Some good news for Kemi, the Tories now lead Reform with 18-28 year olds according to MiC. Only problem is they also still trail not only Labour but also the Greens with the youngest age group.
Big moment at #PMQs. Keir Starmer refused to say he would stand by Labour’s manifesto promise not to raise income tax, national insurance, VAT or corporation tax. It is increasingly clear the budget will include a significant rise in income tax - because it is the only clean way, ministers believe, to fill the £35bn budget black hole.
Big moment at #PMQs. Keir Starmer refused to say he would stand by Labour’s manifesto promise not to raise income tax, national insurance, VAT or corporation tax. It is increasingly clear the budget will include a significant rise in income tax - because it is the only clean way, ministers believe, to fill the £35bn budget black hole.
Big moment at #PMQs. Keir Starmer refused to say he would stand by Labour’s manifesto promise not to raise income tax, national insurance, VAT or corporation tax. It is increasingly clear the budget will include a significant rise in income tax - because it is the only clean way, ministers believe, to fill the £35bn budget black hole.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
I think there are reasonable alternatives to prison for many offences, and that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse.
While his circumstances are more unusual, in that there probably is significant flight risk so remand probably required, but if he was a British citizen then he probably would be better punished by being placed on the sexual offenders register and a suspended sentence.
If you really want to tackle the issue of preventing re-offending by paedophiles then systems like "circles of support" are probably the best system.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
The mods won't allow me to discuss my experience of it here but they frequently ignore crimes against trans women, too.
I am in absolute agreement with you that male violence against women - in my view against both cis and trans women - is a problem.
Not trying to get into an argument with you - some of the attitudes on display from various posters in recent days on historical crimes like Polanski's and the Epping sex pest - are exemplars of men minimising and excusing violence against women.
Male sexual violence - whether against men or women (I am not getting into definitional issues as our respective views on this are well known and it is any way irrelevant to what we are both saying and agreeing on) or children - is simply not taken as seriously as it ought to be.
Until we do, it will continue to blight our society and its victims in ways we ought to find unconscionable.
Big moment at #PMQs. Keir Starmer refused to say he would stand by Labour’s manifesto promise not to raise income tax, national insurance, VAT or corporation tax. It is increasingly clear the budget will include a significant rise in income tax - because it is the only clean way, ministers believe, to fill the £35bn budget black hole.
I wish I could breath a sigh of relief, but I fear Prof Peston might actually be right on this one rare occasion.
I hope he is. It's better than tinkering.
Peston hasn't been right about anything since Balls left the Treasury and people stopped explaining things to him.
FWIW I agree with you. Lots of smaller taxes, such as yet another increase in Stamp duty or penalties for having the audacity to own a second house could do a lot more economic damage and distribute the consequences of her failure to cut spending far more unfairly than an increase in IT.
But to fail to cut escalating spending, even to the projected rate of growth is pretty much unforgiveable in the present mess.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
I think there are reasonable alternatives to prison for many offences, and that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse.
While his circumstances are more unusual, in that there probably is significant flight risk so remand probably required, but if he was a British citizen then he probably would be better punished by being placed on the sexual offenders register and a suspended sentence.
If you really want to tackle the issue of preventing re-offending by paedophiles then systems like "circles of support" are probably the best system.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
The mods won't allow me to discuss my experience of it here but they frequently ignore crimes against trans women, too.
I am in absolute agreement with you that male violence against women - in my view against both cis and trans women - is a problem.
Not trying to get into an argument with you - some of the attitudes on display from various posters in recent days on historical crimes like Polanski's and the Epping sex pest - are exemplars of men minimising and excusing violence against women.
Male sexual violence - whether against men or women (I am not getting into definitional issues as our respective views on this are well known and it is any way irrelevant to what we are both saying and agreeing on) or children - is simply not taken as seriously as it ought to be.
Until we do, it will continue to blight our society and its victims in ways we ought to find unconscionable.
I was rather surprised to read Foxy’s thoughts on this earlier but did not have time to reply. You have very eloquently done so.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
I think there are reasonable alternatives to prison for many offences, and that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse.
While his circumstances are more unusual, in that there probably is significant flight risk so remand probably required, but if he was a British citizen then he probably would be better punished by being placed on the sexual offenders register and a suspended sentence.
If you really want to tackle the issue of preventing re-offending by paedophiles then systems like "circles of support" are probably the best system.
I suppose this gets into an age-old question about what prison is for.
IMV one can make an argument that no-one is to blame for anything; we are all products of our circumstances and our apparent agency over the choices we make are often illusory.
Even if I believe that (and I do) I feel deeply, deeply uncomfortable applying that logic to paedophiles. The way I personally reconcile it is: they might not be to blame for their crimes, but there is nevertheless a vital societal role in pretending that they are to blame (and so locking them up).
Thus, whilst 'circles of support' might prevent re-offending, imv there is still something morally wrong in taking this approach because it sends a societal signal that molesting a child is an action to be pitied rather than abhorred and that will damage the moral framework of society.
(But then I'd apply the same logic to anyone accepting a pay award that puts them in the top 1% of earners, and have them burnt at the stake, so I might not be the best judge. I'm sure others might apply the same logic to someone foolish enough to burn aeroplane fuel merely for kicks).
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
Labour going sub-15%?
As I say, I think it’s an exceptionally hard sell, even for a government with good comms. And this government has the worst comms of any in my lifetime.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
I think there are reasonable alternatives to prison for many offences, and that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse.
