and bankers being “spared" is a non-story.

The same non-story concerning her "anti-motorist" policies was also described as the motorist being "spared" when the prediction she would raise fuel duty just didn’t materialise.

Since the budget Reeves has come under repeated attack for raising taxes. Her budget will result in less wage growth, fewer jobs, an exodus of businesses abroad, the closure of care homes and doctors surgeries, higher mortgages and rents, the collapse of British farming, etc, etc.

The sad fact is we all know our public services are on their knees, homelessness is endemic, child poverty is rising, the NHS is on the brink of collapse, and our children’s schools and some of our hospitals are quite literally falling down around us. UK absolute poverty has hit an all-time high, life-expectancy is actually falling and the nation is suffering a mental health crisis.

While her British critics continue to rant against Reeves budget it is  worthwhile, even enlightening, to see how other countries view her plans for the Britain.

“Britain targets the wealthy as it hikes taxes by $52 billion.” (CNN Business: 30/10/24)

And

“Britain’s Reeves targets wealthy and foreign income with big tax rises” Reuters: 31/10/24)

The question British media outlets have to answer is what do they think should happen to our failing public services and the continuing economic plight of so many working people?  Should we continue as we were under the Tories and just let a huge sector of our society  go to the wall as happens in America? Or should we, as a nation, try and repair the damage done to our public services thereby improving the lives of many ordinary citizens?

If the latter answer is the way forward then who is going to pay for the repairs that are so desperately needed to mend our broken society?  The fair and moral answer is, of course, those who can afford to pay a little extra in tax – the already wealthy.

This is what Reeves is attempting to do and this is what is recognised by foreign observers. We can argue who among the already wealthy should be paying the most in additional taxes but it is the rich who have to pay. After all, Statistica inform us “the UK’s rich are getting richer” (23/05/22) so it is only morally right they should pay a little extra towards the welfare of those less well off than themselves.

The blind loathing that the vast majority of the British media display towards the Labour party is truly worrying. Their genuine fear when Jeremy Corbyn was Labour leader is understandable as his policies were truly transformative in nature. But social democrat Reeves budget is a far cry from the socialist plans of the Labour left. Yet the British media has this negative knee jerk reaction to all things Labour. The danger is that the day-after-day invention of “problems” that don’t exist will , over time, have a drip, drip affect on our perceptions, whereby we all buy into the lies being peddled.

[ukrfeminism]

Women would need to work for an extra 19 years to retire with the same pension savings as men, according to data from the Pensions Policy Institute.

The research found women retiring at 67 – the new UK state pension age from 2026 – will have saved an average of £69,000, compared with £205,000 for men.

The data, published by the PPI and pensions provider Now: Pensions, suggests that under the current system, in order to close the “gender pension gap” a girl would need to start saving at three years old to retire with the same amount of money as working men.

Career gaps, caring responsibilities, childcare costs and lower earnings all contribute to the disparity.

As automatic enrolment into workplace pensions – where workers are put into a pension scheme into which they and their employer pay – starts at the age of 22, the 19-year gap meant that “by age three, girls are already falling behind boys in their provision for later life”, the researchers claimed.

However, women often live longer than men – on average by about seven years – meaning their retirement pots also need to last longer.

Now: Pensions is calling for the £10,000-a-year earnings threshold for people to be automatically enrolled into a workplace pension to be removed because it excludes many women who hold multiple jobs or work part-time or as freelancers.

The UK state pension age of 66 is set to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028. From 2044, it is expected to rise to 68. However, research issued earlier this week suggested it would have to rise to 71 for those born after April 1970.

Separate industry figures issued on Wednesday indicated that the estimated amount of money needed to enjoy a “moderate” standard of living in retirement had jumped by £8,000 – or 34% – in a year as a result of the cost of living crisis and changes in behaviour.

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association has developed the “retirement living standards” to show what life in retirement looks like at three different levels – minimum, moderate and comfortable. Last year it said a single person needed about £12,800 a year to meet the minimum threshold but this year the figure has been put at £14,400.

The new threshold for a moderate standard of living in later life is £31,300 for a single person – up from £23,300 a year ago. To meet the comfortable threshold, the new figure is £43,100 a year for one person – up from £37,300.

The pension provider Scottish Widows said securing a guaranteed annual income of £23,300 for life would require a pension pot of about £500,000 – but securing an income of £31,300 would mean amassing a pension pot of more than £750,000.

