ELDERLY people and people with disabilities are to be consulted by the council on possible changes to their care, writes BARRIE HUDSON.

It’s the latest effect of the £70m in cuts the council is expected to make over the next few years, on the orders of our overlords in London.

Among the possibilities are extra charges for people who have enough cash, meaning they fund some of the care received by people who can’t afford to contribute.

As this is a consultation, I trust there will be a full range of options to choose from. Perhaps a multiple choice form is the way forward.

One of the questions might be: “How should the care of senior citizens and adults with disabilities be paid for if they don’t have sufficient funds?”

Participants in the consultation might then be invited to select one of a list of possibilities.

In the interests of fairness, one of those possibilities should be: “By raiding the assets of people who’ve been fortunate enough to scratch together some savings and perhaps purchase their own home.”

Oh, and another should be: “By raiding the assets of the sociopathic billionaire weasels and their politician lackeys who were responsible for the global financial crisis in the first place - and who are still doing very nicely for themselves, thank you very much.”

Another question I’ve thought of is: “When a person does indeed manage, by good fortune, good management or both, to gather some humble assets such as a home, what do they generally hope those assets will be used for?”

One possible answer might be: “To have something to leave to our loved ones once we’re gone, even if it’s only a little flat.”

Another possible answer might be: “To have something we’ll be forced to flog off to the highest bidder in order to prop up a creaking system, and then find ourselves entirely at the mercy of the state. To face the possibility of intrusive, shame-inducing means tests. This is in spite of our quite possibly having put far more into the system in taxes than we’ll ever take out in benefits.”

There could also be a bonus question: “How should the dozens of elected representatives for Swindon respond to the cost-cutting diktats of the fatcat-coddlers at the eastern end of the M4?”

Possible answers: “(a) With meek acquiescence? (b) With loud protests, irrespective of political party and potential fallout?”

Russian to see visiting planes

RUSSIAN military aircraft will not be seen at the Royal International Air Tattoo as diplomatic tensions rise.

The lack of Russian machines will be a disappointment to many aviation enthusiasts but, in order to make up for the absence, I’m thinking of organising a coach trip to our east coast, and charging punters a few quid for a seat and the use of a pair of binoculars. From what I gather, on clear days there’s often a Russian aircraft or three to be spotted.

Still on the subject of RIAT, something else the organisers are doing is warning that anybody flying drones in the vicinity is liable to end up in court.

Again, this is quite understandable; if you’re a display pilot in charge of a multi-million pound plane above crowds of people, the last thing you need is a drone up your afterburner because some fool wants to make a YouTube video.

Rather than threatening court action, though, could the organisers not just rig up some drones of their own, equipped with cameras and little air-to-air missiles?

It’d be like Robot Wars but with dogfights.

Arrest this trend or we risk vigilantism

THE Wiltshire branch of the Police Federation says budget cuts mean officers are unable to respond to vital calls.

Recent cases, according to the federation, have included a home invasion.

Senior officers would do well to listen to their ground-level colleagues.

If they don’t, they shouldn’t be surprised if vigilantism becomes a problem – and they needn’t bother complaining about people taking the law into their own hands.

After all, if the law-abiding aren’t permitted to have it in their hands, and front line police officers say they’re unable to keep it in theirs, that leaves only the criminals.