Blackburn residents tell council where to make cuts

4:00pm Tuesday 18th December 2012 in News Photograph of the Author By Bill Jacobs, Local government reporter

SENIOR councillors seeking Blackburn with Darwen views on plans to change council tax benefit got more than they bargained for when they were told: Scrap the mayor, reduce their own numbers and expenses, and sack staff.

The borough executive board sent out 23,000 letters and 7,500 emails asking for a response to its plan to make all claimants pay a fifth of their council tax and cut other payments to support householders on low incomes.

The move could cost some of the poorest households in the borough between £250 and £300 a year.

They also asked for other ideas to meet the shortfall of government grant funding for council tax support before a new scheme is finalised in January.

A total of 1,212 responses were received, including 137 from people with their own ideas to cut budgets.

A report received by the executive board meeting revealed: “A significant number of respondents suggested that the number of council employees should be cut, with particular reference made to higher paid senior management.

“A number of respondents were also in favour of reducing the number of councillors and their expenses and ending the position of mayor and associated expenditure.”

Other suggestions that received multiple comments included:

  • Reduce in number or close the children’s centres, community centres and libraries.
  • Stop free leisure facilities
  • Stop street cleaning, stop employing litter pickers and reduce the amount of refuse collections
  • Stop grass cutting and planting flowers in parks and garden
  • End to contract with outsourcer Capita
  • Abolish the Shuttle council newspaper.

More than half of those who responded (58 per cent) supported the council’s plan to reduce council tax benefit by up to 20 per cent and 33 per cent were strongly opposed to it.

Two thirds of respondents called for those on disability and incapacity benefits to be protected from the reduction but 72 per cent opposed any moves to raise council tax to pay for the reduction in government cash for the new scheme.

Borough resources boss Andy Kay told the meeting: “By law we have to consider all responses including those ideas submitted by respondents.”

Comments (14)

4:53pm Tue 18 Dec 12

the usher says...

My main way of cutting Council expenses would be to cut counsellor's pay and expenses. They want to get involved in politics as an interest, let them do it for the love of the town instead of what they can make out of it. It seems to work in the olden days. They get paid for being a counsellor irrespective of that they do and how many meetings they attend. As most politicians they are out for what they can get. Local politics should be about the welfare of the town and its people rather than party politics.
My main way of cutting Council expenses would be to cut counsellor's pay and expenses. They want to get involved in politics as an interest, let them do it for the love of the town instead of what they can make out of it. It seems to work in the olden days. They get paid for being a counsellor irrespective of that they do and how many meetings they attend. As most politicians they are out for what they can get. Local politics should be about the welfare of the town and its people rather than party politics. the usher

5:44pm Tue 18 Dec 12

Jack Herer says...

It's great to see the public waking up to what's needed at the council. And what isn't.
It's great to see the public waking up to what's needed at the council. And what isn't. Jack Herer

6:02pm Tue 18 Dec 12

phil kernot says...

HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW THE EDITOR OF THE TELEGRAPH CENCORS WHAT WE COMMENT ON , ARE WE LIVING IN RISSIA OR KOREA , FREE SPEECH BANNED BY THE LET
HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW THE EDITOR OF THE TELEGRAPH CENCORS WHAT WE COMMENT ON , ARE WE LIVING IN RISSIA OR KOREA , FREE SPEECH BANNED BY THE LET phil kernot

6:07pm Tue 18 Dec 12

Jack Herer says...

the usher wrote:
My main way of cutting Council expenses would be to cut counsellor's pay and expenses. They want to get involved in politics as an interest, let them do it for the love of the town instead of what they can make out of it. It seems to work in the olden days. They get paid for being a counsellor irrespective of that they do and how many meetings they attend. As most politicians they are out for what they can get. Local politics should be about the welfare of the town and its people rather than party politics.
All politics should be like that, but tragically it rarely is; not with the main parties.

For Labour it' s union / public sector interests which dictate policy in the whole - they have to since they are the ones who fund Labour. And greedy fat pig interests is what the tories seem to be wholly about. Neither have the public interest at the forefront of their mind it seems.

The poor Lib Dems actually try to do the best thing, but just get hammered because they are the whipping boys with the media, and unfortunately therefore the public who happily still lap up the tabloid line, regardless of how lacking in integrity we all know that the national papers are.

