The governments failure to ringfence the funding

first_imgThe government’s failure to ring-fence the funding it is handing to local authorities following the closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) is leading to a “postcode lottery” of support for former ILF-recipients, according to new user-led research.Information secured by Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP) through freedom of information requests to Greater Manchester’s 10 local authorities has revealed that many councils are refusing to use the government funding to support the former ILF-recipients it was intended for.ILF was funded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and by last year it was helping nearly 17,000 disabled people with the highest support needs to live independently.But ministers decided it should be scrapped, promising instead that nine months’ worth of non-ring-fenced funding would be transferred to councils in England and to devolved governments in Wales and Scotland, to cover the period from its closure last summer to April 2016.The minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson, then announced in February that the government would provide another four years of transition funding to local authorities in England in 2016-17 (£177 million), 2017-18 (£171 million), 2018-19 (£166 million) and 2019-20 (£161 million), but that the money would again not be ring-fenced.GMCDP’s research has now revealed that some Greater Manchester councils have promised to spend the government’s money solely on former ILF-recipients, but others have refused to do so.Of the 10 councils, only two have said categorically that they will ring-fence the money for former ILF-recipients, another appears to suggest that it will do so, and two are waiting for further information from the government before making a decision, but five have said they will not ring-fence the money.Brian Hilton (pictured, right), GMCDP campaigns officer and a former ILF-recipient, said: “The government has abandoned former ILF-recipients, those with the highest support needs.“They have closed the ILF, given the money to local authorities but provided no clear direction of how that money is to be used to ensure that former ILF-users’ support is maintained.“So it’s a postcode lottery where some authorities are continuing to support former ILF-users, others say they won’t and some still have no idea what will happen.”Hilton, who has produced a short video explaining the situation facing former ILF-users in Greater Manchester and across the country, added: “The government is either lying or delusional when they say that the introduction of the Care Act will ensure that former ILF-users will be able to maintain choice and control over their lives.“The support provided by local authorities via personal budgets is increasingly about providing the bare minimum, so-called ‘clean and feed’.“Independent living is much more than this. It’s about having the support, not only to get out of bed, but to get out and be part of society, through leisure, through education, through work.”last_img read more