While his circumstances are more unusual, in that there probably is significant flight risk so remand probably required, but if he was a British citizen then he probably would be better punished by being placed on the sexual offenders register and a suspended sentence.
If you really want to tackle the issue of preventing re-offending by paedophiles then systems like "circles of support" are probably the best system.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
The mods won't allow me to discuss my experience of it here but they frequently ignore crimes against trans women, too.
I am in absolute agreement with you that male violence against women - in my view against both cis and trans women - is a problem.
Not trying to get into an argument with you - some of the attitudes on display from various posters in recent days on historical crimes like Polanski's and the Epping sex pest - are exemplars of men minimising and excusing violence against women.
Male sexual violence - whether against men or women (I am not getting into definitional issues as our respective views on this are well known and it is any way irrelevant to what we are both saying and agreeing on) or children - is simply not taken as seriously as it ought to be.
Until we do, it will continue to blight our society and its victims in ways we ought to find unconscionable.
I think we all oppose molestation.
The question is the best means to do so.
I suggest that for lesser offenses, particularly first offenses, other means than custody are approprite.
You are a lawyer, so you must know that few leave prison better than they went in, and many a lot worse.
Big moment at #PMQs. Keir Starmer refused to say he would stand by Labour’s manifesto promise not to raise income tax, national insurance, VAT or corporation tax. It is increasingly clear the budget will include a significant rise in income tax - because it is the only clean way, ministers believe, to fill the £35bn budget black hole.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
I think there are reasonable alternatives to prison for many offences, and that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse.
While his circumstances are more unusual, in that there probably is significant flight risk so remand probably required, but if he was a British citizen then he probably would be better punished by being placed on the sexual offenders register and a suspended sentence.
If you really want to tackle the issue of preventing re-offending by paedophiles then systems like "circles of support" are probably the best system.
I suppose this gets into an age-old question about what prison is for.
IMV one can make an argument that no-one is to blame for anything; we are all products of our circumstances and our apparent agency over the choices we make are often illusory.
Even if I believe that (and I do) I feel deeply, deeply uncomfortable applying that logic to paedophiles. The way I personally reconcile it is: they might not be to blame for their crimes, but there is nevertheless a vital societal role in pretending that they are to blame (and so locking them up).
Thus, whilst 'circles of support' might prevent re-offending, imv there is still something morally wrong in taking this approach because it sends a societal signal that molesting a child is an action to be pitied rather than abhorred and that will damage the moral framework of society.
(But then I'd apply the same logic to anyone accepting a pay award that puts them in the top 1% of earners, and have them burnt at the stake, so I might not be the best judge. I'm sure others might apply the same logic to someone foolish enough to burn aeroplane fuel merely for kicks).
On the other hand, I'm a Stoic, and believe that criminals are rational human beings. The cause of every crime is a conscious choice by the criminal to commit it.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
I think there are reasonable alternatives to prison for many offences, and that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse.
While his circumstances are more unusual, in that there probably is significant flight risk so remand probably required, but if he was a British citizen then he probably would be better punished by being placed on the sexual offenders register and a suspended sentence.
If you really want to tackle the issue of preventing re-offending by paedophiles then systems like "circles of support" are probably the best system.
I suppose this gets into an age-old question about what prison is for.
IMV one can make an argument that no-one is to blame for anything; we are all products of our circumstances and our apparent agency over the choices we make are often illusory.
Even if I believe that (and I do) I feel deeply, deeply uncomfortable applying that logic to paedophiles. The way I personally reconcile it is: they might not be to blame for their crimes, but there is nevertheless a vital societal role in pretending that they are to blame (and so locking them up).
Thus, whilst 'circles of support' might prevent re-offending, imv there is still something morally wrong in taking this approach because it sends a societal signal that molesting a child is an action to be pitied rather than abhorred and that will damage the moral framework of society.
(But then I'd apply the same logic to anyone accepting a pay award that puts them in the top 1% of earners, and have them burnt at the stake, so I might not be the best judge. I'm sure others might apply the same logic to someone foolish enough to burn aeroplane fuel merely for kicks).
Circles of support work in conjunction to criminal justice systems so are not an alternative to criminal punishment, they are longer term measures to reduce reoffending. Rather like Restorative Justice systems it is about holding criminals to account in more effective ways. It isnt a soft option.
Now about those earlier comments by a PB poster or two about nice to see slow return to compontence....
He tried to hand himself back into the prison, they turned him away. He claims now he tried to turn himself into the police, and they turned him away*. All while the MET didn't have a scooby where he was and a member of the public found him hanging around in a park on Sunday morning.
* obvious on this part we need to be cautious about the truth.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
If a monarch became unable to function for health reasons (eg dementia) abdication would have to be considered surely?
Fantastic result for D66 - their best ever. Much better from VVD than seemed likely but not so good for GL/PVDA but only an exit poll, real numbers to follow.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Why would a custodial sentence be inappropriate?
And if a custodial sentence is not given in what way are we showing - not just saying - that such acts should not be tolerated?
See for instance the number of men convicted of having child porn images, some of the very worst kind, who are very often sent to prison. Listen to the excuses given: "stress" and "good character" and so on. Then we wonder at why it is so prevalent.
