Why Reading Borough Council wants to expand its borders
Nothing's yet written in stone but the Royal County's other councils, including Reading, would have been forgiven for thinking West Berkshire might have been looking to join with them as they started to draw up their re-organisation proposals.To the surprise of just everyone outside the council's top brass though, West Berkshire decided in the spring it would rather merge with the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire councils instead to create a brand new authority - Ridgeway Council. Reading's now reacted to this idea by saying it wants to absorb the West Berkshire villages of Purley-on-Thames, Calcot, Pangbourne, Theale and Calcot into its own authority. It has to get permission from the government to do this and is planning to ask for formal permission to bring them under its control in the next few weeks. Reading Borough's leader Liz Terry said: "There is no doubt many residents on the western fringes of Reading look to the town, whether for work, transport connections, higher education, shopping or to use other facilities."In that respect, these are already suburbs of Reading and clearly fall within its economic catchment area."While Reading will inevitably loom large in the lives of the people who live on Reading's western fringes, many will no doubt feel a natural affinity to the more rural nature and feel of West Berkshire. As for what West Berkshire's councillors will make of this blatant land grab - that will become clearer in the coming days. But if they'd been hoping they'd stolen a march on their neighbours with their Ridgeway plan, they may just need to think again.
You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
HMRC 'doesn't know' how many billionaires pay tax in the UK
HM Revenue and Customs does not know how many billionaires pay tax in the UK, according to a new report by MPs. The Public Accounts Committee says this is despite the fact only a small number of people have this status - and the significant sums of money involved. HMRC has been told it "can and must" do more to understand how much the very wealthiest in society contribute to the public purse, as "there is a lot of money being left on the table". 6:36 Artificial intelligence and The Sunday Times Rich List were identified as two ways of getting a clearer picture. The taxman is facing calls to reveal how it plans to increase contributions from billionaires both domestically and offshore, amid a squeeze in the public finances. MPs added: "There is much public interest in the amount of tax the wealthy pay. People need to know everyone pays their fair share." The report pointed to the US, where the Internal Revenue Service links its data to the Forbes 400 list of rich Americans. PAC member Lloyd Hatton added: "This report is not concerned with political debate around the redistribution of wealth. "Our committee's role is to help HMRC do its job properly, ensuring wealthy people pay the correct tax. "While HMRC does deserve some great credit for securing billions more in the tax take from the wealthiest in recent years, there is still a very long way to go before we can reach a true accounting of what is owed." 1:16 Mr Hatton added that the committee was "disappointed" that HMRC could not offer any insights into the tax arrangements of billionaires from its own data - as "any single one of these individuals' contributions could make a significant difference to the overall picture". At present, about 1,000 people within HMRC are focused on the tax affairs of the UK's wealthiest, but funding has been secured to increase this headcount by 400 - with a view to "increasing prosecutions of those who evade tax". A spokesperson added: "The government is determined to make sure everyone pays the tax they owe. "Extra resources were announced in the recent spending review which allows us to significantly step up our work on closing the tax gap among the wealthiest."
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
How the BBC got into a mess over Gaza
On Monday, the BBC released its long-awaited report into its decision to remove the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone from its platforms. The report determined that not making viewers aware of the fact that the narrator's father was a member of the Hamas-run government of Gaza constituted a breach of its editorial policies, specifically on accuracy. However, the documentary was not found to have breached guidelines on impartiality. As the Guardian's media editor Michael Savage tells Helen Pidd, the release of this report has come after a particularly intense period for the BBC, in which its handling of the war in Gaza has been heavily criticised. In response to the resignation of Gary Lineker, its coverage of Glastonbury performers, and its decision not to broadcast certain documentaries, the BBC has faced heightened criticism from many sides in the conflict. The pair discuss how the Labour government is approaching the BBC, the shrinking number of licence fee subscribers, and whether this string of controversies will change the way the corporation approaches more sensitive issues. Support the Guardian today:
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Gagging order to cover up Afghan leak must never be used again
The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 resulted in a scramble to flee from Kabul airport WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES T hat legal abomination, the superinjunction, is traditionally regarded as the last resort of the desperate celebrity attempting to conceal compromising information. It is a draconian device that not only prohibits the media from reporting a court case — an injunction — but prevents the world from knowing that such an injunction even exists (the 'super' bit). It is intended not so much to stifle legitimate journalistic scrutiny of a court hearing as to smother it. The blanket of secrecy a superinjunction confers means that cases involving serious misconduct by individuals and institutions can go unnoticed by the outside world for months or years, or possibly for ever. Disclosing its very existence can land one in jail. When the party seeking to conceal their actions for this length of time is the government, and when the parties being kept in the dark are the public and parliament, it risks becoming a tool of authoritarianism. Yet that is exactly what has occurred in a case revealed by this newspaper. One in which a military data breach that placed tens of thousands of Afghans in jeopardy, and resulted in a covert rescue and resettlement programme potentially costing £7 billion, being hidden for two years in what the judge finally lifting the order called a vacuum of scrutiny. It is the first time a British government has used a superinjunction in this way and it must be the last. In observing its terms, in place for so much longer than intended, ministers misled parliament, if largely by omission, concealing from relevant committees and the Commons as a whole a scandal that should have resulted in heads rolling down Whitehall. It concerned the unauthorised release in February 2022 of a Ministry of Defence database containing the names of tens of thousands of Afghans at risk of retribution from the restored Taliban regime. The list was transmitted by a soldier at a special forces barracks in London to Afghan contacts in Britain as he attempted to verify applications for sanctuary in Britain. The list subsequently found its way to Afghanistan. • Did the risk ever justify the secrecy in this Kafkaesque calamity? When one of the individuals it was passed to threatened to publish it on Facebook it became a potential death warrant for many of those named, and possibly their relatives. As a result, the then Conservative government decided to relocate thousands of Afghans, adults and children, to Britain in a covert programme that was later endorsed by the current Labour government. Incredibly, the existence of this operation, involving some 23,000 people, was kept secret even from the discreet Commons intelligence and security committee. The superinjunction was granted in September 2023, supposedly as a four-month measure to help cloak a rescue. But it would last for almost two years, the MoD continuing to insist that it was necessary to save lives, though there was a possibility that the database had already fallen into the possession of the Taliban. Whatever the reality of this, the superinjunction continued to act as a shield for official incompetence. Due to the continuing secrecy surrounding this fiasco it is not known who, if anyone, was disciplined for the breach. What is clear is the disquiet of a High Court judge involved in hearings in which The Times and Daily Mail sought to have details of the scandal released. At one point Mr Justice Chamberlain warned that it could be perceived as censorship. Concerns were also raised that the government was using the gagging order to control the narrative surrounding the scandal. Unfortunately, he was overruled by a court of appeal again swayed by MoD warnings of potential disaster. Now, those objections have evaporated, the risks apparently being overstated according to a review. So much for parliamentary and press oversight. In terms of free speech the superinjunction is a weapon of mass destruction. No government should be allowed to employ one again.