The PLSA said its latest research “reflects the price rises that households have faced, particularly in food and energy use”, but also highlighted the increasing importance people placed on spending time with family and friends away from the home, as people’s priorities have changed after the coronavirus pandemic.

[cloudoc2022]

The Role of Quality Improvement Initiatives in Home Care Policies

Quality improvement initiatives play a vital role in enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of home care policies. These initiatives focus on continuously monitoring, evaluating, and improving the quality of care delivered to patients in their homes.Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of the role of quality improvement initiatives in home care policies:

Enhancing Patient Outcomes: Quality improvement initiatives aim to improve patient outcomes by ensuring that the care provided meets established standards of quality and safety. This includes reducing hospital readmissions, managing chronic conditions effectively, and promoting overall wellness and independence among patients.

Ensuring Compliance with Standards: Home care policies must adhere to regulatory standards and guidelines set forth by governing bodies. Quality improvement initiatives help ensure that these policies are implemented effectively and that all staff members are trained and compliant with the required standards.

Identifying Areas for Improvement: Through data collection, analysis, and feedback mechanisms, quality improvement initiatives help identify areas within home care policies that may need improvement. This could include processes, procedures, or even staff training and education.

Implementing Evidence-Based Practices: Quality improvement initiatives in home care policies prioritize the use of evidence-based practices. By staying current with the latest research and guidelines, home care providers can ensure that their policies and procedures are based on the best available evidence, leading to better outcomes for patients.

Promoting Continuous Learning and Development: Quality improvement initiatives foster a culture of continuous learning and development within home care organizations. Staff members are encouraged to participate in training programs, share best practices, and engage in quality improvement projects to enhance their skills and knowledge.

Improving Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: By streamlining processes and identifying areas of waste or inefficiency, quality improvement initiatives can help home care organizations deliver high-quality care in a cost-effective manner. This is particularly important given the increasing demand for home care services and the need to use resources efficiently.

Enhancing Patient and Family Satisfaction: Quality improvement initiatives focus not only on clinical outcomes but also on the overall experience of patients and their families. By listening to feedback, addressing concerns, and implementing patient-centered practices, home care organizations can improve satisfaction and build trust with the communities they serve.

Fostering Accountability and Transparency: Quality improvement initiatives promote accountability and transparency within home care organizations. By regularly reporting on performance metrics and outcomes, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to quality care and maintain the trust of stakeholders, including patients, families, and regulators.

In summary, quality improvement initiatives are essential for ensuring that home care policies are effective, efficient, and patient-centered. By continuously striving for improvement and innovation, home care organizations can deliver the highest quality of care to patients in their homes.

[lexlawuk]

Update: Proving Your English Language Abilities for UK Visa Applications

When applying for a UK visa or citizenship, demonstrating your proficiency in English is often a critical requirement. This is typically done by passing a Secure English Language Test (SELT). This detailed guide will explain the different types of tests, the immigration routes that require them, and the importance of choosing a reputable London law firm, like ours, to assist with your visa…

[warningsine]

Nine months of war between Israel and Hamas have brought nothing but misery. Over 38,000 Palestinians have lost their lives in the extensive Israeli airstrikes and ground invasion. New dioramas of gore and obliteration, like mediaeval apocalypse imagery, have spread across social media. Reports of potential ceasefire and hostage and prisoner exchange deals stretch cruelly over many months. At the time of writing, there is still no agreement. 

As a Palestinian—although fortunate enough to be living in the UK, and not Gaza—I’ve felt both overwhelmed and terrified since last October. Not just by the suffering of innocent Palestinians crushed beneath the Israeli war machine, but also by the suffering of innocent Israelis massacred and kidnapped from their homes and at a music festival on 7th October.

Most of Gaza’s 2.3m residents have been forced to evacuate their homes due to the ongoing conflict. Most now live in encampments among the wreckage. The borders with Egypt and Israel remain closed. There has been no mass evacuation of civilians as there was in recent wars in Ukraine or Syria, although a few Gazans have been able to bribe Egyptian authorities to let them out into the Sinai. The price is extortionate—thousands of dollars per person.

A survey conducted last month by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) found that 80 per cent of Gazans report a family member of theirs has been killed or injured in this war. The same survey found that 36 per cent of Gazans are unable to secure sufficient food for themselves and their families—although this is an improvement on the situation three months ago, when, according to a previous poll, 55 per cent of Palestinians in Gaza were unable to do so. 