As for @maxh's question - sentiments, even horrible ones, are not crimes. It is actions which are crimes and words which incite violence. Thoughts are not crimes. So if someone attacks an immigrant or a trans person etc of course they should be dealt with firmly. Equally if those groups commit crimes they should be dealt with firmly. I would only note that the police do not take an even handed approach on this. It is apparently ok to make all kinds of threats of violence or commit actual violence against women, often in public places, with the police doing nothing at all.
I think there are reasonable alternatives to prison for many offences, and that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse.
While his circumstances are more unusual, in that there probably is significant flight risk so remand probably required, but if he was a British citizen then he probably would be better punished by being placed on the sexual offenders register and a suspended sentence.
If you really want to tackle the issue of preventing re-offending by paedophiles then systems like "circles of support" are probably the best system.
I suppose this gets into an age-old question about what prison is for.
IMV one can make an argument that no-one is to blame for anything; we are all products of our circumstances and our apparent agency over the choices we make are often illusory.
Even if I believe that (and I do) I feel deeply, deeply uncomfortable applying that logic to paedophiles. The way I personally reconcile it is: they might not be to blame for their crimes, but there is nevertheless a vital societal role in pretending that they are to blame (and so locking them up).
Thus, whilst 'circles of support' might prevent re-offending, imv there is still something morally wrong in taking this approach because it sends a societal signal that molesting a child is an action to be pitied rather than abhorred and that will damage the moral framework of society.
(But then I'd apply the same logic to anyone accepting a pay award that puts them in the top 1% of earners, and have them burnt at the stake, so I might not be the best judge. I'm sure others might apply the same logic to someone foolish enough to burn aeroplane fuel merely for kicks).
On the other hand, I'm a Stoic, and believe that criminals are rational human beings. The cause of every crime is a conscious choice by the criminal to commit it.
I also find much to admire in Stoicism but the concept of most criminals being rational does not really survive contact with the average criminal court. Most crimes are committed brainlessly. That may be a consequence of the consumption of drink or drugs or it may be just a consequence of stupidity, cupidity or greed. As a general proposition rational people do not commit crimes that they are not very confident that they can get away with (eg speeding).
Fantastic result for D66 - their best ever. Much better from VVD than seemed likely but not so good for GL/PVDA but only an exit poll, real numbers to follow.
Seats in Exit Poll compared to seats before election
D66: 27 (+18, was 9). ALDE
PVV: 25 (-12, was 37). Patriots.eu
VVD: 23 (-1, was 24). ALDE
GL/PVDA: 20 (-5, was 25). European Greens/PES
CDA: 19 (+14, was 5). EPP
JA21: 9 (+8, was 1). European Conservatives and Reformists Party...ish
Others: 27
76 needed for a majority. Yellow/Yellow/Greenish gets 27+23+20 = 70. Not enough. DarkBlue/LightBlue/Blue gets 25+19+9=53. Even worse. Netherlands uses formateurs: I assume that person is going to be busy
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
But but but the manifesto commitments.....and the last £40bn in tax rises that were to fix the foundations being a one off.....
It would be a very… brave… choice.
There’s a decent argument that they should’ve just done it last autumn and gotten it over with. To do it now, after having expended a lot of political capital telling everyone for the past 18 months you won’t, is going to be a pretty hard sell. Possibly terminal for the government, I think. See Bush 1990.
Of course the other choices (tinkering and trying to raise revenue through all sorts of other creative means) is poor economics, and unlikely to help.
I do think there has to be a good chance this is all expectations management though, so when they don’t raise it they can claim it as some sort of win.
Their polling can’t really get much worse, so they might as well go for it.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Under changes brought in by Osborne, she is allowed to rent out a spare bedroom for a max of about £7K pa (has it gone up now?) without paying tax or reporting it, although you do have to tell the council.
Fantastic result for D66 - their best ever. Much better from VVD than seemed likely but not so good for GL/PVDA but only an exit poll, real numbers to follow.
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
But but but the manifesto commitments.....and the last £40bn in tax rises that were to fix the foundations being a one off.....
It would be a very… brave… choice.
There’s a decent argument that they should’ve just done it last autumn and gotten it over with. To do it now, after having expended a lot of political capital telling everyone for the past 18 months you won’t, is going to be a pretty hard sell. Possibly terminal for the government, I think. See Bush 1990.
Of course the other choices (tinkering and trying to raise revenue through all sorts of other creative means) is poor economics, and unlikely to help.
I do think there has to be a good chance this is all expectations management though, so when they don’t raise it they can claim it as some sort of win.
I definitely think there has been a fair amount of anchoring going on.
It could cover an extension in the forever Winter income tax threshold freeze, which would equate to a rise.
We might go nearly the whole way through the 2020s without those being adjusted.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
And there is the chance for SKS to legitimately remove her.
Problem is I don't think he has anyone better
Which on one level is frankly scary but confirms my viewpoint that no one with a few brain cells would enter politics in a world of 24/7 news let alone social media.
I look at what my current MP does (and our previous MP does even more of) and think that isn't for me or anyone wanting a life (and I say that as someone doing 2 jobs 1, 9-5 and the other 5-10 and 9-8 at weekends).
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
It might do.
It used to be normal though for ministers to not publically comment on a budget in the weeks preceeding it being presented as it may influence market movements. This was a tradition that the last government often ignored.
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise. Not much mention of the fact Andrew is not even in the top 5 in line to the throne either or that Presidents Trump and ex President Clinton in US republic met Andrew unlike the King or William.