For local councils, whilst counsellor's pay and expenses need to be fair to the taxpayer, more importantly it's silly that anyone should get paid over £50k a year who is a council employee, because with their gold plated pension that's equivalent to around £80k in the private sector. £80k jobs in the private sector are very rare - apart from the fat cats who shaft everyone - and why the hell should fat cats be the bench mark for public sector workers in the council?

They shouldn't and the public are rightly angry therefore that our councils are awash with these fat cats.

It's disgraceful of course that councils pay union reps to perform union duties full time, yet the unions can waste millions on party donations, whilst councils have to cut front line services. The first thing councils should be cutting is paying for union duties when the unions clearly have enough money themselves - front line services should always come before union duties. That's a complete no brainer.
[quote][p][bold]the usher[/bold] wrote: My main way of cutting Council expenses would be to cut counsellor's pay and expenses. They want to get involved in politics as an interest, let them do it for the love of the town instead of what they can make out of it. It seems to work in the olden days. They get paid for being a counsellor irrespective of that they do and how many meetings they attend. As most politicians they are out for what they can get. Local politics should be about the welfare of the town and its people rather than party politics.[/p][/quote]All politics should be like that, but tragically it rarely is; not with the main parties. For Labour it' s union / public sector interests which dictate policy in the whole - they have to since they are the ones who fund Labour. And greedy fat pig interests is what the tories seem to be wholly about. Neither have the public interest at the forefront of their mind it seems. The poor Lib Dems actually try to do the best thing, but just get hammered because they are the whipping boys with the media, and unfortunately therefore the public who happily still lap up the tabloid line, regardless of how lacking in integrity we all know that the national papers are. For local councils, whilst counsellor's pay and expenses need to be fair to the taxpayer, more importantly it's silly that anyone should get paid over £50k a year who is a council employee, because with their gold plated pension that's equivalent to around £80k in the private sector. £80k jobs in the private sector are very rare - apart from the fat cats who shaft everyone - and why the hell should fat cats be the bench mark for public sector workers in the council? They shouldn't and the public are rightly angry therefore that our councils are awash with these fat cats. It's disgraceful of course that councils pay union reps to perform union duties full time, yet the unions can waste millions on party donations, whilst councils have to cut front line services. The first thing councils should be cutting is paying for union duties when the unions clearly have enough money themselves - front line services should always come before union duties. That's a complete no brainer. Jack Herer

8:09pm Tue 18 Dec 12

Ilovedarwen says...

Erm no! I like my library, hours have already been reduced. And the childrens centre's are needed. It gives most children a break from a grotty home life. I also like the streets being cleaned and my rubbish being collected from my tiny burgundy bin once a week. I also like the grass on the massive verge being cut so the children can play on it. That has already been cut back too! I pay my council tax for these services. No I'm not in receipt of housing benefit, so I don't know what it would be like having to pay towards it. But I'm sure people can cope, just stop buying your massive tellys and computers. I don't see why my services should be cut. Free leisure can be cut for adults and just let the kids have it, you can do away with the shuttle. And maybe the high earners people 30grand plus could take a bit of skimming in stead of an all out redundancy. People on benefits would rather people were made redundant than them having to pay a bit of money out!! If the council consider this they are stupid! Oh and forget the little darwen towers for now, we aren't bothered, save the money!
Erm no! I like my library, hours have already been reduced. And the childrens centre's are needed. It gives most children a break from a grotty home life. I also like the streets being cleaned and my rubbish being collected from my tiny burgundy bin once a week. I also like the grass on the massive verge being cut so the children can play on it. That has already been cut back too! I pay my council tax for these services. No I'm not in receipt of housing benefit, so I don't know what it would be like having to pay towards it. But I'm sure people can cope, just stop buying your massive tellys and computers. I don't see why my services should be cut. Free leisure can be cut for adults and just let the kids have it, you can do away with the shuttle. And maybe the high earners people 30grand plus could take a bit of skimming in stead of an all out redundancy. People on benefits would rather people were made redundant than them having to pay a bit of money out!! If the council consider this they are stupid! Oh and forget the little darwen towers for now, we aren't bothered, save the money! Ilovedarwen

8:09pm Tue 18 Dec 12

Ilovedarwen says...