More than 50 per cent of Gaza’s buildings have been destroyed or damaged; schools, universities, hospitals, and clinics have been devastated. The war has overloaded what remains of the healthcare system. The situation is critical. A large portion of the population is still struggling to access fundamental necessities like food, water, and medical care. Children have starved to death due to famine. 

Across the scattered diaspora, Palestinians are despairing. The present war is another calamity heaped atop a long list of catastrophes that have befallen our nation in the past century. On social media, there is a widespread sense of injustice and mourning at the deaths and displacement of civilians, and the destruction we are witnessing. But the sadness of diaspora Palestinians cannot compare to the dreadful reality of those living in Gaza.

There are limitations to carrying out polling in a war zone. Conducting systematic interviews of displaced, homeless people is difficult. In Gaza, respondents might not trust the interviewer, presuming them to be gathering intelligence for Hamas or Israel. Individuals with unconventional views may fear—with good reason—that expressing their views publicly carries a grave risk. They could be accused of being a traitor or collaborating with Israel.

But the existing polling does gives us some sense of Palestinian public opinion in the West Bank and Gaza. In the same PCPSR survey, support for Hamas’s attack against Israel remains high—with 67 per cent of Palestinians claiming it was the right decision, though there has been a decrease in support among respondents in Gaza. The PCPSR is careful to point out that this support does not necessarily mean agreement with the war crimes committed by Hamas; it is a reflection of recognition that the 7th October attack has brought attention to the Palestinian cause. The poll also found that 61 per cent of Palestinians want Hamas to remain in control of Gaza, a possibility rejected as a non-starter by Israel and the US. Hamas, for its part, stated in November last year that it intends to repeat the October 7th massacre until Israel is destroyed, and a new Palestinian state—led by Hamas—is founded between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea.

Of course, Hamas does not represent all Palestinians. There are many dissenting voices across the population, and other political parties. Earlier this year, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Palestinian-American activist, wrote that “Many Gazans like me despise Hamas but are too scared to speak out.... I have seen thousands of Gazans expressing a loathing for Hamas on social media, criticising its failures to govern properly and provide electricity, employment and peace.”

The Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership in the West Bank has not joined Hamas’s war efforts against Israel. Instead, the PA is trying to achieve legitimacy for the Palestinian people via a strategy of diplomacy and recognition through international institutions such as the UN. The strategy has borne fruit—144 of the UN’s 193 member states now recognise Palestine, most recently Spain, Norway, the Republic of Ireland and Slovenia, though the survey found support for dissolving the PA at 60 per cent. The new British government so far has stopped short of committing to such recognition.

Reflecting a growing diversity of opinion, last month’s poll shows that support for continuing the strategy of armed struggle has dropped significantly. While in December 63 per cent of those surveyed supported armed struggle, in June it was 54 per cent. And the numbers are rising in support of negotiations and non-violent resistance, too—from 20 per cent and 13 per cent respectively in December, to 25 and 16 per cent last month.

What do Palestinians want? According to the polling, 47 per cent prioritise ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as the capital. This is something of a return to form. In a 2018 poll, a large majority of Palestinians expressed a willingness for compromise to reach a deal—two thirds of Gazans were willing to give up the possibility of any kind of right of return to Israel in exchange for a sovereign Palestinian state.

Indications that support for a two-state solution is resurgent carry hope for a renewed peace process once this war is over. Perhaps such a process could even provide a foundation for mutual coexistence, economic development and the righting of injustices. The truth is that the pre-7th October status quo of military occupation, checkpoints, blockade, Israeli settlers rampaging across the West Bank and Palestinian statelessness was never going to be sustainable. But rather than debating and relitigating the strategic errors of the past and the failures of previous negotiations, Palestinians—and Israelis—need to embrace any opportunity for de-escalation. 

As is repeated to the point of cliché, neither Palestinians nor Israelis are going anywhere. Palestinians are a deeply resilient people. The fabric of our culture—our foods, our keffiyehs, our distinctive dialect of Arabic—will survive long into the future. And as best as I understand it, Israelis are a deeply resilient people too, with Jews having survived the Holocaust, centuries of anti-Jewish pogroms, and multiple wars with their Middle-Eastern neighbours—Palestinians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians. 

Israelis and Palestinians have deep historical roots in the land; they have a strong sense of national identity, and a desire for self-determination. These don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Over the past century there have been opportunities for de-escalating the violence and building living side-by-side in peace. The tragedy is that they have been missed. 

[beardedmrbean]

Western leaders, the UN and rights groups have joined a chorus of criticism of Hong Kong's new security law, saying it further erodes freedoms.