However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.
Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn such that we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
Massive 71% approval rating for Prince William, just 8% negative and clear approval for the Princess of Wales too, both of whom have higher approval ratings than the King, Queen Consort and royal family overall. So when William becomes King the monarchy likely gets a bounce overall and with the young especially
It will cost a pretty penny to buy out 40? 50? years of peppercorn rent on that property.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
And her husband is a very senior civil servant as well.....including having worked in Treasury and Work and Pensions.....might have thought between them they would have the brains to check the rules.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
And there is the chance for SKS to legitimately remove her.
Problem is I don't think he has anyone better
Which on one level is frankly scary but confirms my viewpoint that no one with a few brain cells would enter politics in a world of 24/7 news let alone social media.
I look at what my current MP does (and our previous MP does even more of) and think that isn't for me or anyone wanting a life (and I say that as someone doing 2 jobs 1, 9-5 and the other 5-10 and 9-8 at weekends).
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
I'll reserve judgment on this before we actually have the full story. But as someone who has dealt with all the bureacracy of renting a home out AND thinks that paperwork is well justified...
(It appears that, unlike Scotland, the requirement for a landlord licence in England is inconsistent. That in itself helps her I think).
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Under changes brought in by Osborne, she is allowed to rent out a spare bedroom for a max of about £7K pa (has it gone up now?) without paying tax or reporting it, although you do have to tell the council.
Not sure why that is relevant? She is renting out her whole house for £40k a year.
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
It might do.
It used to be normal though for ministers to not publically comment on a budget in the weeks preceeding it being presented as it may influence market movements. This was a tradition that the last government often ignored.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
And there is the chance for SKS to legitimately remove her.
Problem is I don't think he has anyone better
Which on one level is frankly scary but confirms my viewpoint that no one with a few brain cells would enter politics in a world of 24/7 news let alone social media.
I look at what my current MP does (and our previous MP does even more of) and think that isn't for me or anyone wanting a life (and I say that as someone doing 2 jobs 1, 9-5 and the other 5-10 and 9-8 at weekends).
He’s got to let her take the hit for the budget.
I'm sure he can delay the ethics adviser from reporting until early December...
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
Labour going sub-15%?
Following the Budget, it's going to be really hard to make any case for voting Labour. Except maybe in a seat that is a straight Labour-Reform fight.
If the Tories put someone like Hunt or Cleverly in then they are in deep trouble I think.
If Cleverly replaced Kemi as leader of the Tories next year, as he might if she loses a VONC after poor local elections by MP coronation or even members vote (post conference polls last year had Cleverly leading Jenrick with Tory members) then yes it is possible Labour could fall to third.
Cleverly would appeal more to centrist swing voters than Kemi, including a few who switched from Conservative to Labour last year and now have gone Reform and would get more tactical votes from LDs too. Indeed, Labour could find itself 4th if the Budget does not win back leftwingers going Green
Fantastic result for D66 - their best ever. Much better from VVD than seemed likely but not so good for GL/PVDA but only an exit poll, real numbers to follow.
Fantastic result for D66 - their best ever. Much better from VVD than seemed likely but not so good for GL/PVDA but only an exit poll, real numbers to follow.
If accurate good result for the left
Not really, a poor result for leftwing GL/PVDA even if a good result for centre left D66, a good result for conservative CDA and OK for centre right VVD but relatively bad for far right PVV even if they remain second.
Now about those earlier comments by a PB poster or two about nice to see slow return to compontence....
He tried to hand himself back into the prison, they turned him away. He claims now he tried to turn himself into the police, and they turned him away*. All while the MET didn't have a scooby where he was and a member of the public found him hanging around in a park on Sunday morning.
* obvious on this part we need to be cautious about the truth.
I look at the £500 he was given and think
1) clearly he knew enough that they wanted him gone 2) given the above he could have asked for a lot more than £500 and someone needs to give him the number of the Daily Mail and tell him to ask for £x0,000 for his story because it's probably worth it for the Mail...
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
It might do.
It used to be normal though for ministers to not publically comment on a budget in the weeks preceeding it being presented as it may influence market movements. This was a tradition that the last government often ignored.
Fantastic result for D66 - their best ever. Much better from VVD than seemed likely but not so good for GL/PVDA but only an exit poll, real numbers to follow.
If accurate good result for the left
Well, left-ish.
"Explain it to me in British, Viewcode" "Imagine if there were two sets of Liberals and a party with Greens and Labour. They did good but not good enough. Now imagine if the Conservative party had split into two and there was a Reform party as well. They did badly. It'll take them weeks to sort out a Government"
Now about those earlier comments by a PB poster or two about nice to see slow return to compontence....
He tried to hand himself back into the prison, they turned him away. He claims now he tried to turn himself into the police, and they turned him away*. All while the MET didn't have a scooby where he was and a member of the public found him hanging around in a park on Sunday morning.
* obvious on this part we need to be cautious about the truth.
I look at the £500 he was given and think
1) clearly he knew enough that they wanted him gone 2) given the above he could have asked for a lot more than £500 and someone needs to give him the number of the Daily Mail and tell him to ask for £x0,000 for his story because it's probably worth it for the Mail...
Well I wonder if Sky paid him for the exclusive interview from his hotel room.
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
It might do.