Labour MPs tonight passed a motion calling on the

first_imgLabour MPs tonight passed a motion calling on the leadership to tackle cases of antisemitism and answer to the parliamentary party on the handling of disciplinary cases. At the weekly PLP meeting, attended by general secretary Jennie Formby this evening, MPs demanded a report on the matter to be supplied in one week.The motion, called ‘Action on Antisemitism’, was proposed by Catherine McKinnell and seconded by Ruth Smeeth. It warns that the party risks normalising Labour antisemitism and appearing “institutionally antisemitic” unless it takes adequate action.11 questions are asked of the leadership, including the numbers of outstanding antisemitism cases and received complaints, the details of the antisemitism guidelines review and any training undertaken by staff members, and how the party plans to exercise a duty of care towards MPs in the future.Before the meeting took place, Formby sent a message to the PLP setting out what Labour had done so far to improve the complaints and disputes procedures under her watch. In a letter exclusively revealed by LabourList, the general secretary said “significant progress” had already been made “to strengthen and speed up our procedures”.Formby said “NCC hearings happen more frequently and with fewer delays” and told MPs she wanted to get “world-class education programme on antisemitism” for members “absolutely right”. The Jewish Labour Movement, Labour’s only affiliated Jewish group, issued a response to this point.“We reject entirely the suggestion, made for the second time by the Labour Party, that it knows better than the Jewish community what counts as “world class” ways to combat antisemitism,” the tweeted JLM statement read.The general secretary concluded her message: “I am proud of the progress that has been made but I’m not complacent… There is more work to be done to ensure all cases are dealt with quickly and fairly, and to eliminate the evil of antisemitism from our movement once and for all.”But angry Labour MPs reported from the private meeting tonight that Formby had told them she answered to the national executive committee, not the PLP, and she said that it would be “impossible to eradicate antisemitism”. A Labour source clarified that Formby had told MPs it was impossible to eradicate antisemitism without improved procedures and education.After the meeting, Dame Margaret Hodge MP commented: “The resolution was unanimously supported by the Parliamentary Labour Party and the general secretary of the Labour Party basically said she wasn’t prepared to give us the information that was required in the resolution.”A Labour spokesperson said: “Jennie Formby gave a comprehensive update on the significant work that’s been done to strengthen and speed up procedures and addressed the points in the motion.” Explaining why the questions in the motion couldn’t be answered, they said: “Complaints processes are confidential and the party has a responsibility to protect members’ data.”Below is the full text of the ‘Action on Antisemitism’ motion passed at the PLP meeting tonight.The PLP notes that 10 months ago the British Jewish community took to Parliament Square for the Enough is Enough demonstration to demand the Labour Party take action against antisemitism; in response the PLP notes that the leader of the Labour Party apologised for the “hurt and pain” caused by instances of antisemitism in the Labour Party and pledged to “redouble my efforts to bring this anxiety to an end”; the PLP acknowledges that on her appointment, the new general secretary to the Labour Party vowed to introduce procedures to deal with complaints and disciplinary cases and said the “stain” of antisemitic attitudes must be “completely eradicated” within the party.In the months that have followed, the PLP is dismayed that there remains such a backlog of antisemitism cases that are still to be investigated and a decision reached – in particular the high-profile cases that it was promised would be concluded by July 2018. The PLP is very concerned by recent reports that a number of cases of alleged antisemitic activity from high-profile members have been dropped. The PLP calls on the party leadership to adequately tackle cases of antisemitism, as a failure to do so seriously risks antisemitism in the party appearing normalised and the party seeming to be institutionally antisemitic.The PLP calls on the party leadership to provide a report to the PLP meeting in one weeks’ time detailing:How many outstanding cases of antisemitism the Labour Party need to a) investigate b) consider at the NEC disputes panel c) prepare charge sheets to submit to the NCC d) await a NCC hearing;How many complaints about antisemitism have been received and on how many occasions have NEC officers/the general secretary used delegated powers to take no further action about these complaints;How many FTE staff (not on any kind of long term leave) in GLU a) handle complaints and complainants b) investigate complaints c) process cases through disputes and NCC;How much has been spent on external legal counsel on behalf of the NEC pursuing disciplinary cases against members;Which Jewish community organisations have been consulted on the still un-reviewed antisemitism Code of Practice and what is the timetable for when this is set to be complete;Which individuals/organisation has been commissioned to provide antisemitism training to members who must complete training as a sanction, when this training will be finalised and when this training will be rolled out;Whether all members of the NEC on the antisemitism Disputes Panel have completed antisemitism training;How many members who have been through the disciplinary process are waiting to commence antisemitism training;What is the Labour Party’s maximum timescales for responding to members who report instances of antisemitism;How the Labour Party is engaging with the targets of antisemitic abuse;What process the Labour Party is implementing in terms of its duty of care to its elected representatives. Tags:Labour /Margaret Hodge /Jennie Formby /Antisemitism /PLP meeting /Jewish Labour Movement /last_img read more