Article 23, as it's known locally, was unanimously passed by the city's pro-Beijing parliament, targeting a range of offences deemed treasonous.

Officials say the law is essential for stability but opponents called it a "nail in the city's coffin".

China has long pushed for the law and said "smears" by critics would fail.

The new law allows for closed-door trials, gives the police rights to detain suspects for up to 16 days without charge and penalties including life sentences, among other things.

"The new national security legislation is going to double down the repression on freedoms in Hong Kong with extended egregious sentences and a broadened definition of national security," said Frances Hui, an activist now based in the US, who described the legislation as a "final nail in a closed coffin".

A group of 81 lawmakers and public figures from across the world, including in the UK, US, Canada and South Korea, issued a joint statement on Tuesday expressing "grave concerns" over the legislation, which expands on the National Security Law imposed by Beijing in 2020, and criminalises secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.

"The legislation undermines due process and fair trial rights and violates Hong Kong's obligations under international human rights law, jeopardising Hong Kong's role as an open international city," the statement said, calling it yet another "devastating blow" for freedom.

What is Hong Kong's tough new security law?

Hong Kong's year under China's controversial law

The US said it was "alarmed" by the "sweeping and... vaguely-defined" provisions in the legislation, a concern echoed by the EU, which said the law could affect the city's status as a business centre.

Meanwhile, the UK's Foreign Secretary David Cameron said the law would "further damage rights and freedoms" and "entrench a culture of self-censorship" in the former British colony. Hongkongers have told the BBC how they are already being careful with what they say to friends and colleagues, fearing an "informant culture" has developed in the city.

Lord Cameron's comments sparked a strong response from the Chinese Embassy in the UK, which rubbished his remarks as "a serious distortion of the facts".

China's government also hit back at the criticisms of Article 23, saying it is "unswervingly determined to safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests, implement the 'one country, two systems' policy, and oppose any external interference in Hong Kong affairs".

"All attacks and smears will never succeed and are doomed to fail," foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian told a regular press conference in Beijing.

Hong Kong's leader John Lee had earlier also defended the law - which was fast-tracked through its final phase on Tuesday - saying the legislation would help the city "effectively prevent, suppress and punish espionage activities, conspiracies and traps from foreign intelligence agencies, and infiltration and sabotage by hostile forces".

"From now on, the people of Hong Kong will no longer experience these harms and sorrows," he added.

But those who led the pro-democracy protests against China's increasing influence on the city see the new law as yet another lost battle.

It brings Hong Kong "one step closer to the system of mainland China", former Hong Kong lawmaker Nathan Law, who is now in exile in the UK, told the BBC's Newsday programme.

"The chilling effect... and the result of a collapse of civil society is impacting most Hong Kong people."

Ms Hui said she is also concerned the law could also be used to target HongKongers overseas, or their families and friends back home. The city has previously offered bounties for information on activists who fled overseas, and arrested four people in Hong Kong for supporting people abroad who "endanger national security".

Ms Hui left Hong Kong in 2020 after Beijing imposed the NSL that has since seen more than 260 people arrested. It was introduced in response to massive pro-democracy protests which engulfed the city in 2019.

She said civil liberties in Hong Kong are "long gone" four years after the NSL took effect.

Chris Patten, Hong Kong's last British governor, described the legislation as "another large nail in the coffin of human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong and a further disgraceful breach of the Joint Declaration".

Hong Kong was handed back by the UK to China in 1997 under the principle of "one country, two systems", which guaranteed the city a certain degree of autonomy. While Beijing and Hong Kong both insist this is still the case, critics and international rights groups say China's grip on the city has only tightened with time.

[drdemonprince]

https://youtube.com/shorts/jJy-pcA9u1k?feature=shared

^ I love the Stay Up Late campaign and services and I think their challenging of restrictive practices and their focus on autonomy and pleasure would be something you are into - so checking you know about them https://stayuplate.org/

Their slogan is #StayUpLateWithWhoeverYouLike

Their work really makes me think about what I have heard Black activists call working from the edge - and how autistic people living in residential care homes etc are being subject to limits on what ‘I want’ feels like in a carceral way. Deeper than masking this is living with allistic carers and policies that shame and practically limit the social interaction (and use of our own homes) we need on our own terms to have a reasonable life as autistic people.

ps - and this is the UK guidance by our Care Quality Commission - idk the deal in the US but my guess is it’s not federal?? anyway hope this is of interest

https://carequalitycomm.medium.com/restrictive-practice-a-failure-of-person-centred-care-planning-b9ab188296cf

Thanks for sharing!!! This is so wonderful to learn about.