It used to be normal though for ministers to not publically comment on a budget in the weeks preceeding it being presented as it may influence market movements. This was a tradition that the last government often ignored.
Now about those earlier comments by a PB poster or two about nice to see slow return to compontence....
He tried to hand himself back into the prison, they turned him away. He claims now he tried to turn himself into the police, and they turned him away*. All while the MET didn't have a scooby where he was and a member of the public found him hanging around in a park on Sunday morning.
* obvious on this part we need to be cautious about the truth.
I look at the £500 he was given and think
1) clearly he knew enough that they wanted him gone 2) given the above he could have asked for a lot more than £500 and someone needs to give him the number of the Daily Mail and tell him to ask for £x0,000 for his story because it's probably worth it for the Mail...
£500? Personally, I wouldn't get out of bed for anything less than £5,000.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
Labour going sub-15%?
Following the Budget, it's going to be really hard to make any case for voting Labour. Except maybe in a seat that is a straight Labour-Reform fight.
Which is many.
Fwiw, looking around Europe, I think 15% is a likely floor for the Labour and Conservative parties in the current landscape, I think a tax U-turn won't send Labour much lower, but would more likely hurt their capacity for recovery. It seems a regular floor level in ~5 party politics in many places.
That is not to say traditional centre-left and centre-right parties haven't dropped below that, the Macron revolution killed them both in France, but I don't see Ed Davey doing the same, and the centre-right in Italy was defeated by the new-right party that had long traded on a certain sobriety, something that Reform are unlikely to do. The drop of your traditional party below 15% needs specific circumstances.
God, I miss the pan-European political parties and the groups of the European Parliament. Can we rejoin just for statistical purposes so I can fit Labour into PES and the Libs into ALDE, just like the old days? I'm sure it'll be uncontroversial. I can draw bar charts: that'll make things better.
(narrator: viewcode is in work and tired and needs to go home)
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Under changes brought in by Osborne, she is allowed to rent out a spare bedroom for a max of about £7K pa (has it gone up now?) without paying tax or reporting it, although you do have to tell the council.
Southwark requires a license for which they charge £900
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Under changes brought in by Osborne, she is allowed to rent out a spare bedroom for a max of about £7K pa (has it gone up now?) without paying tax or reporting it, although you do have to tell the council.
Southwark requires a license for which they charge £900
Nice little earner for doing nought. With all the media attention I can foreseeable suddenly all councils becoming very interested in such a license.
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
It might do.
It used to be normal though for ministers to not publically comment on a budget in the weeks preceeding it being presented as it may influence market movements. This was a tradition that the last government often ignored.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
Labour going sub-15%?
Following the Budget, it's going to be really hard to make any case for voting Labour. Except maybe in a seat that is a straight Labour-Reform fight.
Which is many.
Fwiw, looking around Europe, I think 15% is a likely floor for the Labour and Conservative parties in the current landscape, I think a tax U-turn won't send Labour much lower, but would more likely hurt their capacity for recovery. It seems a regular floor level in ~5 party politics in many places.
That is not to say traditional centre-left and centre-right parties haven't dropped below that, the Macron revolution killed them both in France, but I don't see Ed Davey doing the same, and the centre-right in Italy was defeated by the new-right party that had long traded on a certain sobriety, something that Reform are unlikely to do. The drop of your traditional party below 15% needs specific circumstances.
I’d be more likely to vote Labour if they do put up income tax. It would show a genuine attempt to balance the books. Add in a consideration of ending the triple lock, and other reforms and things might start to turn.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Under changes brought in by Osborne, she is allowed to rent out a spare bedroom for a max of about £7K pa (has it gone up now?) without paying tax or reporting it, although you do have to tell the council.
Not sure why that is relevant? She is renting out her whole house for £40k a year.
She could have reduced the economic hit by allowing somebody reliable to occupy a spare bedroom, an act that requires no paperwork and can be done very quickly. Instead she took as much as possible, ignored the predictable problems with bureaucracy, and got far less than she expected, losing face in the process. It's a metaphor for her Chancellorship.
You don't need to understand it, but, the AWS outage last week (half the Internet offline) was caused by DNS.
The massive Azure outage today, caused by DNS.
The entertaining (and scary) part, is that not only is DNS fundamental to the modern Internet, it's foundational. It's one of the oldest components there is.
Before Cloud, there was DNS.
Before social media, there was DNS.
Before the WWW, there was DNS.
Before WAIS or Gopher, there was DNS.
These outages are like your house falling down because someone forgot how to mix cement...
If D66 do end up with the most seats then their leader Jetten would be the first openly gay Dutch PM . He’s currently engaged to an Argentinian hockey player .
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
It appears to be a council by council thing. It would never have occurred to me that we might need a licence to rent our house out, which we considered briefly but then managed to sell it.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Under changes brought in by Osborne, she is allowed to rent out a spare bedroom for a max of about £7K pa (has it gone up now?) without paying tax or reporting it, although you do have to tell the council.
Southwark requires a license for which they charge £900
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
Surely her agency must have told her? Or is she renting without an agency to a family friend?
‘Since becoming Chancellor Rachel Reeves has rented out her family home through a lettings agency.'
She claims nobody from the agency told her.
Then she's safe, if the agency don't gainsay it.
Well you would hope she wouldn't repeat the Big Ange approach of lying and trying to throw them under the bus as the ones being incomponent. Seems very shoddy lettings agency if they don't know the local laws themselves or check if somebody has got / getting the license.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
Surely her agency must have told her? Or is she renting without an agency to a family friend?
