Spot on!
My gran was receiving home care a few years ago. Provided by the Council but she still had to pay, and it was contracted to a private company. For starters it doesn't help when the private company was changed 4 times in a 6 year period. My gran was in her late 80's/early 90's and the last thing she wanted was a change in her provider it just added to the confusion/hassle that an older person doesn't want. Especially when the quality wasn't any better each time.
She had severe arthritis in her hands (she used to work as a seamstress) which made picking up and holding even basic items like a remote control or a plate of food very difficult. In addition she had arthritis in both knees and one was very stiff/virtually immobile from a car accident (and the shoddy treatment she received) 30 years previously, so she struggled to walk without a zimmerframe. Fortunately she didn't suffer from dementia or alzheimers or any other kind of disease of the mind.
She needed carers to help get her up in the morning and make her some breakfast, somebody to make her some lunch, and somebody to make her some dinner in the evening. Also these carers needed to help her take the myriad of pills she was prescribed. Because of her fragility, bathing wasn't an option.
She was given, IIRC, 30 mins on a morning, 15 mins at lunch and 20 mins in the evening.
The first problem was that the "morning" visit was at around 10:30. Despite usually waking up around 8/8:30. So a 2 hour wait until anyone was there to help her up (she usually got up by herself despite warnings not to) and until she could have breakfast. The "Lunch" visit was set at around 3:30pm. Obviously well after she wanted lunch. The "Dinner" visit was then at 5pm. Only an hour and a half after lunch. So she wasn't hungry. Also have you tried making someone a dinner in 20 minutes? It doesn't end well.
Then of course there was the problem of the carers coming in, rushing every job they had to do and leaving 5-10 mins early so as to get to the next person in time.
Added on to having different carers (ie could be anyone from the firm, not a set carer) it just led to my gran getting more and more frustrated by the carers instead of being helped by them.
I'm not blaming the actual carers, not at all. They're doing what their company working practices encourage them to do.
I blame the companies and the Council's for employing them to provide substandard care.
Unfortunately everything about it was just frustrating and confusing for my gran. From the hassle of getting the care in the first place to the constant changes and reviews to the actual poor standard of care, it just led to my gran getting annoyed and my mother (who was the one having to organise and respond to everything) becoming exhausted from it all.

I already have. 1.9% growth since your statement...it's really not hard. Writing lines and lines doesn't make you somehow not wrong anymore.

Why do you keep repeating something that isn't true? Just bizarre.

What are you saying JerryChicken? That the ONS is not a reliable source of data? That people who rely on them are using flawed statistics?

The economy has not grown by 1.9% since DaveO's post. Why do you keep repeating something that isn't true?
Answered anyone else's questions yet?

Nope, just that "someone" asked them to take another look at some stats that they had provisionally produced, then six months later confirmed in the normal course of things, then FIFTEEN months later revised so that they showed a different picture.

THEN they were asked to go back FIVE YEARS and change what they had previously provisionally released and six months later confirmed, in order to tell another different story.

Both of these actions are most unusual for the ONS who usually firm up their figures within two quarters and those figures get written into the history books.

Strange isn't it ?

It wasn't then. But then you think the economy has grown by 1.9% since January. Tell me, would you compare the UK economy to Greece?

Got any answers? Or will you disappear again for a while?

IDS peddling his lies, misinformation and denial again this morning on ITV's Daybreak - apparently it was (quote) "The last government who crashed the economy..."

Well Ian I seem to recall, and its only five years ago so my memory is pretty reliable, that in 2008 virtually the whole of the worlds economies crashed especially the worlds largest economy which actually brought most of the rest down - I ain't no card carrying member of the Labour party but to blame them for what happened to the banking system in 2008, live on morning TV, is tantamount to treating me as a forgetful idiot, you may think that if you say it often enough it will be true but frankly every time you open your mouth now people are watching for the lies.

As a Minister he is a liability to the Conservatives, as a firewall to David Cameron he is invaluable.

IDS's answer to the question of increasing use of foodbanks on Daybreak this morning was that they were run by well meaning good people but that the new welfare reforms would handle everything.

So you only have to keep starving until 2017 and it will all be ok then.

So, after the 2008 crash, the UK economy returned to growth in the third quarter of 2009 and continued in growth until the fourth quarter of 2010, when it dipped to -0.5. Of the following six quarters, only two showed growth and were not successive.

Ergo: "The economy was in growth in 2010. The policies of the incoming government put paid to that and sent the country back into recession."

It never has been wrong. It's only you with your obvious inability to comprehend English grammar that thinks it is. The more you say it is the more stupid you look.

You also I see ignore the questions about the nature of the growth we see. Par for the course with you.

So over the last two days we have had inflation falling further and unemployment falling further....

From the BBC:

David Tinsley, UK economist at BNP Paribas said the UK labour market was "showing spectacular strength".

David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "These are very strong labour market figures, which back our recent forecast of increased growth in the fourth quarter of this year."

Like Osborne said: "comprehensively wrong"....

I suppose this avoided actually responding to all the points raised and questions asked.

Of course it's wrong. You are wrong now and will be even more wrong with every quarterly GDP figure.

Now I have given you an opportunity to admit you are wrong but you have continued with this bizarre line of reply in an attempt to save face.

You will therefore be reminded how wrong you are with every GDP figure released - I cannot wait.

Good news about falling unemployment isn't it Mintball? You talk about jobs regularly on here.

Or "Phew, we guessed right! (Put the other press release through the shredder Dave)"

Reasoning and thinking as opposed to posting bald statistics is just too hard for some.

Here is a thought and a bit of reasoning. If the unemployment figures fall below 7%, the B of E has said interest rates will rise. This will of course put peoples mortgages up and increase the cost of borrowing to businesses.

So added to the cost of living crisis we see as the cost of energy goes up, we will have increased mortgages to pay which would be great timing (not) for an election if we saw a steady increase in interest rates between now and 2015 as peoples pockets are further squeezed.

This is the last thing Osborne wants. So instead of having a figure for unemployment based on those not in a full time job (as it used to be years ago), we have a figure that takes you out of the unemployment statistics as soon as you become ineligible for JSA, then this particularly broad view as to what constitutes employment could stick a huge spanner in Osborne's economic policy which is relying on interest rates being low for years if not decades.

Lets see how independent the B of E is over interest rates if as looks likely the figure will drop below 7% and if they do put them up how Osborne spins even more strain being out on family budgets as being a good thing.

So unemployment falling is actually a bad thing? Seriously?

Why is he wrong? How much has the economy grown by since his post?

No response to being proved totally ignorant over growth from 2010?

And growth in 2013. But shhh, he still thinks he knows what he's on about!

The definition of a recession (which I am sure you know) is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

Please tell me the two consecutive quarters since 2010 of negative growth? Thanks.

Did you wince? Did it upset you to see falling unemployment? Would you rather unemployment rises so that you have a bit more ammunition to attack the Government with?

I ask again, good news isn't it?