Long-serving Peterborough councillor chosen to be city mayor
A councillor who has served Peterborough for more than 20 years has been elected as the city's next mayor.Peterborough First's Judy Fox was chosen to be mayor for 2025-26 at Monday's full council meeting, taking over from Conservative councillor Marco Cereste.Mrs Fox has been a member of the local authority for decades alongside her husband John, and both represent Werrington ward. Mr Fox will be her consort.Councillor Peter Hiller, Peterborough First, was selected to become deputy mayor and his wife Debbie becomes the deputy mayoress.
Every May, a long-serving city councillor is appointed mayor for the upcoming year.They act as an ambassador for the city and chair full council and citizenship ceremonies, and frequently visit events within the community.Mrs Fox has previously held the titles of mayoress and deputy mayor.She will support Sue Ryder Thorpe Hall Hospice and Peterborough Area Down's Syndrome Group as her chosen charities.Mrs Fox said: "The reason I chose Peterborough Area Down's Syndrome Group is because they are very close to our hearts."When I was part of a charity with John called the Rudolf Fund some time ago, we took quite a few children with Down's Syndrome on our trips to Disneyland Paris. We have been in touch with them and their parents since then, by doing Mr and Mrs Claus at their Christmas party each year."They are a very successful group but are not funded, so have to rely on donations and fundraising events."She added: "I have chosen Sue Ryder Thorpe Hall Hospice as one of my charities because it is close to the hearts of my daughter Rachel and myself."Many residents in Peterborough will have had some connections with them and will know just how much they mean to the families of their loved ones in their time of need."
Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Angela Rayner accused of waging 'class war' over her plans to cut funding for wealthier Southern areas so more can be spent in the North
Labour was yesterday accused of declaring 'class war' over plans to cut funding for town halls in the South and splurge it in its northern heartlands. Under Angela Rayner 's shake-up, wealthier southern households face a raft of raids to help pay for the giveaway in Labour's traditional working-class areas. These include hikes in council tax bills and fees, such as parking, planning and licensing charges. Town halls in the South also face having to cut existing services because of the raid on their coffers. Under the plans, unveiled yesterday, town halls with 'stronger council tax bases', which tend to be in wealthier parts of London and the Home Counties, will get less Government cash. Those with 'weaker bases', often in the North, will get more under the 'progressive' redistribution model. The Deputy Prime Minister Ms Rayner, who is also the local government secretary, has long argued that an overhaul of council funding is needed. Ms Rayner, the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, has pointed to people living in the North who pay hundreds of pounds more in council tax than those in wealthier southern areas, calling it 'unfair'. But the plans, which affect councils in England and would begin for three years from next April, sparked a furious backlash. Greg Smith, the Tory MP for Mid Buckinghamshire, said: 'We're already massively over-taxed and council tax has already blown out of all proportion across the country. 'Anything that takes from the South to pay for the North is class war.' And Kevin Hollinrake, the Tories' local government spokesman, said: 'In reality, Labour's appetite for tax hikes knows no bounds. These new backdoor rises in fees and charges are nothing more than stealth taxes – punishing the very councils that have kept taxes low and responsible.' The new proposed formula for allocating money would take into account local needs, based on population, poverty and age data. This will lead to more cash going to deprived areas. And Government grants, which account for about half of councils' income, will now be based on calculations of what local authorities could raise if all areas charged the same rates of council tax based on their housing mix. This will mean steep falls in grant income for wealthier councils. Vikki Slade, the Lib Dems' local government spokesman, said: 'It would be a big mistake for the Government to force councils into unfair council tax rises. 'At a time when councils desperately need support, it beggars belief that Angela Rayner is considering reducing funding entitlements for many, including councils which already receive very little grant funding.' But ministers insist councils won't go bust as it would be phased in over three years, removing a potential 'cliff edge' if the redistribution happened in one go. They also say it will not lead to huge council tax hikes because these are already capped at 5 per cent, and most councils already raise it by this amount every year. However, they could apply to Ms Rayner, who is from Stockport, for special permission to raise it by more than this given the unprecedented pressure their finances could come under. They are also likely to look at cutting back on existing services and hiking other fees to help balance the books. It raises the prospect of councils being handed more powers to raise revenues by hiking such fees. Yesterday's new consultation, which will run until August 15, said ministers will now 'review all fees previously identified and consider where there is the strongest case for reform'. Kate Ogden, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said councils in 'leafier suburban and rural areas' in the South will be among the biggest losers. Local government minister Jim McMahon said: 'There's broad agreement across council leaders, experts, and parliamentarians that the current funding model is broken and unfair. 'This Government is stepping up to deliver the fairer system promised in the 2017 Fair Funding Review but never delivered.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action to be banned after vandalism of planes at RAF base
The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. But Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International UK, said the human rights organisation was 'deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups'. Mr Southerden said: 'Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them. 'Instead of suppressing protest against the UK's military support for Israel, the UK should be taking urgent action to prevent Israel's genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