‘Since becoming Chancellor Rachel Reeves has rented out her family home through a lettings agency.'
She claims nobody from the agency told her.
Then she's safe, if the agency don't gainsay it.
Well you would hope she wouldn't repeat the Big Ange approach of lying and trying to throw them under the bus as the ones being incomponent. Seems very shoody lettings agency if they don't know the law themselves or check if somebody has got / getting the license.
Unless there’s something in the small print of the agency agreement about the landlord being responsible for obtaining the necessary licences…
(Not saying that’s likely, I’m not au fait with the industry, but it strikes me as the sort of backside-covering that might be done)
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
Surely her agency must have told her? Or is she renting without an agency to a family friend?
‘Since becoming Chancellor Rachel Reeves has rented out her family home through a lettings agency.'
She claims nobody from the agency told her.
Then she's safe, if the agency don't gainsay it.
Well you would hope she wouldn't repeat the Big Ange approach of lying and trying to throw them under the bus as the ones being incomponent. Seems very shoody lettings agency if they don't know the law themselves or check if somebody has got / getting the license.
Unless there’s something in the small print of the agency agreement about the landlord being responsible for obtaining the necessary licences…
(Not saying that’s likely, I’m not au fait with the industry, but it strikes me as the sort of backside-covering that might be done)
That of course was Big Ange's problem and the lawyers were quickly out the blocks to say how dare you, how very dare you...
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Why would she need a licence to rent out a property?
Its in the article linked,
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
Surely her agency must have told her? Or is she renting without an agency to a family friend?
‘Since becoming Chancellor Rachel Reeves has rented out her family home through a lettings agency.'
She claims nobody from the agency told her.
Yeah, she's fine. But I am rather surprised there isn't England-wide landlord register.
My details are publicly available and anyone can get in touch with me and complain about my tenant or tell me about a problem with my property. There's also data sharing so the council(s) in Scotland can keep an eye on dodgy landlords. £50k fine if you don't register (£82).
Unlicensed properties You may be able to apply for a rent repayment order if:
you're a tenant of an unlicensed property you've lived in an unlicensed property in the past 12 months This order allows you to recover up to 12 months of your rent back from your landlord.
We work closely with Justice for Tenants. These are a not-for-profit tenant's rights organisation.
They can help with your rent repayment order application.
Unlicensed properties You may be able to apply for a rent repayment order if:
you're a tenant of an unlicensed property you've lived in an unlicensed property in the past 12 months This order allows you to recover up to 12 months of your rent back from your landlord.
We work closely with Justice for Tenants. These are a not-for-profit tenant's rights organisation.
They can help with your rent repayment order application.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I did not deny that it was an act that neded dealing with by the police, and that it is an offense. I stressed in my first post on this that it should not be tolerated at 0756 today.
All I called into question was whether a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Did you read the sentencing? Posted several times.
1. Hadush Geberslasie Kebatu, you have been convicted of the following offences: i. Attempted Sexual Assault on a Child aged 14 ii. Incite or Causing a Child aged 13 to 15 to Engage in Sexual Activity iiii. Sexual Assault on a Female (aged 14) iv. Harassment without Violence v. Sexual Assault on a Female
Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
Interesting if it's a straight fiscal swap or not. Cutting NICs by 3ppt and raising Income Tax by 3ppt sounds fair but would actually increase revenues.
I said this at the time of Big Ange scandal, during Blair-era all minister's had to stick their assets in blind trusts. I have no idea a) why they aren't doing it anymore, b) why wouldn't you to cover your arse against any of these kind of potential issues, and c) surely have more important things to be doing than worrying about dealing with this kind of stuff.
I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.
Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.
It might do.
It used to be normal though for ministers to not publically comment on a budget in the weeks preceeding it being presented as it may influence market movements. This was a tradition that the last government often ignored.
God, I miss the pan-European political parties and the groups of the European Parliament. Can we rejoin just for statistical purposes so I can fit Labour into PES and the Libs into ALDE, just like the old days? I'm sure it'll be uncontroversial. I can draw bar charts: that'll make things better.
(narrator: viewcode is in work and tired and needs to go home)
I remember doing a presentation of a new application to some very senior UK academics. Various nodding, mentions of 'could that button be a bit bigger?' - the usual.
Until I opened one page which had animated bar-charts.
Much 'Ohhhhh-uhhhhhhh!' and approving nodding from all in attendance.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
That at least mitigates the furore over breaking a manifesto pledge .
I don't know how the numbers work out but the clever approach would be to increase ICT by x% and reduce employees NI by x+0.5% and still raise revenue.
There must be a value of x that does that given all those (like me now) whose income is not from employment.
Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
That at least mitigates the furore over breaking a manifesto pledge .
I don't know how the numbers work out but the clever approach would be to increase ICT by x% and reduce employees NI by x+0.5% and still raise revenue.
There must be a value of x that does that given all those (like me now) whose income is not from employment.
I think I saw that raising IT by 2p and lowering NI by the same would be a net 6 billion per year for the treasury .
Strange that he waited 11 seconds with the light on red before jumping it... don't suppose plod bothered to check his phone, I suspect he was busy on his phone, looked up to see that the cars in front had gone and drove through.
Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
Interesting if it's a straight fiscal swap or not. Cutting NICs by 3ppt and raising Income Tax by 3ppt sounds fair but would actually increase revenues.
Pensioners would not be happy, they pay income tax but not NI (maybe they should pay both but they don't now) so would be a clear tax rise for pensioners.
After the winter fuel debacle I suggest Starmer and Reeves avoid Skegness, Bexhill, Eastbourne etc unless they want to be pelted with rotten fruit
Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
Interesting if it's a straight fiscal swap or not. Cutting NICs by 3ppt and raising Income Tax by 3ppt sounds fair but would actually increase revenues.
Pensioners would not be happy, they pay income tax but not NI (maybe they should pay both but they don't now) so would be a clear tax rise for pensioners.
After the winter fuel debacle I suggest Starmer and Reeves avoid Skegness, Bexhill, Eastbourne etc unless they want to be pelted with rotten fruit
Pensioners have more spare cash than most working people....
The biggest hit will be on coffee shops where the OAPs will only go 5 times a week instead of 7.
Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
That at least mitigates the furore over breaking a manifesto pledge .
I don't know how the numbers work out but the clever approach would be to increase ICT by x% and reduce employees NI by x+0.5% and still raise revenue.
There must be a value of x that does that given all those (like me now) whose income is not from employment.
That was the suggestion behind reducing employee NI to zero over a parliament and increasing income tax.
In fact, because there is a smaller tax base for NI, you could reduce NI *faster* than you increase income tax - in percentage terms. So you could do revenue neutral on PAYE employees and just increase tax on others. And still bring in an increased tax take.
I wonder they will do about pensions and basic rate of tax? I would increase the personal allowance to match the pension - so no basic pensioners pay tax. I would keep the old rate of IT tax (before the NI transfer) for those over the pensionable age. So only pensioners on 50K+ would pay more.
Comments
Until we do, it will continue to blight our society and its victims in ways we ought to find unconscionable.
FWIW I agree with you. Lots of smaller taxes, such as yet another increase in Stamp duty or penalties for having the audacity to own a second house could do a lot more economic damage and distribute the consequences of her failure to cut spending far more unfairly than an increase in IT.
But to fail to cut escalating spending, even to the projected rate of growth is pretty much unforgiveable in the present mess.
IMV one can make an argument that no-one is to blame for anything; we are all products of our circumstances and our apparent agency over the choices we make are often illusory.
Even if I believe that (and I do) I feel deeply, deeply uncomfortable applying that logic to paedophiles. The way I personally reconcile it is: they might not be to blame for their crimes, but there is nevertheless a vital societal role in pretending that they are to blame (and so locking them up).
Thus, whilst 'circles of support' might prevent re-offending, imv there is still something morally wrong in taking this approach because it sends a societal signal that molesting a child is an action to be pitied rather than abhorred and that will damage the moral framework of society.
(But then I'd apply the same logic to anyone accepting a pay award that puts them in the top 1% of earners, and have them burnt at the stake, so I might not be the best judge. I'm sure others might apply the same logic to someone foolish enough to burn aeroplane fuel merely for kicks).
The question is the best means to do so.
I suggest that for lesser offenses, particularly first offenses, other means than custody are approprite.
You are a lawyer, so you must know that few leave prison better than they went in, and many a lot worse.
Although, even then - him being right TWICE a day?
"I get police 'look here, police I am wanted man I will give you my hand, please help me where is police station'. He ignored me and he drive off"
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1983602604233163003
Now about those earlier comments by a PB poster or two about nice to see slow return to compontence....
He tried to hand himself back into the prison, they turned him away. He claims now he tried to turn himself into the police, and they turned him away*. All while the MET didn't have a scooby where he was and a member of the public found him hanging around in a park on Sunday morning.
* obvious on this part we need to be cautious about the truth.
Big losses though for Wilders' far right party and losses too forecast for the Dutch Labour Party.
Liberal centre right VVD roughly as before
- D66: 27 (+18, was 9). ALDE
- PVV: 25 (-12, was 37). Patriots.eu
- VVD: 23 (-1, was 24). ALDE
- GL/PVDA: 20 (-5, was 25). European Greens/PES
- CDA: 19 (+14, was 5). EPP
- JA21: 9 (+8, was 1). European Conservatives and Reformists Party...ish
- Others: 27
76 needed for a majority. Yellow/Yellow/Greenish gets 27+23+20 = 70. Not enough. DarkBlue/LightBlue/Blue gets 25+19+9=53. Even worse. Netherlands uses formateurs: I assume that person is going to be busyChancellor Rachel Reeves has admitted to breaking housing regulations after unlawfully renting out her family home for £3,200 a month without a licence after moving in to No 11. She has tonight referred herself to the Independent Ethics Adviser
https://x.com/HarriLine/status/1983625152819818749
I expect my arse to be handed to me on a plate again, though.
We might go nearly the whole way through the 2020s without those being adjusted.
Problem is I don't think he has anyone better
Which on one level is frankly scary but confirms my viewpoint that no one with a few brain cells would enter politics in a world of 24/7 news let alone social media.
I look at what my current MP does (and our previous MP does even more of) and think that isn't for me or anyone wanting a life (and I say that as someone doing 2 jobs 1, 9-5 and the other 5-10 and 9-8 at weekends).
A period of silence from you would be welcome.
(It appears that, unlike Scotland, the requirement for a landlord licence in England is inconsistent. That in itself helps her I think).
Cleverly would appeal more to centrist swing voters than Kemi, including a few who switched from Conservative to Labour last year and now have gone Reform and would get more tactical votes from LDs too. Indeed, Labour could find itself 4th if the Budget does not win back leftwingers going Green
So more mixed
1) clearly he knew enough that they wanted him gone
2) given the above he could have asked for a lot more than £500 and someone needs to give him the number of the Daily Mail and tell him to ask for £x0,000 for his story because it's probably worth it for the Mail...
"Explain it to me in British, Viewcode"
"Imagine if there were two sets of Liberals and a party with Greens and Labour. They did good but not good enough. Now imagine if the Conservative party had split into two and there was a Reform party as well. They did badly. It'll take them weeks to sort out a Government"
He doesn't come across as the smartest cookie.
Fwiw, looking around Europe, I think 15% is a likely floor for the Labour and Conservative parties in the current landscape, I think a tax U-turn won't send Labour much lower, but would more likely hurt their capacity for recovery. It seems a regular floor level in ~5 party politics in many places.
That is not to say traditional centre-left and centre-right parties haven't dropped below that, the Macron revolution killed them both in France, but I don't see Ed Davey doing the same, and the centre-right in Italy was defeated by the new-right party that had long traded on a certain sobriety, something that Reform are unlikely to do. The drop of your traditional party below 15% needs specific circumstances.
(narrator: viewcode is in work and tired and needs to go home)
Southwark Council, the local authority, requires that private landlords in certain areas - including where her house is located - obtain a ‘selective’ licence to rent out their property. But tonight she admitted that she was unaware of the licencing requirement and, following inquiries by the Mail, applied for the licence.
This has applied to most private residential properties rented to single families or unrelated tenants in the borough, since November 2023.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15239797/Rachel-Reeves-broke-law-renting-family-home-Downing-Street.html
Your stock has diminished on here due to your behaviour today.
Shame.
The massive Azure outage today, caused by DNS.
The entertaining (and scary) part, is that not only is DNS fundamental to the modern Internet, it's foundational. It's one of the oldest components there is.
Before Cloud, there was DNS.
Before social media, there was DNS.
Before the WWW, there was DNS.
Before WAIS or Gopher, there was DNS.
These outages are like your house falling down because someone forgot how to mix cement...
In a large number of them it'll be Reform who will come off better.
She claims nobody from the agency told her.
12 month ban. Insane.
It might give her ideas...
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
(Not saying that’s likely, I’m not au fait with the industry, but it strikes me as the sort of backside-covering that might be done)
Downside is I don't think doing the above raises enough money to cover the blackhole...
My details are publicly available and anyone can get in touch with me and complain about my tenant or tell me about a problem with my property. There's also data sharing so the council(s) in Scotland can keep an eye on dodgy landlords. £50k fine if you don't register (£82).
Pensioners will whine anyway, so do something on triple lock too.
https://www.southwark.gov.uk/housing/private-tenants-and-landlords/private-rented-property-licensing/unlicensed-properties
Unlicensed properties
You may be able to apply for a rent repayment order if:
you're a tenant of an unlicensed property
you've lived in an unlicensed property in the past 12 months
This order allows you to recover up to 12 months of your rent back from your landlord.
We work closely with Justice for Tenants. These are a not-for-profit tenant's rights organisation.
They can help with your rent repayment order application.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Hadush-Kebatu-Sentence-Remarks.pdf
1. Hadush Geberslasie Kebatu, you have been convicted of the following offences:
i. Attempted Sexual Assault on a Child aged 14
ii. Incite or Causing a Child aged 13 to 15 to Engage in Sexual Activity
iiii. Sexual Assault on a Female (aged 14)
iv. Harassment without Violence
v. Sexual Assault on a Female
D66 closed as 7/4 second favourites to win the most seats in today's Dutch General Election 🇳🇱
As recently as last week you could have backed them at 100/1 and 2 weeks ago at 200/1!
#verkiezingen2025
I disagree with @foxy on this, but am pleased he has posted what he believes so it can be debated.
Moral outrage and attempted silencing over political opinions is a far less appealing attribute in a poster, in my opinion.
Until I opened one page which had animated bar-charts.
Much 'Ohhhhh-uhhhhhhh!' and approving nodding from all in attendance.
I learned a valuable lesson that day.
There must be a value of x that does that given all those (like me now) whose income is not from employment.
After the winter fuel debacle I suggest Starmer and Reeves avoid Skegness, Bexhill, Eastbourne etc unless they want to be pelted with rotten fruit
See the Daily Express and its loop between a bad winter, Princess Di and Brexit...
Admittedly, hard to tell the difference between them and the regulars.
The biggest hit will be on coffee shops where the OAPs will only go 5 times a week instead of 7.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/microsoft-scottish-parliament-royal-bank-of-scotland-minecraft-heathrow-b2854751.html
CASH. And division lobbies.
In fact, because there is a smaller tax base for NI, you could reduce NI *faster* than you increase income tax - in percentage terms. So you could do revenue neutral on PAYE employees and just increase tax on others. And still bring in an increased tax take.
I wonder they will do about pensions and basic rate of tax? I would increase the personal allowance to match the pension - so no basic pensioners pay tax. I would keep the old rate of IT tax (before the NI transfer) for those over the pensionable age. So only pensioners on 50K+ would pay more.