Column Tasers to arm or not to arm

first_imgThe benefits of the electronic weapons have been over promised, their detriments have been underreported. What could go wrong? Tags: police • SFPD Share this: FacebookTwitterRedditemail  In the year 2010, it was revealed that this city’s crime lab, far from being the sleek realm of 3-D holograms and technicians outfitted in white coats and four-inch heels you’d see on TV, was in fact infested with feral cats. There were too many damn cats and not enough drugs—a year earlier, a lab tech retired after being caught snorting the evidence. In 2011 the San Francisco Police Department announced a major technological advance: Its officers would now have e-mail accounts. In the years that followed, they even received mobile phones.center_img This city’s police department, then, is neither particularly tech savvy nor an early adopter. To wit, San Francisco remains the sole large municipality in the United States to resist arming its officers with Tasers, a full two decades after departments nationwide began buying them up. We’ve been arguing about whether to give cops electronic weapons since before they had electronic mail. We’ve been debating this since before YouTube was created; in the interregnum more than 1 million Taser videos have been uploaded.The battle lines are well-drawn: The powerful and bellicose Police Officers Association has made obtaining Tasers an Ahab-like obsession, and they have strong support in this quest from Mayor Ed Lee. Bill Scott is the latest in a long line of police chiefs to lobby for Tasers, a clarion call that, reliably, emanates after SFPD officers put yet another erratic, substance-addled and/or mentally ill person into the hospital or morgue. Meanwhile, among the city’s left-leaning stalwarts, Tasers are one more thing to keep out of San Francisco, along with freeways, chain stores, and high-rise pied-à-terres.Tasers have become, for each side, a symbol of the other’s intransigence. Either getting Tasers or staving them off has, for the warring parties, long since transcended a policy debate and become, simply, about getting a win. You don’t have to gaze toward Washington, D.C. to know this is no way to run a railroad.In the next several months, the Police Commission will likely decide whether, at long last, to acquiesce and begin sending cops out with electroshock weapons. This has, for years, been as predictable an endeavor as Bullwinkle’s hapless attempts to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Now, however, the momentum appears to be with the Taser proponents. A Department of Justice probe in the wake of the December 2015 Mario Woods shooting urged the city to strongly consider bringing in Tasers (city officials take pains to note that these were the wishes of the Obama-era DOJ, not the current iteration overseen by a racist elf). In January, commission president Suzy Loftus, a Taser skeptic, resigned from the board—handing Mayor Lee a shot to name a replacement who saw things his way. That appointee, Robert Hirsch, confirms that Lee talked him up regarding Tasers. That’s about all he’s willing to confirm, though. “All I’m going to say is that we had a discussion about it and my mind is still open. When the time comes to vote, I will make the smartest decision I can.”Well, good. Because this isn’t a matter of rote politics and Tasers aren’t symbols. They are weapons. They are costly. They are dangerous. They are failure prone. And they are, simultaneously, both remarkably simple yet remarkably complex. Barring  unforeseen lunacy, condoms fail roughly one time out of 50. The new trams Muni invested $1.2 billion in are designed to roll 59,000 miles between failures (we’ll see). Every day, some 20,000 passenger jets take off and land safely across North America, with decades between disasters—perhaps the closest humanity has ever come to touching perfection.Tasers are not in this pantheon; they are closer on the spectrum to the Ford Pinto. And when they fail, like the Pinto, things blow up. Cops get hurt. Civilians die.Retired Oakland cop Michael Leonesio has analyzed tens of thousands of Tasers—and, right out of the box, he’s found one in five fail. But this gets worse: Among the four in five that pass his initial 10-point inspection, an additional 15 percent still fail, emitting to much or too little electricity—or none at all. “If you had a desk lamp that failed this often, if you had a car that failed this often, you’d be out of business,” says Leonesio, who oversaw the Oakland Police Department’s Taser policy and deployment. “This is unique. This is concerning.” (Leonesio hasn’t done much testing on the latest crop of Tasers, so it remains to be seen how tetchy they are. Following a bevy of lawsuits, however, they pack significantly less punch than their forbears—prompting questions about their ability to drop suspects, and rendering the data the police commission is sifting through out-of-date).You’re asking a lot of a cop to slap a weapon in his or her hand that will fail to work one trigger-pull out of three. This does not fit into the made-for-TV perception of futuristic crime labs and phasers-set-to-stun. And yet, even when the weapon successfully sparks up after the trigger is pulled, there’s no guarantee it will incapacitate a subject. A Taser is not a phaser; it requires two darts on wires to both make contact with the target’s skin, and complete the circuit. Pulling this off is easier said than done. A Taser is most likely to succeed if you’re trying to incapacitate a scantily clad, muscular person built like The Rock who is, conveniently, standing still. A fat person, a person wearing thick or loose clothing, a person who is moving around in an attempt to not be shot—all of these factors can foil a Taser.In Los Angeles, where there are certainly a hell of a lot more scantily clad people resembling The Rock than up here, the LAPD found Tasers failed nearly half the time. This is scary data, considering what happens after a Taser fails. The SFPD use-of-force policy, revamped after two decades in the wake of the Woods shooting, champions time, distance, cover, and de-escalation for officers confronting problematic individuals. A cop with a Taser, however, can contravene all of those.She must expose herself, coming within seven-to-15 feet of a target subject behaving aggressively enough to warrant use of force. “What do you do,” posits Leonesio, “when you walk into a dark room and click the light switch and there’s a quick flash of light and then darkness?” Naturally, you click the switch again. And again. And again. Officers he’s observed in the field and in training do the same thing when the Taser conks out. “That’s just what we do. And if you’re an average human under stress, in the three, four, five seconds, the guy is all over you.”Cavalier—or even not-so-cavalier—use of a Taser can result in a cop being attacked and/or a subject being killed in a situation where adherence to the department’s time-distance-cover-de-escalation mantra may well have led to a bloodless outcome. Even if the Taser does work, not having ample backup on the scene to take the subject into custody leads to scenarios in which cops jolt suspects repeatedly—which is, as you’d expect, terrible and dangerous. Far from being a magic wand, Tasers require scads of devoted officers solely to handle technical matters, routine testing, and maintenance, along with reams of new policies and training for everyone.And there’s the rub: The adoption of Tasers would require saddling the SFPD with heaps of new rules and procedures. But the shootings the POA and others claim would have been prevented—if only officers had Tasers—were, themselves, largely due to officers’ inability to follow rules and procedures. The SFPD, it turns out, isn’t so hot with rules and procedures: Cops here deride the martinets at the LAPD as by-the-book automatons and value the individualism and initiative granted to them in the SFPD culture. And that’s great—until the weapon comes out of the holster and the trigger is pulled and, no matter what happens next, someone’s life will change forever. “If the SFPD wants to do this properly,” sums up Leonesio, “it is going to require a cultural change.”Good luck to the police commissioners. Providing a shock to the system of San Francisco’s most sclerotic department may be beyond the capabilities of even a Taser. last_img read more