Erm no! I like my library, hours have already been reduced. And the childrens centre's are needed. It gives most children a break from a grotty home life. I also like the streets being cleaned and my rubbish being collected from my tiny burgundy bin once a week. I also like the grass on the massive verge being cut so the children can play on it. That has already been cut back too! I pay my council tax for these services. No I'm not in receipt of housing benefit, so I don't know what it would be like having to pay towards it. But I'm sure people can cope, just stop buying your massive tellys and computers. I don't see why my services should be cut. Free leisure can be cut for adults and just let the kids have it, you can do away with the shuttle. And maybe the high earners people 30grand plus could take a bit of skimming in stead of an all out redundancy. People on benefits would rather people were made redundant than them having to pay a bit of money out!! If the council consider this they are stupid! Oh and forget the little darwen towers for now, we aren't bothered, save the money!
Erm no! I like my library, hours have already been reduced. And the childrens centre's are needed. It gives most children a break from a grotty home life. I also like the streets being cleaned and my rubbish being collected from my tiny burgundy bin once a week. I also like the grass on the massive verge being cut so the children can play on it. That has already been cut back too! I pay my council tax for these services. No I'm not in receipt of housing benefit, so I don't know what it would be like having to pay towards it. But I'm sure people can cope, just stop buying your massive tellys and computers. I don't see why my services should be cut. Free leisure can be cut for adults and just let the kids have it, you can do away with the shuttle. And maybe the high earners people 30grand plus could take a bit of skimming in stead of an all out redundancy. People on benefits would rather people were made redundant than them having to pay a bit of money out!! If the council consider this they are stupid! Oh and forget the little darwen towers for now, we aren't bothered, save the money! Ilovedarwen

8:09pm Tue 18 Dec 12

Ilovedarwen says...

Erm no! I like my library, hours have already been reduced. And the childrens centre's are needed. It gives most children a break from a grotty home life. I also like the streets being cleaned and my rubbish being collected from my tiny burgundy bin once a week. I also like the grass on the massive verge being cut so the children can play on it. That has already been cut back too! I pay my council tax for these services. No I'm not in receipt of housing benefit, so I don't know what it would be like having to pay towards it. But I'm sure people can cope, just stop buying your massive tellys and computers. I don't see why my services should be cut. Free leisure can be cut for adults and just let the kids have it, you can do away with the shuttle. And maybe the high earners people 30grand plus could take a bit of skimming in stead of an all out redundancy. People on benefits would rather people were made redundant than them having to pay a bit of money out!! If the council consider this they are stupid! Oh and forget the little darwen towers for now, we aren't bothered, save the money!
Erm no! I like my library, hours have already been reduced. And the childrens centre's are needed. It gives most children a break from a grotty home life. I also like the streets being cleaned and my rubbish being collected from my tiny burgundy bin once a week. I also like the grass on the massive verge being cut so the children can play on it. That has already been cut back too! I pay my council tax for these services. No I'm not in receipt of housing benefit, so I don't know what it would be like having to pay towards it. But I'm sure people can cope, just stop buying your massive tellys and computers. I don't see why my services should be cut. Free leisure can be cut for adults and just let the kids have it, you can do away with the shuttle. And maybe the high earners people 30grand plus could take a bit of skimming in stead of an all out redundancy. People on benefits would rather people were made redundant than them having to pay a bit of money out!! If the council consider this they are stupid! Oh and forget the little darwen towers for now, we aren't bothered, save the money! Ilovedarwen

8:09pm Tue 18 Dec 12

Ilovedarwen says...

