Best Of

Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.

A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.

The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.

Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

Another review Reform would reverse

You do sound like you might be just a hop, skip and a jump away from defecting to the very dark side.

No I will remain one of the few still PB Tories left even if this site is also painfully short of Reform backers compared to the national electorate

Are we that painfully short?

I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.

Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.

29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.

Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then

At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.

Building more prisons - on its own - is not the answer. It may be that building more prisons is part of the solution, but it needs to be combined with many other things. Like - for a start - fuding the criminal justice system properly.

Genuinely baffles me - not that much compared to the amounts spent elsewhere, would probably have a reasonably quick and visible effect, and whilst not especially popular (people just want to be told bad people will go to prison for a long time), shouldn't be too unpopular either.

Yes, if all those people moaning that a prison sentence for a particular criminal "isn't long enough" had to foot the bill for a longer sentence I think they might reconsider. I recognise that some criminals are really bad and need to be confined for public safety but surely for those who are not a danger to the public, money would be better spent on rehabbing them and maybe even getting some useful work out of them (filling potholes? Fitting solar panels?). Surely those committing lesser crimes and for the first time deserve a second chance.

Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.

A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.

The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.

Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

Another review Reform would reverse

You do sound like you might be just a hop, skip and a jump away from defecting to the very dark side.

No I will remain one of the few still PB Tories left even if this site is also painfully short of Reform backers compared to the national electorate

Are we that painfully short?

I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.

Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.

29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.

Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then

At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.

No, for plenty of Reform voters executing many of them instead is.

Though yes I don't disagree with the point, very dangerous and violent offenders should be locked up but most prisoners need to spend more time in workshops and less in cells and more schemes like Timpsons offer for ex cons should be offered by employers

Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.

A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.

The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.

Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

Another review Reform would reverse

Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.

1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.

2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.

1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.

2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space

I cannot believe you could come up with 2)

You need to have a cuppa and a rich tea biscuits

77% of 2024 Reform voters thought the death penalty should be permitted for some crimes.

Only 60% of Tory voters and 46% of all UK voters thought the death penalty should be restored
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49887-what-do-reform-uk-voters-believe

Convicted child killers? Like Letby?

Farage thinks Letby is likely innocent, so she is fine
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/

Since when has Farage been the arbiter of justice

Everything you seem to comment on only affirms your far right pro Reform politics

I don't know the context for this, but if it is accurate and not some kind of transcription error it is seriously impressive.

🇵🇪#Peru, President Boluarte approval rating poll:

🔼Approve: 1,8 % (+0,2)
🔼Disapprove: 97,2 % (+0,2)

This is the highest disapproval rate ever recorded for President Boluarte.
https://nitter.poast.org/ElectsWorld/status/1942276624667357215#m

Really?

Fecking slacker! Needs 100% hating him.

(Has any other politician ever been that unpopular? Even Nicholas II and Louis XVI had supporters up to their executions.)

She is the follow on to the hilariously bad Pedro Castillo (espoused by @Foxy, IIRC) who managed the worst possible auto-coup. Ever.

Made Jan 6 by Trump look like a work of genius.

I don't think so. I don't know who Pedro Castillo is.

Very lefty school teacher and union official. Turned out to more corrupt and stupider than the average Peruvian President.

Found this on a quick google

In Peru, so many ex-presidents have been accused of crimes that the country has designated a small prison specifically to house them. It's a symbol of corruption, but also of political dysfunction.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/08/1186632810/perus-special-jail-for-ex-leaders-is-all-full-up

It's a good thing that at least they often get impeached or even jailed?

Peruvian presidential prison population packed past potential?

Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.

A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.

The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.

Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

Another review Reform would reverse

You do sound like you might be just a hop, skip and a jump away from defecting to the very dark side.

No I will remain one of the few still PB Tories left even if this site is also painfully short of Reform backers compared to the national electorate

Are we that painfully short?

I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.

Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.

29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.

Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then

At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.

Building more prisons - on its own - is not the answer. It may be that building more prisons is part of the solution, but it needs to be combined with many other things. Like - for a start - fuding the criminal justice system properly.

Genuinely baffles me - not that much compared to the amounts spent elsewhere, would probably have a reasonably quick and visible effect, and whilst not especially popular (people just want to be told bad people will go to prison for a long time), shouldn't be too unpopular either.

I don't know the context for this, but if it is accurate and not some kind of transcription error it is seriously impressive.

🇵🇪#Peru, President Boluarte approval rating poll:

🔼Approve: 1,8 % (+0,2)
🔼Disapprove: 97,2 % (+0,2)

This is the highest disapproval rate ever recorded for President Boluarte.
https://nitter.poast.org/ElectsWorld/status/1942276624667357215#m

Really?

Fecking slacker! Needs 100% hating him.

(Has any other politician ever been that unpopular? Even Nicholas II and Louis XVI had supporters up to their executions.)

She is the follow on to the hilariously bad Pedro Castillo (espoused by @Foxy, IIRC) who managed the worst possible auto-coup. Ever.

Made Jan 6 by Trump look like a work of genius.

I don't think so. I don't know who Pedro Castillo is.

Very lefty school teacher and union official. Turned out to more corrupt and stupider than the average Peruvian President.

Found this on a quick google

In Peru, so many ex-presidents have been accused of crimes that the country has designated a small prison specifically to house them. It's a symbol of corruption, but also of political dysfunction.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/08/1186632810/perus-special-jail-for-ex-leaders-is-all-full-up

It's a good thing that at least they often get impeached or even jailed?

At least, like South Korea, they lock them up. Here they get a title and ermine.

Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA

I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have

Answer the questions above then:

a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.

Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it

You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

Come on tell me what I should have done then?

Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income

I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

It is a reasonable whinge.

It is means tested...

You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote

There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.

So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!

So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?

I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.

As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.

Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.

The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however

God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?

So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.

What the hell was I supposed to do?

And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.

So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.

Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital

Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.

They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.

It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.

As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.

For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made

I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?

What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.

How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?

Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.

Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?

So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.

It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.

It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance

It's time for the rest of the world to ignore Trump on trade and tariffs, and look to get together. Mercosur-UK-EU-CPTPP-EFTA would be a good start. In the fullness of time, China could be offered some kind of partnership too, because they need markets for their goods.

Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.

A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.

The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.

Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

Another review Reform would reverse

You do sound like you might be just a hop, skip and a jump away from defecting to the very dark side.

No I will remain one of the few still PB Tories left even if this site is also painfully short of Reform backers compared to the national electorate

Are we that painfully short?

I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.

Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.

29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.

Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then

At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.

"An expensive way to make bad people worse"