[strcngwillxd]

Introducing LENA SAWYER. Word on the street is they are a CONGRESSWOMAN affiliated with DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Though they are MANIPULATIVE and OVERCRITICAL, they can also be INQUISITIVE and ASSERTIVE. In the chaos of New York City, they’re sure to fit right in. 

Name: Lena Sawyer Age / D.O.B.: August 8th 1986 Gender, Pronouns & Sexuality: ciswoman, she/her, lesbian Hometown: New York City. Raised in both New York and Buckinghamshire (UK) Affiliation: Government, Democrat Job position: Congresswoman 3rd District Education: Business degree (Oxford University, paid by mummy) Psychology degree(Cornell, paid by daddy) Relationship status: dating Children: None Positive traits: (5) Inquisitive, Assertive, Playful, Intelligent, Sociable Negative traits: (5) Manipulative, Overcritical, Dishonest, Impatient, Secretive

— BIOGRAPHY (Divorce tw, drugs tw)

Born the only child of parents who married for every reason except love. Her mother from a wealthy family in the United Kingdom looking for connections in the United States and her father, the son of a prominent business man. Their marriage lasted only a year before they separated, neither could handle being in the same space as the other any longer. It was after the first meeting to prepare for the divorce that they discovered her mother was pregnant. The divorce was finalised the day she was born.

Lena was born with spina bifida and is an ambulatory wheelchair user (%90 wheelchair use, walking stick/other mobility aids for the other %10)

Lena grew up in New York and Buckinghamshire. Neither parent wanted to give the perception they were the bad guy. A shared, one month in the UK and one month in the USA policy was agreed upon.

Her parents were constantly trying to one up the other. Always wanting to have the better gifts, the better homes, the most money. Lena played this to her advantage. Both paying her way into prestigious colleges.

The turn to politics seemed random by those from outside her inner circle. From the outside it seemed she had it all, parents willing to fight for her attention and love. Half siblings who at the very least cared about her. Bank account figures higher than most could even dream of. Except that wasn't entirely true. As she grew older, her younger siblings were dominating family discussion. How they had earned their way into prestigious schools, were gifted and talented. One was even on his way to finishing a doctorate. Truth be told, Lena was jealous. She was the party girl, the one they went to for info on where to by the best hits or throw the best parties. The one they loped blame on when something went wrong because "they won't react if it's you!"

She settled on becoming a member of congress after the 2020 elections. She was confident in her people skills and she certainly had the money to wave around to make her past *indiscretions* go away and to push her to the front of the line. Others did it, why couldn't she? The only person to not laugh when she said she had placed her name forward for selection to run for the 3rd district seat was her father, who saw an opportunity this could present them and the company. It wasn't until the first poll numbers came through that the rest of the family started to take it seriously.

So she smiled and shook hands, read speeches she never wrote. Soaked up all the attention and come election evening 2022 the results were in. Congresswoman Lena Sawyer would be heading to DC.

— WANTED CONNECTIONS / PLOTS

Co-workers 0/?: what it says on the tin ex party buddies 0/3: people who know who is truly behind the mask. girlfriend 0/1: will probably end up a wanted connection. this is a relationship that was started as purely PR. Something that was suggested to help her campaign and something to help her girlfriends career. Now Lena isn't sure it's so much for PR on her end anymore

more tba

[manifestosummaries]

Disability

Conservative Party

Continue the Lilac Review to encourage more female and disabled entrepreneurs - Paraphrased (page 9/80)

"reform the system to make it fairer and more sustainable, unlocking the potential of millions of people and giving them the support they need to get into work" - Specifically in relation to disability & health condition (page 24/80)

"Reform our disability benefits so they are better targeted and reflect people’s genuine needs, while delivering a step-change in mental health provision" - In relation to "unsustainable rise in benefit claims for people of working age with a disability or health condition" - This includes "improving PIP assessments" and changing provisions offered (page 24/80)

Continue to modernise autism and learning disability services (page 43/80)

Give councils the power to ban pavement parking - Subject to business & residential engagement (page 59/80)

Delivering "Disability Action Plan", Pass the "Down Syndrome Act", Improve support for people with guide / assistance dogs - There are no specifics on any of these (page 61-62/80)

Explore hosting the 2031 Special Olympics World Summer Games (page 62/80)

Accelerate the rollout of Universal Credit to ensure it always pays to work - Including eliminating the legacy benefits system entirely (page 25/80)