Is San Franciscos marijuana tax for real

first_imgSan Francisco voters will decide next month whether to approve an additional marijuana tax. Proponents of Proposition D say the highest-earning San Francisco cannabis businesses should pay extra taxes to support city programs, but some opposed to the opposition say how the money would be used and the effect on businesses and consumer spending habits remain uncertain. Others have no doubt.“Proposition D is really to keep the cannabis industry accountable,” said San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen, who authored the proposition. “The tax would allow us to help fund some of the oversight that goes into regulating an industry of small businesses.”The proposition, supported by members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, would apply to businesses that earn more than $500,000 in recreational cannabis revenue, including businesses that are based outside of San Francisco but sell recreational marijuana in the city. Revenue beyond the $500,000 threshold would be taxed at a rate between 1 and 5 percent; the rate would be adjustable year-to-year by a vote of the board.The San Francisco Controller’s Office estimates that the tax could bring in up to $16 million a year beginning in 2021, the year the ordinance would take effect if passed. Subscribe to Mission Local’s daily newsletter Email Addresscenter_img The proposition’s official support statement, prepared by Cohen, lists five different programs the tax would support, including “compassion programs for low-income patients” and “equity programs for business owners harmed by over-policing.” But the proposition states that the money would be deposited into the city’s General Fund, which can be used on a variety of city expenses from employee salaries to facilities maintenance.“I think we should try to move away from completely earmarking the budget,” Cohen said.Daniel Orenstein, a UC San Francisco postdoctoral fellow who studies marijuana and cannabis policy, said this flexibility could allow the city to adapt to changing needs over time.“I don’t doubt that the supervisors have the intention to use the money as they’ve laid it out, but the way it’s written, they wouldn’t be obligated to do so,” he said.Under California’s Proposition 26, passed in 2010, tax and fee measures that specify how their revenues will be spent must pass with a two-thirds supermajority of votes. Measures that don’t specify how such funds will be used, like Measure D, require only a simple majority to pass.Tobacco companies pushed for that proposition after San Francisco created a fee to direct money from the sale of cigarettes toward the cleanup of cigarette butts and plastic packaging, said Stanton Glantz, a UCSF professor of medicine who has spoken out against the tobacco industry.In 2014, a San Francisco proposition to tax sugary drinks $0.02 per ounce failed to reach the required two-thirds supermajority. Two years later, a similar measure that directed money to the city’s General Fund did pass. The passage of the 2016 proposition on sugary drinks included the creation of the Sugary Drinks Distributor Tax Advisory Committee (without triggering the need for a supermajority) which monitors the effects of the tax and communicates with the city about how the money should be spent. That measure passed with 62.7 percent of the vote.“The public likes dedicated taxes a lot more than they like [them] going into a general fund,” Glantz said, though acknowledged that the two-thirds supermajority threshold was difficult to meet.Though Prop. D would not automatically create a similar committee for the cannabis tax, Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer has proposed the creation of a cannabis oversight committee to play a similar role, Cohen said.The measure has also raised questions about how it might affect businesses and consumer spending behavior.Tobacco industry experts and public health officials have long studied how taxation affects smoking habits. Research shows that 60 to 70 percent of tobacco smokers make some kind of change to their consumption or participation habits when a new tax goes into effect, said Raymond Boyle, a University of California health policy researcher.Some quit. Others find cheaper ways to smoke.When it comes to marijuana, cities are carefully considering how tax hikes might prompt consumers to stop buying from the legal market and return to the illegal market, Boyle said.Richie Greenberg, a former San Francisco GOP mayoral candidate and the officially listed opponent to the measure, said that the city’s pledge to use the tax revenue to pay for specific programs is misleading.“The way it was worded was not how it was being presented to the public,” said Greenberg. “That got me really mad to see that.” last_img read more