Erm no! I like my library, hours have already been reduced. And the childrens centre's are needed. It gives most children a break from a grotty home life. I also like the streets being cleaned and my rubbish being collected from my tiny burgundy bin once a week. I also like the grass on the massive verge being cut so the children can play on it. That has already been cut back too! I pay my council tax for these services. No I'm not in receipt of housing benefit, so I don't know what it would be like having to pay towards it. But I'm sure people can cope, just stop buying your massive tellys and computers. I don't see why my services should be cut. Free leisure can be cut for adults and just let the kids have it, you can do away with the shuttle. And maybe the high earners people 30grand plus could take a bit of skimming in stead of an all out redundancy. People on benefits would rather people were made redundant than them having to pay a bit of money out!! If the council consider this they are stupid! Oh and forget the little darwen towers for now, we aren't bothered, save the money!
Erm no! I like my library, hours have already been reduced. And the childrens centre's are needed. It gives most children a break from a grotty home life. I also like the streets being cleaned and my rubbish being collected from my tiny burgundy bin once a week. I also like the grass on the massive verge being cut so the children can play on it. That has already been cut back too! I pay my council tax for these services. No I'm not in receipt of housing benefit, so I don't know what it would be like having to pay towards it. But I'm sure people can cope, just stop buying your massive tellys and computers. I don't see why my services should be cut. Free leisure can be cut for adults and just let the kids have it, you can do away with the shuttle. And maybe the high earners people 30grand plus could take a bit of skimming in stead of an all out redundancy. People on benefits would rather people were made redundant than them having to pay a bit of money out!! If the council consider this they are stupid! Oh and forget the little darwen towers for now, we aren't bothered, save the money! Ilovedarwen

8:37pm Tue 18 Dec 12

DoyouknowhoIam? says...

What about a nominal (minimum) payment of, say, 50p per visit for gym/leisure users?
I use the gyms under the excellent Refresh scheme but am realistic enough to accept it can't last forever.
I'd pay rather than lose the scheme completely.
What about a nominal (minimum) payment of, say, 50p per visit for gym/leisure users? I use the gyms under the excellent Refresh scheme but am realistic enough to accept it can't last forever. I'd pay rather than lose the scheme completely. DoyouknowhoIam?

9:06pm Tue 18 Dec 12

Darwen Malc says...

Free bus passes fr over 60's should be reviewed as it is unsustainable. How about a flat, initial fare of £1 and then your ticket is valid all day on all services. Surely that would help, and lets face it, what is £1 on its own worth these days?
Free bus passes fr over 60's should be reviewed as it is unsustainable. How about a flat, initial fare of £1 and then your ticket is valid all day on all services. Surely that would help, and lets face it, what is £1 on its own worth these days? Darwen Malc

10:32pm Tue 18 Dec 12

2 for 5p says...

How about
.Pull down the libarys totally no need for them has anyone ever heard of kindles.

Pull down darwen tower then we can stop paying for vandalism repiers.

Do away with the Mayor

Impose a maximum salary for council executives say £60,000 and there company vehs the cheapest ranges say nissan micra

cap housing benefit to whatever the local social housing landlord charges.

I have got more but i bet the list above would alone save a fortune
How about .Pull down the libarys totally no need for them has anyone ever heard of kindles. Pull down darwen tower then we can stop paying for vandalism repiers. Do away with the Mayor Impose a maximum salary for council executives say £60,000 and there company vehs the cheapest ranges say nissan micra cap housing benefit to whatever the local social housing landlord charges. I have got more but i bet the list above would alone save a fortune 2 for 5p

10:42pm Tue 18 Dec 12

woolywords says...

Why aren't councillors not reimbursed for the actual income lost while engaged in activities?
End this stupid funding, along with the extra payments for being a member of the many sub-commitees. It's akin to Qango build as it stands, at present.
Why aren't councillors not reimbursed for the actual income lost while engaged in activities? End this stupid funding, along with the extra payments for being a member of the many sub-commitees. It's akin to Qango build as it stands, at present. woolywords

9:01am Wed 19 Dec 12

midas says...