Taking a zero-tolerance approach to welfare fraud - Relevant as it will make access harder (page 25/80)

Labour

Tackle access to work claim backlog (to address issue of immediate benefit reassessments), reform / replace Work Capability Assessments, support disabled people getting into work (page 43/136)

Ensure special schools address the needs of those with disabilities and have a community-wide approach incorporating schools and SEND - paraphrased (page 83/136)

Equalise pay for disabled people (88/136)

Improve employment support (89/136)

Protect disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence (89/136)

Look for ways to incorporate support for working aged disabled people into the National Care Service (NCS) Labour will establish - paraphrased (page 101/136)

Review Universal Credit (page 78/136)

Liberal Democrats

Help disabled people enter the job market (page 18/117)

Ending inappropriate and costly inpatient placements for people with learning disabilities and autism (page 33/117)

Ensure parents can access childcare that helps identifying and supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities in the new training programme for early years staff (page 48/117)

Improve the benefits system for disabled people by giving disabled people a stronger voice in policy & process, bringing work capability assessments in-house, and reforming personal independence payment processes - paraphrased (page 52/117)

Improve Disabled Access in the rail network (page 79/117)

"Give everyone a new right to flexible working and every disabled person the right to work from home if they want to, unless there are significant business reasons why it is not possible" (page 94/117)

Requiring large employers to monitor and publish data on disability (and other protected characteristic) employment levels, pay gaps and progression, and publish five-year aspirational diversity targets (page 96/117)

Make it easier for disabled people to access public life by adopting new standards for public spaces, improving legislative framework around blue badges, incorporating UN law on disabled people into UK law, tackling the employment gap, raising awareness of the access to work scheme, introducing "adjustment passports" to clearly express individual needs and adjustments, expand on the BSL act, including in government communicates (page 97/117)

Establish an independent commission for annual increases to Universal Credit to appropriately cover living expenses (page 51/117)

Reduce wait for first Universal Credit payment from 5 weeks to 5 days (page 52/117)

"Ending the young parent penalty for under-25s by restoring the full rate of Universal Credit for all parents regardless of age" (page 52/117)

Green Party (England & Wales)

"Free personal care to ensure dignity in old age and for disabled people" (page 7/48)

"Restore the value of disability benefits with an immediate uplift of 5%" (page 8/48)

"End the unfair targeting of carers and disabled people on benefits" (page 8/48)

"Oppose plans to replace Personal Independence Payments (PIP) cash payments with ‘vouchers’, and in the long term reform intrusive eligibility tests like PIP" (page 8/48)

"Make it mandatory for councils to provide free transport for 16–18-year-old pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disability"

"Ensure disabled workers have the in-job support they need, as well as proper pay and conditions" (page 8/48)

"Champion the right to inclusive welfare support, and housing under the principles of universal design" (page 8/48)

"Push for pay-gap protections to be extended to all protected characteristics including ethnicity, disability" (page 20/48)

"Equate the rate of pension tax relief with the basic rate of income tax to help fund the social care that will allow elderly and disabled people on low incomes to live in dignity" (page 22/48)

"20 miles per hour to be the default speed limit on roads in all built-up areas, allowing children, the elderly and disabled people to walk and wheel safely" (page 34/48)

Increase representation of under-represented groups including disabled people (page 35-36/48)

"Work cross party to support sports to be more diverse and representative, especially for women and girls and disabled people" (page 40/48)

"Police Services need to acknowledge the institutional racism, misogyny, homophobia and disablism that have dominated policing for so long" (page 41/48)

"Increase Universal Credit and legacy benefits by £40 a week" (page 21/48)

"Oppose plans to replace Personal Independence Payments (PIP) cash payments with ‘vouchers’, and in the long term reform intrusive eligibility tests like PIP" (page 8/48)

"We will end benefit sanctions and challenge the punitive approach to welfare claimants, instead recognising that that all of us might need extra support or a safety net at different points in our lives" (page 21/48)

Push to introduce Universal Basic Income (page 21/48)

Plaid Cymru

Adopt the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People into UK law to assure accessibility for all which was ratified by the UK in 2009, but never introduced into law (page 71/72)

Introduce a minimum threshold to universal credit - Paraphrased (page 40/72)

"The timetable for receipt of first payments of Universal Credit should be shortened so that individuals and families do not get into substantial debt, and repayments should operate on the basis of supporting people" (page 40/72)

Pilot Universal Basic Income (page 41/72)