LACKING four first choice players due to suspensio

first_imgLACKING four first choice players due to suspension and losing three more during the course of the match through injury, the Academy put in a Rourke’s Drift type performance (for those too young, myself included I might add, look it up on the web!) to come away with the spoils 22-18, writes Graham Henthorne.It’s never easy to go to Humberside and win with all the odds in your favour but to lose players of the calibre of Adam Barber (5 minutes), Corey Lee (25 minutes) and Joe Bate (50 minutes) and still more than compete is a massive task. Add to that the fact that the Saints were down to 11 men at one stage due to sin-binnings to Greg Wilde and Luke Thompson and the stature of the performance becomes more evident.The Saints had started well and when an offload from Wilde put James Hill away for the opening score all looked good.Wilde then scored the second himself increasing the lead to ten but unfortunately was sin binned just before the break, the home side capitalising with a converted try to reduce the arrears.Luke Thompson’s yellow card early in the second period saw the Saints down to 11 and the home side scored twice to stretch their lead to 18-10.However, as the numbers evened themselves up again the Saints regained their dominancee and set about reducing the deficit.Despite being hamstrung by the injury load Yates and Speakman led their charges around the park and victory was achieved with late tries to Lewis Foster and Danny Yates both converted by Yates.Coach Derek Traynor was effusive with praise for all the players today. The pack laid the platform for the win with some outstanding defence. Led by Bate, Jordan O’Neill and Danny Jones they held the home side at bay, limited the damage during the sin-binnings and then led the fight back in the second half.A special mention must go first to Lewis Galbraith who made his debut for the Saints with only 5 minutes gone and then to Nathan Skupski who started in the second row but moved out wider to cover injuries and put in a top class performance in both positions.This was a banana skin waiting to slip on but due to some heroics it was turned into a defining moment in the season.Match Summary:Hull FC:Tries: Smith 2, Jackson (K.)Goals: Jackson (L.)3Saints:Tries: James Hill, Greg Wilde, Lewis Foster, Danny Yates.Goals: Danny Yates 4.Half Time: 10-6 Full Time: 22-18Teams:Hull FC:TBCSaints:1. Corey Lee, 2. James Hill, 3. Greg Wilde, 4. Adam Barber, 5. Leon Tatlock; 6. Dom Speakman, 7. Danny Yates; 8. Joe Bate, 9. Callum Welsby, 10. Jordan O’Neill, 11. Luke Thompson, 12. Nathan Skupski, 13. Danny Jones. Subs: 14. Lewis Foster, 15. Greg Richards, 16. Jack Francis, 17. Lewis Galbraith.last_img read more

BRITAINS Got Talent finalists Richard and Adam Jo

first_imgBRITAIN’S Got Talent finalists Richard and Adam Johnson, along with Irish singer-songwriter Jordan O’Keefe, usher in the seasonal festivities in St Helens when they perform at the Christmas lights switch this week.Thousands of fans are expected to pack Victoria Square at 4pm on Saturday November 16 for the star-studded ceremony, which also features leading British beatbox band Duke, a host of talented local acts and appearances from Saints players!Richard and Adam have enjoyed huge success recently and are set to release ‘The Christmas Album’ – which puts an operatic twist on festive classics including ‘Away in a Manger’, ‘Silent Night’ and ‘Once in Royal David’s City’.The record follows their debut effort ‘The Impossible Dream’, which topped the UK chart for four weeks, selling over 100,000 copies.Jordan O’Keefe received rave reviews from the BGT judges with his fantastic performances of ‘Little Things’ by One Direction, ‘I Will Always Love You’ by Whitney Houston and ‘Firework’ by Katy Perry.Duke perform a massive array of covers with only three voices and one guitar – incorporating beatbox and vocal basslines without any backing tracks, looping or sampling. They have played some of music’s biggest events including the Leeds Festival, Lovebox and Parklife.St Helens Council Leader Barrie Grunewald said: “The Christmas lights switch on is one of our main events – and an important date for our town centre retailers who stand to benefit from the surge in footfall. We’re sure that thousands of residents from across the borough and beyond will enjoy the great free entertainment that’s on offer.”For more information about what’s happening in St Helens go to www.whatsoninsthelens.comlast_img read more

SAINTS Rugby Speed Camp will take place on July 28

first_imgSAINTS Rugby Speed Camp will take place on July 28 to August 1 2014, from 9am – 1pm.The camp is for 9-15 year old rugby players and will include: Five days of innovative speed and agility training (including lots of game time to practice your new speed and agility techniques in match situations)Speed and agility testing at the start and end of the camp to track your improvements over the five daysA detailed speed and agility progress reportA speed camp t-shirtA tour of Saints’ training facilityAn opportunity to watch the first team train and meet the playersA chance to win several Saints prizesPlus much, much more!! The camp will take place at St.Helens R.F.C.’s training facility. Visit to find out more and reserve your place.There are only a limited amount of places on the camp so sign up now to avoid disappointment.last_img read more

No slopes no problem Snowboarding contest comes to Wrightsville Beach

first_img There’s no slope for the competitors to pick up speed, so organizers set up a bungee system that leads to ramps and rails for tricks.There was also food and beverages available for spectators to keep warm as they cheered on the snowboarders.Once snow was in the forecast, the owner of the surf shop says his phones were ringing off the hook with people excited about the return of this special event.Related Article: Wrightsville Beach restaurant closed since Florence starts rehiring staff“It’s become kind of a novelty event. It’s unique to run a snowboard event at the beach and it’s kinda stuck with the community and every time it snows, we try to come through and put it on,” said Jeff DeGroote, the owner of South End Surf Shop.This is only the third time in nine years the surf shop has been able to hold this event, due to the rarity of snow in our area. Spectators watch snowboarder compete in South End Surf Shop Rail Jam at Wrightsville Beach (Photo: Justin McKee/WWAY) WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC (WWAY) — The snow from our recent winter storm continues to linger, so some people at Wrightsville Beach decided to trade in their surfboards for snowboards yesterday.It was part of the South End Surf Shop Rail Jam, an opportunity for locals to compete for prizes and show off their skills.- Advertisement – last_img read more

Man injured in weekend shooting

first_imgWILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — Wilmington Police are investigating a Sunday morning shooting that left one man injured.Police responded to North Liberty Court just after 9 a.m. in response to a ShotSpotter notification. Upon arrival, officers located a man, 29, with a gunshot wound.- Advertisement – WPD says he was transported to New Hanover Regional Medical Center with non-life threatening injuries.The investigation is on-going.Anyone with information is asked to contact WPD at (910)343-3609 or use Text A Tip.last_img read more

ONLY ON 3 Records show new sheriff legally lives in Columbus County

first_img In a story you saw only on WWAY last night, Greene and his wife say they live in camper on property they own in Cerro Gordo, where tax records show there is no house.County tax officials say a camper must be registered under the county’s personal property account, unless that camper has license plates.Then it must be registered with the DMV. Sheriff Greene says his camper is registered to his South Carolina beach house, so it does not need to be under the Columbus County Tax Office.Related Article: Illegal “night club” searched in Fair BluffColumbus County records show that Greene has been paying the required property taxes on his three properties in the county.Other evidence cited as proof the couple does not live in the county is that the Greenes do not have trash service at their property.The tax administrator says each resident is supposed to sign up for trash pick-up. But he said it is common for residents to misunderstand that expectation, and there is no penalty. 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek  . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave Settings COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC (WWAY) — The investigation into Columbus County Sheriff Jody Greene’s residence continues.Today WWAY learned Sheriff Greene has been following proper tax rules.- Advertisement – last_img read more