Jack Herer wrote:
the usher wrote: My main way of cutting Council expenses would be to cut counsellor's pay and expenses. They want to get involved in politics as an interest, let them do it for the love of the town instead of what they can make out of it. It seems to work in the olden days. They get paid for being a counsellor irrespective of that they do and how many meetings they attend. As most politicians they are out for what they can get. Local politics should be about the welfare of the town and its people rather than party politics.
All politics should be like that, but tragically it rarely is; not with the main parties. For Labour it' s union / public sector interests which dictate policy in the whole - they have to since they are the ones who fund Labour. And greedy fat pig interests is what the tories seem to be wholly about. Neither have the public interest at the forefront of their mind it seems. The poor Lib Dems actually try to do the best thing, but just get hammered because they are the whipping boys with the media, and unfortunately therefore the public who happily still lap up the tabloid line, regardless of how lacking in integrity we all know that the national papers are. For local councils, whilst counsellor's pay and expenses need to be fair to the taxpayer, more importantly it's silly that anyone should get paid over £50k a year who is a council employee, because with their gold plated pension that's equivalent to around £80k in the private sector. £80k jobs in the private sector are very rare - apart from the fat cats who shaft everyone - and why the hell should fat cats be the bench mark for public sector workers in the council? They shouldn't and the public are rightly angry therefore that our councils are awash with these fat cats. It's disgraceful of course that councils pay union reps to perform union duties full time, yet the unions can waste millions on party donations, whilst councils have to cut front line services. The first thing councils should be cutting is paying for union duties when the unions clearly have enough money themselves - front line services should always come before union duties. That's a complete no brainer.
No pay or expenses for councillors, after all politics (and our representatives) should be for the rich and succesful bussinesmen who don't need the extra money and are doing it for the love of the town. It did work in the olden days, you know, before people started complaining about "jobs for the boys" and "brown envelopes". Oh for the days when you had to be male and a land oner before you could vote!
.
No one should be paid over 50k (not sure how on the formula x/80 with x being the number of years worked of your final salary that works out to 80k but thats another debate!). You only need monkeys running a Council budget so why pay more than peanuts!) The budget for Birmingham is £3.1 billion but lets get a junior manager to run it!
.
If you think 80k jobs in the private sector are rare I suggest you get out more or move out of Darwen.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the usher[/bold] wrote: My main way of cutting Council expenses would be to cut counsellor's pay and expenses. They want to get involved in politics as an interest, let them do it for the love of the town instead of what they can make out of it. It seems to work in the olden days. They get paid for being a counsellor irrespective of that they do and how many meetings they attend. As most politicians they are out for what they can get. Local politics should be about the welfare of the town and its people rather than party politics.[/p][/quote]All politics should be like that, but tragically it rarely is; not with the main parties. For Labour it' s union / public sector interests which dictate policy in the whole - they have to since they are the ones who fund Labour. And greedy fat pig interests is what the tories seem to be wholly about. Neither have the public interest at the forefront of their mind it seems. The poor Lib Dems actually try to do the best thing, but just get hammered because they are the whipping boys with the media, and unfortunately therefore the public who happily still lap up the tabloid line, regardless of how lacking in integrity we all know that the national papers are. For local councils, whilst counsellor's pay and expenses need to be fair to the taxpayer, more importantly it's silly that anyone should get paid over £50k a year who is a council employee, because with their gold plated pension that's equivalent to around £80k in the private sector. £80k jobs in the private sector are very rare - apart from the fat cats who shaft everyone - and why the hell should fat cats be the bench mark for public sector workers in the council? They shouldn't and the public are rightly angry therefore that our councils are awash with these fat cats. It's disgraceful of course that councils pay union reps to perform union duties full time, yet the unions can waste millions on party donations, whilst councils have to cut front line services. The first thing councils should be cutting is paying for union duties when the unions clearly have enough money themselves - front line services should always come before union duties. That's a complete no brainer.[/p][/quote]No pay or expenses for councillors, after all politics (and our representatives) should be for the rich and succesful bussinesmen who don't need the extra money and are doing it for the love of the town. It did work in the olden days, you know, before people started complaining about "jobs for the boys" and "brown envelopes". Oh for the days when you had to be male and a land oner before you could vote! . No one should be paid over 50k (not sure how on the formula x/80 with x being the number of years worked of your final salary that works out to 80k but thats another debate!). You only need monkeys running a Council budget so why pay more than peanuts!) The budget for Birmingham is £3.1 billion but lets get a junior manager to run it! . If you think 80k jobs in the private sector are rare I suggest you get out more or move out of Darwen. midas

9:10am Wed 19 Dec 12

midas says...

Jack Herer wrote:
the usher wrote: My main way of cutting Council expenses would be to cut counsellor's pay and expenses. They want to get involved in politics as an interest, let them do it for the love of the town instead of what they can make out of it. It seems to work in the olden days. They get paid for being a counsellor irrespective of that they do and how many meetings they attend. As most politicians they are out for what they can get. Local politics should be about the welfare of the town and its people rather than party politics.
All politics should be like that, but tragically it rarely is; not with the main parties. For Labour it' s union / public sector interests which dictate policy in the whole - they have to since they are the ones who fund Labour. And greedy fat pig interests is what the tories seem to be wholly about. Neither have the public interest at the forefront of their mind it seems. The poor Lib Dems actually try to do the best thing, but just get hammered because they are the whipping boys with the media, and unfortunately therefore the public who happily still lap up the tabloid line, regardless of how lacking in integrity we all know that the national papers are. For local councils, whilst counsellor's pay and expenses need to be fair to the taxpayer, more importantly it's silly that anyone should get paid over £50k a year who is a council employee, because with their gold plated pension that's equivalent to around £80k in the private sector. £80k jobs in the private sector are very rare - apart from the fat cats who shaft everyone - and why the hell should fat cats be the bench mark for public sector workers in the council? They shouldn't and the public are rightly angry therefore that our councils are awash with these fat cats. It's disgraceful of course that councils pay union reps to perform union duties full time, yet the unions can waste millions on party donations, whilst councils have to cut front line services. The first thing councils should be cutting is paying for union duties when the unions clearly have enough money themselves - front line services should always come before union duties. That's a complete no brainer.
No pay or expenses for councillors, after all politics (and our representatives) should be for the rich and succesful bussinesmen who don't need the extra money and are doing it for the love of the town. It did work in the olden days, you know, before people started complaining about "jobs for the boys" and "brown envelopes". Oh for the days when you had to be male and a land oner before you could vote!
.
No one should be paid over 50k (not sure how on the formula x/80 with x being the number of years worked of your final salary that works out to 80k but thats another debate!). You only need monkeys running a Council budget so why pay more than peanuts!) The budget for Birmingham is £3.1 billion but lets get a junior manager to run it!
.
If you think 80k jobs in the private sector are rare I suggest you get out more or move out of Darwen.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the usher[/bold] wrote: My main way of cutting Council expenses would be to cut counsellor's pay and expenses. They want to get involved in politics as an interest, let them do it for the love of the town instead of what they can make out of it. It seems to work in the olden days. They get paid for being a counsellor irrespective of that they do and how many meetings they attend. As most politicians they are out for what they can get. Local politics should be about the welfare of the town and its people rather than party politics.[/p][/quote]All politics should be like that, but tragically it rarely is; not with the main parties. For Labour it' s union / public sector interests which dictate policy in the whole - they have to since they are the ones who fund Labour. And greedy fat pig interests is what the tories seem to be wholly about. Neither have the public interest at the forefront of their mind it seems. The poor Lib Dems actually try to do the best thing, but just get hammered because they are the whipping boys with the media, and unfortunately therefore the public who happily still lap up the tabloid line, regardless of how lacking in integrity we all know that the national papers are. For local councils, whilst counsellor's pay and expenses need to be fair to the taxpayer, more importantly it's silly that anyone should get paid over £50k a year who is a council employee, because with their gold plated pension that's equivalent to around £80k in the private sector. £80k jobs in the private sector are very rare - apart from the fat cats who shaft everyone - and why the hell should fat cats be the bench mark for public sector workers in the council? They shouldn't and the public are rightly angry therefore that our councils are awash with these fat cats. It's disgraceful of course that councils pay union reps to perform union duties full time, yet the unions can waste millions on party donations, whilst councils have to cut front line services. The first thing councils should be cutting is paying for union duties when the unions clearly have enough money themselves - front line services should always come before union duties. That's a complete no brainer.[/p][/quote]No pay or expenses for councillors, after all politics (and our representatives) should be for the rich and succesful bussinesmen who don't need the extra money and are doing it for the love of the town. It did work in the olden days, you know, before people started complaining about "jobs for the boys" and "brown envelopes". Oh for the days when you had to be male and a land oner before you could vote! . No one should be paid over 50k (not sure how on the formula x/80 with x being the number of years worked of your final salary that works out to 80k but thats another debate!). You only need monkeys running a Council budget so why pay more than peanuts!) The budget for Birmingham is £3.1 billion but lets get a junior manager to run it! . If you think 80k jobs in the private sector are rare I suggest you get out more or move out of Darwen. midas

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree