Was texting to a politico today, like me he reckons the narrowing will reverse soon enough if the case numbers maintain their current trajectory.
However he reckons the Tories will take a big hit in the polls soon enough if they don't maintain the UC uplift and put up taxes on workers so the retired can maintain their triple lock.
If the Tories can't find a way to politically justify not raising pensions by 7-8% then the country really is screwed. Frankly it really would speak volumes for the selfishness of the elderly if that were to transpire. Triple lock, schmickle lock. There's no way that people voted for the triple lock expected that sort of bonus. The idea of the triple lock (agree with it on affordability grounds or not) was to prevent pensions falling behind general improvements in income and/or inflationary pressures. Permanent windfall rises of 7-8% are nothing to do with that.
In round numbers, about a third of the electorate is pensionable and fully half of it is over 55 (most of whom will therefore be pensionable by the end of the decade.)
Age is the main predictor of political affiliation. The retired break very heavily for the Conservatives.
I'm going to stick my neck out and predict that the triple lock is left well alone. The extra expense will likely be "balanced" by one or two token initiatives (about tuppence ha'penny extra for after school clubs, or some such thing) to make it look as if the Government also cares about the fate of the young. But it doesn't, of course.
An 8% rise in the State Pension at the same time as a 0% pay freeze for police, teachers etc would be quite "a courageous decision, Prime Minister"
Scrap the triple lock, old people can pay more taxes, they get everything else handed to them
I'd keep it but tax it more. The poorest will be hit hardest if you simply scrap it.
Not really - if the poorest are on pension tax credits or housing benefit any increase on one hand may be lost on the other - we've seen that often enough
Scrap the triple lock, old people can pay more taxes, they get everything else handed to them
I'd keep it but tax it more. The poorest will be hit hardest if you simply scrap it.
Not really - if the poorest are on pension tax credits or housing benefit any increase on one hand may be lost on the other - we've seen that often enough
If you stopped increasing pensions they would definitely get worse off.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I would suggest the cost that the worker pays in NI. Or simply abolish the age limit on NI and everyone pays it.
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
How much extra do we think the Government will need to raise in taxes in the autumn to be serious about bringing the finances back under a measure of control?
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
The French are just being twats. They hope to move UK business to France, or the EU. C'est tout
In the end this won't happen. We just won't do so much business with them. This will hurt us - but in the end it will hurt everyone, and it is very arguable that the UK will benefit, because we will be forced to adapt and evolve faster than them
This is the EU mindset. BREXIT MUST NOT SUCCEED. I can see why they have it, but it's a long term problem for them
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
The French are just being twats. They hope to move UK business to France, or the EU. C'est tout
In the end this won't happen. We just won't do so much business with them. This will hurt us - but in the end it will hurt everyone, and it is very arguable that the UK will benefit, because we will be forced to adapt and evolve faster than them
This is the EU mindset. BREXIT MUST NOT SUCCEED. I can see why they have it, but it's a long term problem for them
And your contribution will be to avoid French wine and Champagne ?
I've pivoted to New World nearly completely, but I expect you are a more significant part of the trade than I am with my Laithwaite's Plan and extras.
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
The French are just being twats. They hope to move UK business to France, or the EU. C'est tout
In the end this won't happen. We just won't do so much business with them. This will hurt us - but in the end it will hurt everyone, and it is very arguable that the UK will benefit, because we will be forced to adapt and evolve faster than them
This is the EU mindset. BREXIT MUST NOT SUCCEED. I can see why they have it, but it's a long term problem for them
And your contribution will be to avoid French wine and Champagne ?
I am already avoiding Champagne - seriously!
I buy a lot of bubbles, I love it. But Britain now makes fabulous sparkling wines. I have a couple of botts of vintage French stuff for friends/lovers who aren't up to speed and demand champagne, but otherwise it's all Nyetimber and Chapel Down and so on. I'm a patriotic wine buyer. English Fizz is now brilliant, and world class, why buy anything else?
What we don't do yet is cheap decent fizz for £10 a bottle but for that you need Cava or Trentodoc not Champagne (which is grotesque at those price points)
I would still miss French wine in general if it was abolished. I love a Rhone blend. But it would be a tiny dent in my life if it disappeared entirely. There is so much good stuff from all over
I'm not sure the French quite realise how dispensable they are now, in terms of food and beverage
France the country is a different thing. I really do miss the Languedoc, the hills of Lozere, or a breezy walk in Biarritz
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
Archibald may not be quite on top of the complexities.
However, he has some *very* good points. Michael M's nitpicky point does not cover "Wrong colour of ink, Guv. Take the lorry home."
The first time I can remember the French doing this sort of thing was when they sent all imported video recorders to be cleared at a customs in Poitiers in 1982, and staffed the customs post with essentially one person to inspect 25k video recorders from Japan a week. And he was told to check each serial number.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
The average DB pension in the public sector is also quite modest. About £4,000 PA. Many nurses etc have relatively short contributions records. Mrs Foxy has about 20 years Whole Time Equivalent, so about £6,000 PA pension by the time she finally gets it, after starting work aged 18 in the NHS.
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
Archibald may not be quite on top of the complexities.
However, he has some *very* good points.
The first time I can remember the French doing this sort of thing was when they sent all imported video recorders to be cleared at a customs in Poitiers in 1982, and staffed the customs post with essentially one person to inspect 25k video recorders from Japan a week. And he was told to check each serial number.
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
The average DB pension in the public sector is also quite modest. About £4,000 PA. Many nurses etc have relatively short contributions records. Mrs Foxy has about 20 years Whole Time Equivalent, so about £6,000 PA pension by the time she finally gets it, after starting work aged 18 in the NHS.
Yes modest because short contribution periods....mamy private sector workers will put in pension contributions all their working life and still not get anywhere near 6k at the end. In the meantime most public sector employers are contributing between 20% and 30% a month into public sector pensions and that comes out of tax money taken off those same private sector workers. On top of which the public sector pensions have a 1.8trillion hole.
How much extra do we think the Government will need to raise in taxes in the autumn to be serious about bringing the finances back under a measure of control?
My punt would be perhaps £25-30bn per annum.
Do you expect it to happen?
I expect lots of fiscal drag, the triple lock becoming the double lock, and some obscure things that only turn up when you read p 537 of the Red Book.
Put it another way - how confident are you that we have a serious government?
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
Archibald may not be quite on top of the complexities.
However, he has some *very* good points.
The first time I can remember the French doing this sort of thing was when they sent all imported video recorders to be cleared at a customs in Poitiers in 1982, and staffed the customs post with essentially one person to inspect 25k video recorders from Japan a week. And he was told to check each serial number.
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
The average DB pension in the public sector is also quite modest. About £4,000 PA. Many nurses etc have relatively short contributions records. Mrs Foxy has about 20 years Whole Time Equivalent, so about £6,000 PA pension by the time she finally gets it, after starting work aged 18 in the NHS.
Yes modest because short contribution periods....mamy private sector workers will put in pension contributions all their working life and still not get anywhere near 6k at the end. In the meantime most public sector employers are contributing between 20% and 30% a month into public sector pensions and that comes out of tax money taken off those same private sector workers. On top of which the public sector pensions have a 1.8trillion hole.
It is not public sector workers fault that the government has spent all their contributions rather than keep them in a pension fund.
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
Complete, unverifiable nonsense
What was it you were in nick for again?
Alleged Genocide. Why?
Just wondered if you had a special interest in rape allegations.
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
I've had shipments of goods turned away from almost every country in the world at one point or another, due to:
(1) electronic waybills not being accessible by customs agents (2) customs agents believing that the container contained different things to the docs (they weren't) (3) a driver presenting the paperwork for his last delivery and then turning back rather than checking why it wasn't accepted (4) people having only filled out the first two pages of forms and assuming that the remaining 20 wouldn't be checked
The French are bad. The South Africans, to my mind, are the worst. But I've had bad experiences in the UK too. The reality is that individual customs agents are sometimes grumpy and can be dicks.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
The average DB pension in the public sector is also quite modest. About £4,000 PA. Many nurses etc have relatively short contributions records. Mrs Foxy has about 20 years Whole Time Equivalent, so about £6,000 PA pension by the time she finally gets it, after starting work aged 18 in the NHS.
Yes modest because short contribution periods....mamy private sector workers will put in pension contributions all their working life and still not get anywhere near 6k at the end. In the meantime most public sector employers are contributing between 20% and 30% a month into public sector pensions and that comes out of tax money taken off those same private sector workers. On top of which the public sector pensions have a 1.8trillion hole.
It is not public sector workers fault that the government has spent all their contributions rather than keep them in a pension fund.
I didn't say it was. What my point was is that it is disingenuous to argue public sector schemes aren't good because some only have a short contribution period. A nurse working 40 years in the nhs with a final salary averaging 40k over the last 3 years will get about 20k a year index linked. Ask what a private sector dc scheme would charge per month to provide that. I think you would find most would be contributing a lot more than 11% of their salaries to get there
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
I've had shipments of goods turned away from almost every country in the world at one point or another, due to:
(1) electronic waybills not being accessible by customs agents (2) customs agents believing that the container contained different things to the docs (they weren't) (3) a driver presenting the paperwork for his last delivery and then turning back rather than checking why it wasn't accepted (4) people having only filled out the first two pages of forms and assuming that the remaining 20 wouldn't be checked
The French are bad. The South Africans, to my mind, are the worst. But I've had bad experiences in the UK too. The reality is that individual customs agents are sometimes grumpy and can be dicks.
Re 4: I hate to say it, but I suspect our (now ex-) employee had been filling in only the first couple of pages for months, and no-one ever noticed.
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
Complete, unverifiable nonsense
98% of alleged rapes do not result in a conviction.
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
Complete, unverifiable nonsense
98% of alleged rapes do not result in a conviction.
Wording it properly doesn't remove its force.
In which case wording it properly should definitely happen, since doing anything improperly weakens things.
And the victim vs complainant situation is pretty important in crime in general.
Hmm, that's really interesting. I really wish the government would give us this kind of information up front rather than having to wait for it to be leaked. If only we had a media class capable of asking the scientists these kinds of questions.
Don't be silly they are far too busy spreading debunked conspiracy theories about the government hiding the significant number of reinfections.....
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
The average DB pension in the public sector is also quite modest. About £4,000 PA. Many nurses etc have relatively short contributions records. Mrs Foxy has about 20 years Whole Time Equivalent, so about £6,000 PA pension by the time she finally gets it, after starting work aged 18 in the NHS.
Yes modest because short contribution periods....mamy private sector workers will put in pension contributions all their working life and still not get anywhere near 6k at the end. In the meantime most public sector employers are contributing between 20% and 30% a month into public sector pensions and that comes out of tax money taken off those same private sector workers. On top of which the public sector pensions have a 1.8trillion hole.
It is not public sector workers fault that the government has spent all their contributions rather than keep them in a pension fund.
I didn't say it was. What my point was is that it is disingenuous to argue public sector schemes aren't good because some only have a short contribution period. A nurse working 40 years in the nhs with a final salary averaging 40k over the last 3 years will get about 20k a year index linked. Ask what a private sector dc scheme would charge per month to provide that. I think you would find most would be contributing a lot more than 11% of their salaries to get there
You are assuming the nurse has a 40 year contributions record as WTE, without breaks in service and is now on a high band. £40 000 is band 7. Mrs Foxy is more typical. She is band 5, and 60% WTE with an 8 year career break, so, when she finally gets her pension in 2025, after a lifetime of service, gets £6000. Obviously there is my pension too, but few nurses marry consultants nowadays.
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
Complete, unverifiable nonsense
98% of alleged rapes do not result in a conviction.
Wording it properly doesn't remove its force.
In which case wording it properly should definitely happen, since doing anything improperly weakens things.
And the victim vs complainant situation is pretty important in crime in general.
I would imagine the majority of rapes tend to be one persons word against anothers with no witnesses. If you have two people saying yes intercourse took place. One saying it was consensual and one saying it wasn't. Well its difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Undoubtedly a lot are non consensual, there is also a percentage that are the girl changing their mind after the fact.
Now here is the question the only way round it is to drop reasonable doubt in rape trials and assume the complainant is correct.
What percentage of actually innocent people are you prepared to lock up?
Note I have no idea what the ratio is except that its not 100% to 0% and not making assumptions about it. Merely asking if you know some tarred feathered and jailed will be innocent. What percentage is acceptable to you?
How much extra do we think the Government will need to raise in taxes in the autumn to be serious about bringing the finances back under a measure of control?
My punt would be perhaps £25-30bn per annum.
Do you expect it to happen?
I expect lots of fiscal drag, the triple lock becoming the double lock, and some obscure things that only turn up when you read p 537 of the Red Book.
Put it another way - how confident are you that we have a serious government?
I do not have the foggiest idea .
If I had way we would swap out Boris for a.n.other, suitable for the long slog of implementing necessary policy post-Brexit, and applying consistency to bring Brussels to a position of sanity rather than vanity.
In the meantime I am encouraging my MP on three fronts:
1 - Proportional Property Tax / Abolition of Stamp Duty. An ABO policy - Absolutely Bloody Obvious. 2 - Get a long term programme in place to replace CLASP schools built with asbestos containing panels. Notts, Derbys and County Durham schoolchildren deserve the experience of being allowed to put a drawing pin in a wall, and I think it is an excellent policy to get real and needed investment into relevant parts of the Red Wall. In Notts we have 100 of them still, and the issue touches every family when they reflect on it. 3 - Remove some of the tax subsidy from the free money made by owner occupiers on house values. Keeping about 80% of unearned gains is ample. That's probably a long-term project .
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
Complete, unverifiable nonsense
98% of alleged rapes do not result in a conviction.
Wording it properly doesn't remove its force.
In which case wording it properly should definitely happen, since doing anything improperly weakens things.
And the victim vs complainant situation is pretty important in crime in general.
I would imagine the majority of rapes tend to be one persons word against anothers with no witnesses. If you have two people saying yes intercourse took place. One saying it was consensual and one saying it wasn't. Well its difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Undoubtedly a lot are non consensual, there is also a percentage that are the girl changing their mind after the fact.
Now here is the question the only way round it is to drop reasonable doubt in rape trials and assume the complainant is correct.
What percentage of actually innocent people are you prepared to lock up?
Note I have no idea what the ratio is except that its not 100% to 0% and not making assumptions about it. Merely asking if you know some tarred feathered and jailed will be innocent. What percentage is acceptable to you?
It rather surprises me that the likes of Rolf Harris were convicted back in 2014 given the lack of witnesses.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
The average DB pension in the public sector is also quite modest. About £4,000 PA. Many nurses etc have relatively short contributions records. Mrs Foxy has about 20 years Whole Time Equivalent, so about £6,000 PA pension by the time she finally gets it, after starting work aged 18 in the NHS.
Yes modest because short contribution periods....mamy private sector workers will put in pension contributions all their working life and still not get anywhere near 6k at the end. In the meantime most public sector employers are contributing between 20% and 30% a month into public sector pensions and that comes out of tax money taken off those same private sector workers. On top of which the public sector pensions have a 1.8trillion hole.
It is not public sector workers fault that the government has spent all their contributions rather than keep them in a pension fund.
I didn't say it was. What my point was is that it is disingenuous to argue public sector schemes aren't good because some only have a short contribution period. A nurse working 40 years in the nhs with a final salary averaging 40k over the last 3 years will get about 20k a year index linked. Ask what a private sector dc scheme would charge per month to provide that. I think you would find most would be contributing a lot more than 11% of their salaries to get there
You are assuming the nurse has a 40 year contributions record as WTE, without breaks in service and is now on a high band. £40 000 is band 7. Mrs Foxy is more typical. She is band 5, and 60% WTE with an 8 year career break, so, when she finally gets her pension in 2025, after a lifetime of service, gets £6000. Obviously there is my pension too, but few nurses marry consultants nowadays.
Your own words were a short contribution record. Breaks in service say the same. You havent said how many years she has worked to build up a 6k pension but she should be getting 1/80 per year of service and even at 25k a year final 3 year average salary. 6k indexed linked only is working 20 years. Most in the private sector wont get that after working 45 years without a break
Looking good for more UK medals in the women's triathlon.
Now you have jinxed it.
Indeed. I confess my wrong deeds from all time.
Off to GB News for a week for you ....
A week? That is just cruel!
I've been watching Dan Wooton in conversation with Carole Malone and a couple of other nobodies. I suspect even if I was a like-minded viewer I would still find it too dreary for more than ten minutes viewing.
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
Complete, unverifiable nonsense
What was it you were in nick for again?
Alleged Genocide. Why?
Just wondered if you had a special interest in rape allegations.
No, I was accused of genocide, and I was eventually released by a Scottish court on the grounds of "not proven"
You have a bizarre interest in my private life, frankly
Looking good for more UK medals in the women's triathlon.
Now you have jinxed it.
Indeed. I confess my wrong deeds from all time.
Off to GB News for a week for you ....
A week? That is just cruel!
I've been watching Dan Wooton in conversation with Carole Malone and a couple of other nobodies. I suspect even if I was a like-minded viewer I would still find it too dreary for more than ten minutes viewing.
Wait till you see me. You don't know the meaning of dreary
How much extra do we think the Government will need to raise in taxes in the autumn to be serious about bringing the finances back under a measure of control?
My punt would be perhaps £25-30bn per annum.
Do you expect it to happen?
I expect lots of fiscal drag, the triple lock becoming the double lock, and some obscure things that only turn up when you read p 537 of the Red Book.
Put it another way - how confident are you that we have a serious government?
3 - Remove some of the tax subsidy from the free money made by owner occupiers on house values. Keeping about 80% of unearned gains is ample. That's probably a long-term project .
When and how do you propose to do this? My house has gone from being worth £90k ten years ago to about £135k. Some of that reflects increasing property prices, some of it the fact that it was a tatty wreck I had gutted to a shell and turned into a nice house.
It's actually cost me about £125k in total, so the uplift is only about £10k. Obviously, that £10k is pretty much fantasy money unless I sell, so it's no good trying to tax it out of me now. If I do sell, I'll need to buy another house which will have undergone a similar uplift in value (if not more) so you can't sensibly tax it out of me then either, otherwise I can't afford to move house (and that's really bad for the economy - you don't want to make the labour market more immobile). The only time it can possibly be extracted is from my estate after death - but if you try that on, canny pensioners will just sell their houses to their relatives and rent them back to dodge it.
With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.
Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.
Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville.
Doesn't a prosecution of assault require there to be a 'victim', even if they don't think of themselves as one?
Well in domestic abuse cases this is a frequent issue I'm told.
There's some very obvious reasons for it.
But surely there's still technically a victim? Otherwise murder could be described in the right circumstances as a victimless crime?
1 - Complainant or "alleged victim", not "victim". That's a Vera Baird style manipulation of the language, which prejudges the verdict, and has been warned against by very senior legal people. 2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
Absolutely right
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
Complete, unverifiable nonsense
What was it you were in nick for again?
Alleged Genocide. Why?
Just wondered if you had a special interest in rape allegations.
No, I was accused of genocide, and I was eventually released by a Scottish court on the grounds of "not proven"
You have a bizarre interest in my private life, frankly
How much extra do we think the Government will need to raise in taxes in the autumn to be serious about bringing the finances back under a measure of control?
My punt would be perhaps £25-30bn per annum.
Do you expect it to happen?
I expect lots of fiscal drag, the triple lock becoming the double lock, and some obscure things that only turn up when you read p 537 of the Red Book.
Put it another way - how confident are you that we have a serious government?
3 - Remove some of the tax subsidy from the free money made by owner occupiers on house values. Keeping about 80% of unearned gains is ample. That's probably a long-term project .
When and how do you propose to do this? My house has gone from being worth £90k ten years ago to about £135k. Some of that reflects increasing property prices, some of it the fact that it was a tatty wreck I had gutted to a shell and turned into a nice house.
It's actually cost me about £125k in total, so the uplift is only about £10k. Obviously, that £10k is pretty much fantasy money unless I sell, so it's no good trying to tax it out of me now. If I do sell, I'll need to buy another house which will have undergone a similar uplift in value (if not more) so you can't sensibly tax it out of me then either, otherwise I can't afford to move house (and that's really bad for the economy - you don't want to make the labour market more immobile). The only time it can possibly be extracted is from my estate after death - but if you try that on, canny pensioners will just sell their houses to their relatives and rent them back to dodge it.
I would just apply CGT.
Given that a CGT regime is already in place for a couple of million of personally owned rental properties it is clearly possible either at the same rate or a lower one, or stepping it up so the tax break is phased out - as happened to tax relief on mortgages in the 1980s/1990s.
I'm actually selling my first for a number of years to buy family out of the house I live in.
The way I think it works is I bought it in 2017 for 90k + approx £2200 Stamp Duty (3% over normal rate thanks to George Osborne). Spent £40-45k or so doing it up to basically newbuild performance.
It is now valued (I am told) at £170k, which is a good 30% jump after costs for this area, but not very much compared to the way they even averages were moving in some areas in the noughties.
I think the way it works is I sell, claim all the capital investment receipts I have against the gain (eg rewire, 2G, roof, CH and so on), then use my CGT allowance, and pay CGT on the rest.
There are quite well established rules for what counts against CGT.
At present there is no indexation allowance afaik.
So I think it is quite possible, set up similarly to that or differently as appropriate. No capital gain, no CGT.
They think they will be fine. And they are probably right
The virus is dying. Across the West. Holland had about 3,800 cases today and 1 death
I hesitate to type this, but I believe this is done. It is over. Thank the Lord
(and God save us if it returns)
I just hope the fact that young people aren't getting vaccinated fast enough doesn't lead to the emergence of a new variant capable of defeating the existing vaccines.
They think they will be fine. And they are probably right
The virus is dying. Across the West. Holland had about 3,800 cases today and 1 death
I hesitate to type this, but I believe this is done. It is over. Thank the Lord
(and God save us if it returns)
I just hope the fact that young people aren't getting vaccinated fast enough doesn't lead to the emergence of a new variant capable of defeating the existing vaccines.
To be honest it is going to sweep lots of other places, where it could also happen and will find it here if it happens
How much extra do we think the Government will need to raise in taxes in the autumn to be serious about bringing the finances back under a measure of control?
My punt would be perhaps £25-30bn per annum.
Do you expect it to happen?
I expect lots of fiscal drag, the triple lock becoming the double lock, and some obscure things that only turn up when you read p 537 of the Red Book.
Put it another way - how confident are you that we have a serious government?
3 - Remove some of the tax subsidy from the free money made by owner occupiers on house values. Keeping about 80% of unearned gains is ample. That's probably a long-term project .
When and how do you propose to do this? My house has gone from being worth £90k ten years ago to about £135k. Some of that reflects increasing property prices, some of it the fact that it was a tatty wreck I had gutted to a shell and turned into a nice house.
It's actually cost me about £125k in total, so the uplift is only about £10k. Obviously, that £10k is pretty much fantasy money unless I sell, so it's no good trying to tax it out of me now. If I do sell, I'll need to buy another house which will have undergone a similar uplift in value (if not more) so you can't sensibly tax it out of me then either, otherwise I can't afford to move house (and that's really bad for the economy - you don't want to make the labour market more immobile). The only time it can possibly be extracted is from my estate after death - but if you try that on, canny pensioners will just sell their houses to their relatives and rent them back to dodge it.
I would just apply CGT.
Given that a CGT regime is already in place for a couple of million of personally owned rental properties it is clearly possible either at the same rate or a lower one, or stepping it up so the tax break is phased out - as happened to tax relief on mortgages in the 1980s/1990s.
I'm actually selling my first for a number of years to buy family out of the house I live in.
The way I think it works is I bought it in 2017 for 90k + approx £2200 Stamp Duty (3% over normal rate thanks to George Osborne). Spent £40-45k or so doing it up to basically newbuild performance.
It is now valued (I am told) at £170k, which is a good 30% jump after costs for this area, but not very much compared to the way they even averages were moving in some areas in the noughties.
I think the way it works is I sell, claim all the capital investment receipts I have against the gain (eg rewire, 2G, roof, CH and so on), then use my CGT allowance, and pay CGT on the rest.
There are quite well established rules for what counts against CGT.
At present there is no indexation allowance afaik.
So I think it is quite possible, set up similarly to that or differently as appropriate. No capital gain, no CGT.
The "need to buy a similar house" is the tricky one, as we are conditioned to unusually (for eg Europe) rising house prices as a high return money making scheme. That currently we are on a period of stable prices suggests that
My argument is that it is about removing distortions from the market and it needs to adjust over a period. We managed that with the mortgage interest tax relief distortion, and I think we can manage it here.
I think that the CGT tax relief is currently the biggest distortion of all. I make the amount spent on it is not much less than all the rent spent on all the rental houses in the whole Private Rental Sector.
How much extra do we think the Government will need to raise in taxes in the autumn to be serious about bringing the finances back under a measure of control?
My punt would be perhaps £25-30bn per annum.
Do you expect it to happen?
I expect lots of fiscal drag, the triple lock becoming the double lock, and some obscure things that only turn up when you read p 537 of the Red Book.
Put it another way - how confident are you that we have a serious government?
3 - Remove some of the tax subsidy from the free money made by owner occupiers on house values. Keeping about 80% of unearned gains is ample. That's probably a long-term project .
When and how do you propose to do this? My house has gone from being worth £90k ten years ago to about £135k. Some of that reflects increasing property prices, some of it the fact that it was a tatty wreck I had gutted to a shell and turned into a nice house.
It's actually cost me about £125k in total, so the uplift is only about £10k. Obviously, that £10k is pretty much fantasy money unless I sell, so it's no good trying to tax it out of me now. If I do sell, I'll need to buy another house which will have undergone a similar uplift in value (if not more) so you can't sensibly tax it out of me then either, otherwise I can't afford to move house (and that's really bad for the economy - you don't want to make the labour market more immobile). The only time it can possibly be extracted is from my estate after death - but if you try that on, canny pensioners will just sell their houses to their relatives and rent them back to dodge it.
I would just apply CGT.
Given that a CGT regime is already in place for a couple of million of personally owned rental properties it is clearly possible either at the same rate or a lower one, or stepping it up so the tax break is phased out - as happened to tax relief on mortgages in the 1980s/1990s.
I'm actually selling my first for a number of years to buy family out of the house I live in.
The way I think it works is I bought it in 2017 for 90k + approx £2200 Stamp Duty (3% over normal rate thanks to George Osborne). Spent £40-45k or so doing it up to basically newbuild performance.
It is now valued (I am told) at £170k, which is a good 30% jump after costs for this area, but not very much compared to the way they even averages were moving in some areas in the noughties.
I think the way it works is I sell, claim all the capital investment receipts I have against the gain (eg rewire, 2G, roof, CH and so on), then use my CGT allowance, and pay CGT on the rest.
There are quite well established rules for what counts against CGT.
At present there is no indexation allowance afaik.
So I think it is quite possible, set up similarly to that or differently as appropriate. No capital gain, no CGT.
The "need to buy a similar house" is the tricky one, as we are conditioned to unusually (for eg Europe) rising house prices as a high return money making scheme. That currently we are on a period of stable prices suggests that
My argument is that it is about removing distortions from the market and it needs to adjust over a period. We managed that with the mortgage interest tax relief distortion, and I think we can manage it here.
I think that the CGT tax relief is currently the biggest distortion of all. I make the amount spent on it is not much less than all the rent spent on all the rental houses in the whole Private Rental Sector.
Did you know that in Switzerland, if you own a home, they ask you to estimate how much you would pay in rent to live in it. So if you own a £250,000 home, you might have to declare £2,000/month income from living it.
The idea is that living in that home is a benefit in kind, just like the dividend from a company, and therefore you should pay tax on that benefit.
I wonder how many opinion polls Neil Kinnock's Labour led in between 1983 and 1992 when he was leader. Probably the equivalent of more than 100 in today's terms, although there were of course far fewer polls in those days so the actual number may have been lower.
I wonder how many opinion polls Neil Kinnock's Labour led in between 1983 and 1992 when he was leader. Probably the equivalent of more than 100 in today's terms, although there were of course far fewer polls in those days so the actual number may have been lower.
The answer is 365 I think, although I may have miscounted. That's a lot of polls to lead in without ever winning an election.
They think they will be fine. And they are probably right
The virus is dying. Across the West. Holland had about 3,800 cases today and 1 death
I hesitate to type this, but I believe this is done. It is over. Thank the Lord
(and God save us if it returns)
I just hope the fact that young people aren't getting vaccinated fast enough doesn't lead to the emergence of a new variant capable of defeating the existing vaccines.
The virus is far more likely to mutate among unvaccinated people in Indonesia and Nigeria than among Western youth.
They think they will be fine. And they are probably right
The virus is dying. Across the West. Holland had about 3,800 cases today and 1 death
I hesitate to type this, but I believe this is done. It is over. Thank the Lord
(and God save us if it returns)
I just hope the fact that young people aren't getting vaccinated fast enough doesn't lead to the emergence of a new variant capable of defeating the existing vaccines.
The virus is far more likely to mutate among unvaccinated people in Indonesia and Nigeria than among Western youth.
Hardly any COVID in Nigeria.....well officially. Something is very odd about Nigeria during this pandemic, which I haven't seen anybody manage to explain.
Even if they aren't testing very much, even though it is a much younger population, it is a huge nation and they have hardly recorded any COVID...and as we saw with India no amount of fudging the numbers or poor testing can hide when it really breaks out as you end up with massive numbers on the street dying.
They think they will be fine. And they are probably right
The virus is dying. Across the West. Holland had about 3,800 cases today and 1 death
I hesitate to type this, but I believe this is done. It is over. Thank the Lord
(and God save us if it returns)
I just hope the fact that young people aren't getting vaccinated fast enough doesn't lead to the emergence of a new variant capable of defeating the existing vaccines.
The virus is far more likely to mutate among unvaccinated people in Indonesia and Nigeria than among Western youth.
They think they will be fine. And they are probably right
The virus is dying. Across the West. Holland had about 3,800 cases today and 1 death
I hesitate to type this, but I believe this is done. It is over. Thank the Lord
(and God save us if it returns)
I just hope the fact that young people aren't getting vaccinated fast enough doesn't lead to the emergence of a new variant capable of defeating the existing vaccines.
The virus is far more likely to mutate among unvaccinated people in Indonesia and Nigeria than among Western youth.
Hardly any COVID in Nigeria.....well officially. Something is very odd about Nigeria during this pandemic, which I haven't seen anybody manage to explain.
Even if they aren't testing very much, even though it is a much younger population, it is a huge nation and they have hardly recorded any COVID...and as we saw with India no amount of fudging the numbers or poor testing can hide when it really breaks out as you end up with massive numbers on the street dying.
Luck.
And the transport links between the cities are rubbish.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
I used to work in pensions admin circa 2000, and can confirm that money purchase schemes required a huge amount of investment for a very modest return even then. It's all to do with falling annuity rates which, crudely put, are related to people retiring too early/living too long. Same thing explains why expensive defined benefit schemes are almost a thing of the past (at least for private sector organisations, which can't just jack up taxes to pay for them,) and why the state pension bill is so colossal.
Many problems would be solved if pensions were phased in and more flexible working were introduced, alongside an expectation that people would keep working (at least part-time) until 75 - but good luck to any Government trying to sell that idea!
Sorry to hear it. I'm listening to the Olympics on Five Live.
Thanks. You also sleep deprived, or a night worker?
Anyhow, I'll live. Will go to work early this morning, wear myself out and try to compensate with an early night. Til then, got the swimming on the telly and fiddling with the computer to pass the time.
I wonder how many opinion polls Neil Kinnock's Labour led in between 1983 and 1992 when he was leader. Probably the equivalent of more than 100 in today's terms, although there were of course far fewer polls in those days so the actual number may have been lower.
The answer is 365 I think, although I may have miscounted. That's a lot of polls to lead in without ever winning an election.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
I used to work in pensions admin circa 2000, and can confirm that money purchase schemes required a huge amount of investment for a very modest return even then. It's all to do with falling annuity rates which, crudely put, are related to people retiring too early/living too long. Same thing explains why expensive defined benefit schemes are almost a thing of the past (at least for private sector organisations, which can't just jack up taxes to pay for them,) and why the state pension bill is so colossal.
Many problems would be solved if pensions were phased in and more flexible working were introduced, alongside an expectation that people would keep working (at least part-time) until 75 - but good luck to any Government trying to sell that idea!
One problem is that once someone takes any money from a private pension pot, they lose tax concessions on any future contributions if they return to work (£4k limit). Perhaps this is intended to stop the self-employed washing their salaries through the pension scheme but in practice it must limit the appeal of a return to work.
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
I used to work in pensions admin circa 2000, and can confirm that money purchase schemes required a huge amount of investment for a very modest return even then. It's all to do with falling annuity rates which, crudely put, are related to people retiring too early/living too long. Same thing explains why expensive defined benefit schemes are almost a thing of the past (at least for private sector organisations, which can't just jack up taxes to pay for them,) and why the state pension bill is so colossal.
Many problems would be solved if pensions were phased in and more flexible working were introduced, alongside an expectation that people would keep working (at least part-time) until 75 - but good luck to any Government trying to sell that idea!
One problem is that once someone takes any money from a private pension pot, they lose tax concessions on any future contributions if they return to work (£4k limit). Perhaps this is intended to stop the self-employed washing their salaries through the pension scheme but in practice it must limit the appeal of a return to work.
On the difficulties of private sector db schemes, was it not the case that the 1980s and 90s saw many funds being valued as in excess, so firms would either take a pensions holiday or be taken over so the pension fund could be stripped?
OT the BBC web site's text commentary has just changed the word "guns" for "arm muscles" (4.50, talking about a photo of swimming gold medallist Tom Dean, who twice had Covid).
Now, here's something interesting. This morning's Telegraph is alleging that over half of all Covid hospitalisations in England are of people who tested positive *after* they were admitted.
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
-We have "effectively" hit target (April) -80% is as good as 100% (April) -100,000 is a small number (April) -When we said "give", we meant "offer (today) -When we said "40-49 yr olds", we meant "all over 40s" (today)
Now, here's something interesting. This morning's Telegraph is alleging that over half of all Covid hospitalisations in England are of people who tested positive *after* they were admitted.
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
It is interesting….up to a point.
But these patients will then be moved to COVID wards so the pressure on the NHS is still the same whether they were admitted because of COVID or with COVID.
A greater proportion of with COVID patients might also be contributing to shorter hospital stays vs previous waves.
Now, here's something interesting. This morning's Telegraph is alleging that over half of all Covid hospitalisations in England are of people who tested positive *after* they were admitted.
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
I cannot read the article because of the paywall, but the 56% are composed of two groups:
1) Those who had covid causing their symptoms but not diagnosed until after their admission.
2) Those who were admitted with a different condition and caught it in hospital.
Certainly 2) is true of some, and hospital acquired disease has been an issue throughout. It doesn't necessarily mean minor disease. The risk of death from anaesthesia is greatly increased by covid, even if asymptomatic.
"6/ When we looked at elective / planned surgery, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was very low (0.1% or 1 in 1000 cases). However, the risk of death was 25x greater among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection." @BJAJournalshttps://t.co/Tq8hl9ugwvhttps://t.co/7916s7lxsN
Are the patients catching it from other patients? Or from staff? Or visitors? We often don't know, but it shows why hospitals need to maintain strict infection control policies still. Isolation of contacts, or work and daily testing, probably needs further evidence particularly in a health and social care setting as to safety.
There is a good thread on current NHS pressures here, from the CEO of NHS Providers. Well worth a read:
They should just get it over with and tax the state pension. People already raking in the money from their final salary pensions don't need the extra pittance from the government.
It is taxed already. If you have no other income your personal allowance covers it so you don't pay tax, but it's counted in together with whatever else you're getting.
I was more thinking with a taper.
If someone has a 6k income from private pension plus the circa 9k from state pension how much more income tax are you propsosing they pay than someone earning 15k?
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I think those at the top end in terms of private pension definitely don't need the state pension.
They probably dont but don't forget the median private pension pot is circa 60k so the median pensioner is going to be getting 9k state +3 to 4k a year which isnt going to be index linked
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
Looking it up, a 60k pot would only give about £2300-2500 on a fixed pension for a 65 year old (Age UK).
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
Precisely my point which is the age of well off db pensioners is pretty much over except public sector workers.
I used to work in pensions admin circa 2000, and can confirm that money purchase schemes required a huge amount of investment for a very modest return even then. It's all to do with falling annuity rates which, crudely put, are related to people retiring too early/living too long. Same thing explains why expensive defined benefit schemes are almost a thing of the past (at least for private sector organisations, which can't just jack up taxes to pay for them,) and why the state pension bill is so colossal.
Many problems would be solved if pensions were phased in and more flexible working were introduced, alongside an expectation that people would keep working (at least part-time) until 75 - but good luck to any Government trying to sell that idea!
One problem is that once someone takes any money from a private pension pot, they lose tax concessions on any future contributions if they return to work (£4k limit). Perhaps this is intended to stop the self-employed washing their salaries through the pension scheme but in practice it must limit the appeal of a return to work.
On the difficulties of private sector db schemes, was it not the case that the 1980s and 90s saw many funds being valued as in excess, so firms would either take a pensions holiday or be taken over so the pension fund could be stripped?
Indeed.
One of the other major issues that closed many private sector schemes was the Gordon Brown pension raid.
Poor annuity rates are a feature of the low interest rates prevalent across the world, designed to encourage spending rather than saving, in order to relate the consumer boom.
Ultimately, pensions are a form of saving, and penalised by low interest rates. If it wasn't for tax benefits then there would be no point at all, and indeed for many Britons there is no point in contributing to a pension. First the government sees it as an easy thing to raid, then penalises the holder by means testing of other benefits.
“I think this idea of my right not to be offended, my right to have a safe space, is one that’s crept up in the last five years,” he said. If you mention John Stuart Mill’s arguments on free speech to “a bright 19-year-old in Oxford, they look at you a bit blankly. When you say, ‘Isn’t the best response to speech, more speech?’ it’s a new idea to them.”
Rusbridger understands the urge many young people may have to belong and feel safe in their identity. The question is what that urge requires: to belong, do you need to ostracise others who think differently? At Oxford, Rusbridger has debated with students “whose first instinctive position is, ‘But we want this to be a safe space, I feel threatened. Your job is to protect me.’”
His response is well-worn: there are no safe spaces in the world. You are supposedly the brightest of your generation – if you can’t defeat those you disagree with in an argument, who can? “It’s a bad thing,” he explained, “if the right not to feel offended overshadows the call of reason.”
Now, here's something interesting. This morning's Telegraph is alleging that over half of all Covid hospitalisations in England are of people who tested positive *after* they were admitted.
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
I cannot read the article because of the paywall, but the 56% are composed of two groups:
1) Those who had covid causing their symptoms but not diagnosed until after their admission.
2) Those who were admitted with a different condition and caught it in hospital.
Certainly 2) is true of some, and hospital acquired disease has been an issue throughout. It doesn't necessarily mean minor disease. The risk of death from anaesthesia is greatly increased by covid, even if asymptomatic.
"6/ When we looked at elective / planned surgery, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was very low (0.1% or 1 in 1000 cases). However, the risk of death was 25x greater among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection." @BJAJournalshttps://t.co/Tq8hl9ugwvhttps://t.co/7916s7lxsN
Are the patients catching it from other patients? Or from staff? Or visitors? We often don't know, but it shows why hospitals need to maintain strict infection control policies still. Isolation of contacts, or work and daily testing, probably needs further evidence particularly in a health and social care setting as to safety.
There is a good thread on current NHS pressures here, from the CEO of NHS Providers. Well worth a read:
Scrap the triple lock, old people can pay more taxes, they get everything else handed to them
I mostly agree, but the problem is some pensioners are not well-off, so you'd have to think of something for them.
The problem, such that it is, is that NI a means that employment income is treated differently - attracting higher taxes - than investment, rental income or pension payments.
The solution to this, is to gradually eliminate employee NI and raise the basic rate of income tax to adjust. This will mean the same rate of tax paid to anyone in employment, but higher taxes for rich pensioners, or for those deriving their income from dividends, interest payments and rent.
There are issues with scrapping NI, such as those living overseas paying additional contributions (waves from abroad!)
Employer NI, that’s the real problem. It’s what’s behind IR35 and a huge tax avoidance industry. It’s a direct tax on jobs, but now raises so much money the government don’t know what to do about it. In the coming years, it’s a massive incentive for companies to invest in automation rather than employment - which is a good thing, up until the point where it isn’t.
“I think this idea of my right not to be offended, my right to have a safe space, is one that’s crept up in the last five years,” he said. If you mention John Stuart Mill’s arguments on free speech to “a bright 19-year-old in Oxford, they look at you a bit blankly. When you say, ‘Isn’t the best response to speech, more speech?’ it’s a new idea to them.”
Rusbridger understands the urge many young people may have to belong and feel safe in their identity. The question is what that urge requires: to belong, do you need to ostracise others who think differently? At Oxford, Rusbridger has debated with students “whose first instinctive position is, ‘But we want this to be a safe space, I feel threatened. Your job is to protect me.’”
His response is well-worn: there are no safe spaces in the world. You are supposedly the brightest of your generation – if you can’t defeat those you disagree with in an argument, who can? “It’s a bad thing,” he explained, “if the right not to feel offended overshadows the call of reason.”
Rusbriger, for all his faults, is a very bright guy
Now, here's something interesting. This morning's Telegraph is alleging that over half of all Covid hospitalisations in England are of people who tested positive *after* they were admitted.
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
I cannot read the article because of the paywall, but the 56% are composed of two groups:
1) Those who had covid causing their symptoms but not diagnosed until after their admission.
2) Those who were admitted with a different condition and caught it in hospital.
Certainly 2) is true of some, and hospital acquired disease has been an issue throughout. It doesn't necessarily mean minor disease. The risk of death from anaesthesia is greatly increased by covid, even if asymptomatic.
"6/ When we looked at elective / planned surgery, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was very low (0.1% or 1 in 1000 cases). However, the risk of death was 25x greater among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection." @BJAJournalshttps://t.co/Tq8hl9ugwvhttps://t.co/7916s7lxsN
Are the patients catching it from other patients? Or from staff? Or visitors? We often don't know, but it shows why hospitals need to maintain strict infection control policies still. Isolation of contacts, or work and daily testing, probably needs further evidence particularly in a health and social care setting as to safety.
There is a good thread on current NHS pressures here, from the CEO of NHS Providers. Well worth a read:
Amongst other things he points out that 15 000 beds are inactive at present for infection control reasons.
Why is that? Why can't the NHS make their hospitals infection free?
When I had an elective major op some years ago I chose a hospital that "had never had a case of infection". A private hospital, natch.
Is it money? Or something else?
I would be quite sceptical of such claims. It is an old surgical adage that the only way to have no complications is to never operate.
Private hospitals have lower infection rates for a number of reasons:
1) Single rooms. These are universal in private hospitals, and in many other countries, but only about 20% of NHS beds. Most NHS wards are in bays of 6 patients, and this is a site of cross infection. Fixing this would increase the staffing required, and also require major architectural work at nearly every hospital site.
2) Different case mix. Private hospitals do not take emergency admissions, nor do they take in patients with complex mixed pathologies. Indeed, if a private hospital patient becomes significantly unwell post op (nearly all PP admissions are surgical) they are transferred to the local NHS. While there are some things I would have done privately, there are others that are unsafe without full hospital back up including ICU etc.
MRSA is virtually extinct in my Trust, as indeed across the NHS. CRO is the current multi-drug resistant pathogen of concern, with strict control measures. The current Infection Control measures have driven down rates of other hospital acquired diseases, but the problem of Delta is that it is bloody contagious, and spreads by air rather than surfaces.
Now, here's something interesting. This morning's Telegraph is alleging that over half of all Covid hospitalisations in England are of people who tested positive *after* they were admitted.
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
I cannot read the article because of the paywall, but the 56% are composed of two groups:
1) Those who had covid causing their symptoms but not diagnosed until after their admission.
2) Those who were admitted with a different condition and caught it in hospital.
Certainly 2) is true of some, and hospital acquired disease has been an issue throughout. It doesn't necessarily mean minor disease. The risk of death from anaesthesia is greatly increased by covid, even if asymptomatic.
"6/ When we looked at elective / planned surgery, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was very low (0.1% or 1 in 1000 cases). However, the risk of death was 25x greater among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection." @BJAJournalshttps://t.co/Tq8hl9ugwvhttps://t.co/7916s7lxsN
Are the patients catching it from other patients? Or from staff? Or visitors? We often don't know, but it shows why hospitals need to maintain strict infection control policies still. Isolation of contacts, or work and daily testing, probably needs further evidence particularly in a health and social care setting as to safety.
There is a good thread on current NHS pressures here, from the CEO of NHS Providers. Well worth a read:
Amongst other things he points out that 15 000 beds are inactive at present for infection control reasons.
Why is that? Why can't the NHS make their hospitals infection free?
When I had an elective major op some years ago I chose a hospital that "had never had a case of infection". A private hospital, natch.
Is it money? Or something else?
I would be quite sceptical of such claims. It is an old surgical adage that the only way to have no complications is to never operate.
Private hospitals have lower infection rates for a number of reasons:
1) Single rooms. These are universal in private hospitals, and in many other countries, but only about 20% of NHS beds. Most NHS wards are in bays of 6 patients, and this is a site of cross infection. Fixing this would increase the staffing required, and also require major architectural work at nearly every hospital site.
2) Different case mix. Private hospitals do not take emergency admissions, nor do they take in patients with complex mixed pathologies. Indeed, if a private hospital patient becomes significantly unwell post op (nearly all PP admissions are surgical) they are transferred to the local NHS. While there are some things I would have done privately, there are others that are unsafe without full hospital back up including ICU etc.
MRSA is virtually extinct in my Trust, as indeed across the NHS. CRO is the current multi-drug resistant pathogen of concern, with strict control measures. The current Infection Control measures have driven down rates of other hospital acquired diseases, but the problem of Delta is that it is bloody contagious, and spreads by air rather than surfaces.
Thanks.
Edit: it was King Edward VII in London I have no reason to believe they lied to me they were talking about MRSA.
I'd get in there before we implement our full border checks Though I don't think we will be quite as bloody-minded as the French about it.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
The French are just being twats. They hope to move UK business to France, or the EU. C'est tout
In the end this won't happen. We just won't do so much business with them. This will hurt us - but in the end it will hurt everyone, and it is very arguable that the UK will benefit, because we will be forced to adapt and evolve faster than them
This is the EU mindset. BREXIT MUST NOT SUCCEED. I can see why they have it, but it's a long term problem for them
And your contribution will be to avoid French wine and Champagne ?
I am already avoiding Champagne - seriously!
I buy a lot of bubbles, I love it. But Britain now makes fabulous sparkling wines. I have a couple of botts of vintage French stuff for friends/lovers who aren't up to speed and demand champagne, but otherwise it's all Nyetimber and Chapel Down and so on. I'm a patriotic wine buyer. English Fizz is now brilliant, and world class, why buy anything else?
What we don't do yet is cheap decent fizz for £10 a bottle but for that you need Cava or Trentodoc not Champagne (which is grotesque at those price points)
I would still miss French wine in general if it was abolished. I love a Rhone blend. But it would be a tiny dent in my life if it disappeared entirely. There is so much good stuff from all over
I'm not sure the French quite realise how dispensable they are now, in terms of food and beverage
France the country is a different thing. I really do miss the Languedoc, the hills of Lozere, or a breezy walk in Biarritz
The bubbles are just to disguise that the underlying wine is over-acidic crap.
The Australians make tons of Rhône blend; they call it GSM.
Now, here's something interesting. This morning's Telegraph is alleging that over half of all Covid hospitalisations in England are of people who tested positive *after* they were admitted.
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
I cannot read the article because of the paywall, but the 56% are composed of two groups:
1) Those who had covid causing their symptoms but not diagnosed until after their admission.
2) Those who were admitted with a different condition and caught it in hospital.
Certainly 2) is true of some, and hospital acquired disease has been an issue throughout. It doesn't necessarily mean minor disease. The risk of death from anaesthesia is greatly increased by covid, even if asymptomatic.
"6/ When we looked at elective / planned surgery, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was very low (0.1% or 1 in 1000 cases). However, the risk of death was 25x greater among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection." @BJAJournalshttps://t.co/Tq8hl9ugwvhttps://t.co/7916s7lxsN
Are the patients catching it from other patients? Or from staff? Or visitors? We often don't know, but it shows why hospitals need to maintain strict infection control policies still. Isolation of contacts, or work and daily testing, probably needs further evidence particularly in a health and social care setting as to safety.
There is a good thread on current NHS pressures here, from the CEO of NHS Providers. Well worth a read:
Amongst other things he points out that 15 000 beds are inactive at present for infection control reasons.
Why is that? Why can't the NHS make their hospitals infection free?
When I had an elective major op some years ago I chose a hospital that "had never had a case of infection". A private hospital, natch.
Is it money? Or something else?
I would be quite sceptical of such claims. It is an old surgical adage that the only way to have no complications is to never operate.
Private hospitals have lower infection rates for a number of reasons:
1) Single rooms. These are universal in private hospitals, and in many other countries, but only about 20% of NHS beds. Most NHS wards are in bays of 6 patients, and this is a site of cross infection. Fixing this would increase the staffing required, and also require major architectural work at nearly every hospital site.
2) Different case mix. Private hospitals do not take emergency admissions, nor do they take in patients with complex mixed pathologies. Indeed, if a private hospital patient becomes significantly unwell post op (nearly all PP admissions are surgical) they are transferred to the local NHS. While there are some things I would have done privately, there are others that are unsafe without full hospital back up including ICU etc.
MRSA is virtually extinct in my Trust, as indeed across the NHS. CRO is the current multi-drug resistant pathogen of concern, with strict control measures. The current Infection Control measures have driven down rates of other hospital acquired diseases, but the problem of Delta is that it is bloody contagious, and spreads by air rather than surfaces.
Good day everyone.
Absolutely. Asserting that 'we've never had a case of infection' is up there with saying someone's never made a mistake. It's many, many years since I worked in a private hospital, and then only for a short while, but transferring patients to the nearest NHS unit with an ICU was not unusual.
Now, here's something interesting. This morning's Telegraph is alleging that over half of all Covid hospitalisations in England are of people who tested positive *after* they were admitted.
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
I cannot read the article because of the paywall, but the 56% are composed of two groups:
1) Those who had covid causing their symptoms but not diagnosed until after their admission.
2) Those who were admitted with a different condition and caught it in hospital.
Certainly 2) is true of some, and hospital acquired disease has been an issue throughout. It doesn't necessarily mean minor disease. The risk of death from anaesthesia is greatly increased by covid, even if asymptomatic.
"6/ When we looked at elective / planned surgery, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was very low (0.1% or 1 in 1000 cases). However, the risk of death was 25x greater among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection." @BJAJournalshttps://t.co/Tq8hl9ugwvhttps://t.co/7916s7lxsN
Are the patients catching it from other patients? Or from staff? Or visitors? We often don't know, but it shows why hospitals need to maintain strict infection control policies still. Isolation of contacts, or work and daily testing, probably needs further evidence particularly in a health and social care setting as to safety.
There is a good thread on current NHS pressures here, from the CEO of NHS Providers. Well worth a read:
Scrap the triple lock, old people can pay more taxes, they get everything else handed to them
I mostly agree, but the problem is some pensioners are not well-off, so you'd have to think of something for them.
The problem, such that it is, is that NI a means that employment income is treated differently - attracting higher taxes - than investment, rental income or pension payments.
The solution to this, is to gradually eliminate employee NI and raise the basic rate of income tax to adjust. This will mean the same rate of tax paid to anyone in employment, but higher taxes for rich pensioners, or for those deriving their income from dividends, interest payments and rent.
There are issues with scrapping NI, such as those living overseas paying additional contributions (waves from abroad!)
Employer NI, that’s the real problem. It’s what’s behind IR35 and a huge tax avoidance industry. It’s a direct tax on jobs, but now raises so much money the government don’t know what to do about it. In the coming years, it’s a massive incentive for companies to invest in automation rather than employment - which is a good thing, up until the point where it isn’t.
Hidden income taxes - which employer's NI certainly is - are a curious beast. And Employer's NI can be thought of as an additional 14% income tax for most employees.
Some countries that you would think of as free market bastions are big on these hidden income taxes (such as Singapore, 20%), while in Europe, some are big on it, like France (23%), while others that one would think would be big abusers are not (Spain 6%).
Now, here's something interesting. This morning's Telegraph is alleging that over half of all Covid hospitalisations in England are of people who tested positive *after* they were admitted.
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
I cannot read the article because of the paywall, but the 56% are composed of two groups:
1) Those who had covid causing their symptoms but not diagnosed until after their admission.
2) Those who were admitted with a different condition and caught it in hospital.
Certainly 2) is true of some, and hospital acquired disease has been an issue throughout. It doesn't necessarily mean minor disease. The risk of death from anaesthesia is greatly increased by covid, even if asymptomatic.
"6/ When we looked at elective / planned surgery, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was very low (0.1% or 1 in 1000 cases). However, the risk of death was 25x greater among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection." @BJAJournalshttps://t.co/Tq8hl9ugwvhttps://t.co/7916s7lxsN
Are the patients catching it from other patients? Or from staff? Or visitors? We often don't know, but it shows why hospitals need to maintain strict infection control policies still. Isolation of contacts, or work and daily testing, probably needs further evidence particularly in a health and social care setting as to safety.
There is a good thread on current NHS pressures here, from the CEO of NHS Providers. Well worth a read:
Amongst other things he points out that 15 000 beds are inactive at present for infection control reasons.
Why is that? Why can't the NHS make their hospitals infection free?
When I had an elective major op some years ago I chose a hospital that "had never had a case of infection". A private hospital, natch.
Is it money? Or something else?
I would be quite sceptical of such claims. It is an old surgical adage that the only way to have no complications is to never operate.
Private hospitals have lower infection rates for a number of reasons:
1) Single rooms. These are universal in private hospitals, and in many other countries, but only about 20% of NHS beds. Most NHS wards are in bays of 6 patients, and this is a site of cross infection. Fixing this would increase the staffing required, and also require major architectural work at nearly every hospital site.
2) Different case mix. Private hospitals do not take emergency admissions, nor do they take in patients with complex mixed pathologies. Indeed, if a private hospital patient becomes significantly unwell post op (nearly all PP admissions are surgical) they are transferred to the local NHS. While there are some things I would have done privately, there are others that are unsafe without full hospital back up including ICU etc.
MRSA is virtually extinct in my Trust, as indeed across the NHS. CRO is the current multi-drug resistant pathogen of concern, with strict control measures. The current Infection Control measures have driven down rates of other hospital acquired diseases, but the problem of Delta is that it is bloody contagious, and spreads by air rather than surfaces.
And we should never forget: some staff who do not care enough for patients to follow moral, yet alone official, procedures.
A massive problem in the NHS IMO, and a very hard one to fix.
Comments
https://youtu.be/ik8JT2S-kBE
2 - Police can prosecute without the complainant's consent , and it does happen. Either testimony may not be needed, or testimony can be required aiui.
From the head of Marks and Spencer:
He (Archie Norman) said in another case, a single page of a 720-page pack of documents – which must all be presented in physical form at the border by each lorry – was printed in the wrong colour font and the driver was turned away.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9822103/Border-controls-make-impossible-M-S-sandwiches-Paris-stores.html
There are only 1 million in the country that are in private company db schemes still working. Dont be fooled by the fact many current pensioners benefitted of that. Over the next ten years more and more will be drawing a pension from dc schemes
My punt would be perhaps £25-30bn per annum.
So an index linked one would be - what - a bit under £2000?
In the end this won't happen. We just won't do so much business with them. This will hurt us - but in the end it will hurt everyone, and it is very arguable that the UK will benefit, because we will be forced to adapt and evolve faster than them
This is the EU mindset. BREXIT MUST NOT SUCCEED. I can see why they have it, but it's a long term problem for them
I've pivoted to New World nearly completely, but I expect you are a more significant part of the trade than I am with my Laithwaite's Plan and extras.
The Guardian does this
"50,000 rape victims go without justice" (or whatever, this is not a citation)
It's total bollocks. It is 50,000 potential rape plaintiffs, a totally different thing, and many of them will drop charges before it even reaches investigation, let alone court
Vera Baird is one of the worst for this. "2% of rapes end in conviction!"
Complete, unverifiable nonsense
I buy a lot of bubbles, I love it. But Britain now makes fabulous sparkling wines. I have a couple of botts of vintage French stuff for friends/lovers who aren't up to speed and demand champagne, but otherwise it's all Nyetimber and Chapel Down and so on. I'm a patriotic wine buyer. English Fizz is now brilliant, and world class, why buy anything else?
What we don't do yet is cheap decent fizz for £10 a bottle but for that you need Cava or Trentodoc not Champagne (which is grotesque at those price points)
I would still miss French wine in general if it was abolished. I love a Rhone blend. But it would be a tiny dent in my life if it disappeared entirely. There is so much good stuff from all over
I'm not sure the French quite realise how dispensable they are now, in terms of food and beverage
France the country is a different thing. I really do miss the Languedoc, the hills of Lozere, or a breezy walk in Biarritz
The first time I can remember the French doing this sort of thing was when they sent all imported video recorders to be cleared at a customs in Poitiers in 1982, and staffed the customs post with essentially one person to inspect 25k video recorders from Japan a week. And he was told to check each serial number.
https://www.cbc.ca/archives/the-crazy-fight-in-france-over-the-domestic-vcr-market-in-1982-1.5349064
I expect lots of fiscal drag, the triple lock becoming the double lock, and some obscure things that only turn up when you read p 537 of the Red Book.
Put it another way - how confident are you that we have a serious government?
(1) electronic waybills not being accessible by customs agents
(2) customs agents believing that the container contained different things to the docs (they weren't)
(3) a driver presenting the paperwork for his last delivery and then turning back rather than checking why it wasn't accepted
(4) people having only filled out the first two pages of forms and assuming that the remaining 20 wouldn't be checked
The French are bad. The South Africans, to my mind, are the worst. But I've had bad experiences in the UK too. The reality is that individual customs agents are sometimes grumpy and can be dicks.
She is clearly mentally ill
Wording it properly doesn't remove its force.
And the victim vs complainant situation is pretty important in crime in general.
Now here is the question the only way round it is to drop reasonable doubt in rape trials and assume the complainant is correct.
What percentage of actually innocent people are you prepared to lock up?
Note I have no idea what the ratio is except that its not 100% to 0% and not making assumptions about it. Merely asking if you know some tarred feathered and jailed will be innocent. What percentage is acceptable to you?
If I had way we would swap out Boris for a.n.other, suitable for the long slog of implementing necessary policy post-Brexit, and applying consistency to bring Brussels to a position of sanity rather than vanity.
In the meantime I am encouraging my MP on three fronts:
1 - Proportional Property Tax / Abolition of Stamp Duty. An ABO policy - Absolutely Bloody Obvious.
2 - Get a long term programme in place to replace CLASP schools built with asbestos containing panels. Notts, Derbys and County Durham schoolchildren deserve the experience of being allowed to put a drawing pin in a wall, and I think it is an excellent policy to get real and needed investment into relevant parts of the Red Wall. In Notts we have 100 of them still, and the issue touches every family when they reflect on it.
3 - Remove some of the tax subsidy from the free money made by owner occupiers on house values. Keeping about 80% of unearned gains is ample. That's probably a long-term project
I have a number of rants prepared...
I've been watching Dan Wooton in conversation with Carole Malone and a couple of other nobodies. I suspect even if I was a like-minded viewer I would still find it too dreary for more than ten minutes viewing.
You have a bizarre interest in my private life, frankly
You don't know the meaning of dreary
My house has gone from being worth £90k ten years ago to about £135k. Some of that reflects increasing property prices, some of it the fact that it was a tatty wreck I had gutted to a shell and turned into a nice house.
It's actually cost me about £125k in total, so the uplift is only about £10k. Obviously, that £10k is pretty much fantasy money unless I sell, so it's no good trying to tax it out of me now.
If I do sell, I'll need to buy another house which will have undergone a similar uplift in value (if not more) so you can't sensibly tax it out of me then either, otherwise I can't afford to move house (and that's really bad for the economy - you don't want to make the labour market more immobile).
The only time it can possibly be extracted is from my estate after death - but if you try that on, canny pensioners will just sell their houses to their relatives and rent them back to dodge it.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
So the flat tyre was largely irrelevant.
The virus is dying. Across the West. Holland had about 3,800 cases today and 1 death
I hesitate to type this, but I believe this is done. It is over. Thank the Lord
(and God save us if it returns)
One slightly concerning thing is the spread from young to old occurred again during this wave
Given that a CGT regime is already in place for a couple of million of personally owned rental properties it is clearly possible either at the same rate or a lower one, or stepping it up so the tax break is phased out - as happened to tax relief on mortgages in the 1980s/1990s.
I'm actually selling my first for a number of years to buy family out of the house I live in.
The way I think it works is I bought it in 2017 for 90k + approx £2200 Stamp Duty (3% over normal rate thanks to George Osborne). Spent £40-45k or so doing it up to basically newbuild performance.
It is now valued (I am told) at £170k, which is a good 30% jump after costs for this area, but not very much compared to the way they even averages were moving in some areas in the noughties.
I think the way it works is I sell, claim all the capital investment receipts I have against the gain (eg rewire, 2G, roof, CH and so on), then use my CGT allowance, and pay CGT on the rest.
There are quite well established rules for what counts against CGT.
At present there is no indexation allowance afaik.
So I think it is quite possible, set up similarly to that or differently as appropriate. No capital gain, no CGT.
My argument is that it is about removing distortions from the market and it needs to adjust over a period. We managed that with the mortgage interest tax relief distortion, and I think we can manage it here.
I think that the CGT tax relief is currently the biggest distortion of all. I make the amount spent on it is not much less than all the rent spent on all the rental houses in the whole Private Rental Sector.
The idea is that living in that home is a benefit in kind, just like the dividend from a company, and therefore you should pay tax on that benefit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1987_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1992_United_Kingdom_general_election
The figure for Keir Starmer is 16 so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Even if they aren't testing very much, even though it is a much younger population, it is a huge nation and they have hardly recorded any COVID...and as we saw with India no amount of fudging the numbers or poor testing can hide when it really breaks out as you end up with massive numbers on the street dying.
- New cases: 90,292
- Average: 56,008 (+4,685)
- In hospital: 35,521 (+1,317)
- In ICU: 8,978 (+297)
- New deaths: 289
And the transport links between the cities are rubbish.
No superspreader cricket matches too.
Many problems would be solved if pensions were phased in and more flexible working were introduced, alongside an expectation that people would keep working (at least part-time) until 75 - but good luck to any Government trying to sell that idea!
Anyhow, I'll live. Will go to work early this morning, wear myself out and try to compensate with an early night. Til then, got the swimming on the telly and fiddling with the computer to pass the time.
I realise that Mike’s blog needs to make things appear exciting, but the fact is that these prices exist for a reason:
Con maj 5/4
NOM 11/8
Lab maj 7/1
Next PM Starmer 5/1
Next FM Sarwar 12/1
Next FM Ross 18/1
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/26/exclusive-half-covid-hospitalisations-tested-positive-admission/
The details are hidden behind the paywall, but a cut 'n' paste job on the Sun website suggests that only 44% of the recent admissions to English hospitals recorded as being Covid patients had actually had a positive test result by the time they were wheeled in.
How many of the remaining 56% were admitted due to Covid symptoms, and how many were asymptomatic cases admitted for reasons entirely unrelated to the virus, is unknown. But there is at least the possibility that the number of people becoming sick enough with Covid to need hospital treatment is being significantly overstated in the Government statistics. More information required.
Analysis on vaccine targets, incl:
-We have "effectively" hit target (April)
-80% is as good as 100% (April)
-100,000 is a small number (April)
-When we said "give", we meant "offer (today)
-When we said "40-49 yr olds", we meant "all over 40s" (today)
https://twitter.com/elsamaishman/status/1419691818552283140?s=21
But these patients will then be moved to COVID wards so the pressure on the NHS is still the same whether they were admitted because of COVID or with COVID.
A greater proportion of with COVID patients might also be contributing to shorter hospital stays vs previous waves.
1) Those who had covid causing their symptoms but not diagnosed until after their admission.
2) Those who were admitted with a different condition and caught it in hospital.
Certainly 2) is true of some, and hospital acquired disease has been an issue throughout. It doesn't necessarily mean minor disease. The risk of death from anaesthesia is greatly increased by covid, even if asymptomatic.
"6/ When we looked at elective / planned surgery, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was very low (0.1% or 1 in 1000 cases). However, the risk of death was 25x greater among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection." @BJAJournals https://t.co/Tq8hl9ugwv https://t.co/7916s7lxsN
https://twitter.com/_tomabbott/status/1405793996291678210?s=19
Are the patients catching it from other patients? Or from staff? Or visitors? We often don't know, but it shows why hospitals need to maintain strict infection control policies still. Isolation of contacts, or work and daily testing, probably needs further evidence particularly in a health and social care setting as to safety.
There is a good thread on current NHS pressures here, from the CEO of NHS Providers. Well worth a read:
https://twitter.com/ChrisCEOHopson/status/1419880611385389062?s=19
Amongst other things he points out that 15 000 beds are inactive at present for infection control reasons.
One of the other major issues that closed many private sector schemes was the Gordon Brown pension raid.
Poor annuity rates are a feature of the low interest rates prevalent across the world, designed to encourage spending rather than saving, in order to relate the consumer boom.
Ultimately, pensions are a form of saving, and penalised by low interest rates. If it wasn't for tax benefits then there would be no point at all, and indeed for many Britons there is no point in contributing to a pension. First the government sees it as an easy thing to raid, then penalises the holder by means testing of other benefits.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/05/alan-rusbridger-young-have-no-grounding-classical-view-free-speech
“I think this idea of my right not to be offended, my right to have a safe space, is one that’s crept up in the last five years,” he said. If you mention John Stuart Mill’s arguments on free speech to “a bright 19-year-old in Oxford, they look at you a bit blankly. When you say, ‘Isn’t the best response to speech, more speech?’ it’s a new idea to them.”
Rusbridger understands the urge many young people may have to belong and feel safe in their identity. The question is what that urge requires: to belong, do you need to ostracise others who think differently? At Oxford, Rusbridger has debated with students “whose first instinctive position is, ‘But we want this to be a safe space, I feel threatened. Your job is to protect me.’”
His response is well-worn: there are no safe spaces in the world. You are supposedly the brightest of your generation – if you can’t defeat those you disagree with in an argument, who can? “It’s a bad thing,” he explained, “if the right not to feel offended overshadows the call of reason.”
When I had an elective major op some years ago I chose a hospital that "had never had a case of infection". A private hospital, natch.
Is it money? Or something else?
The solution to this, is to gradually eliminate employee NI and raise the basic rate of income tax to adjust. This will mean the same rate of tax paid to anyone in employment, but higher taxes for rich pensioners, or for those deriving their income from dividends, interest payments and rent.
There are issues with scrapping NI, such as those living overseas paying additional contributions (waves from abroad!)
Employer NI, that’s the real problem. It’s what’s behind IR35 and a huge tax avoidance industry. It’s a direct tax on jobs, but now raises so much money the government don’t know what to do about it. In the coming years, it’s a massive incentive for companies to invest in automation rather than employment - which is a good thing, up until the point where it isn’t.
Private hospitals have lower infection rates for a number of reasons:
1) Single rooms. These are universal in private hospitals, and in many other countries, but only about 20% of NHS beds. Most NHS wards are in bays of 6 patients, and this is a site of cross infection. Fixing this would increase the staffing required, and also require major architectural work at nearly every hospital site.
2) Different case mix. Private hospitals do not take emergency admissions, nor do they take in patients with complex mixed pathologies. Indeed, if a private hospital patient becomes significantly unwell post op (nearly all PP admissions are surgical) they are transferred to the local NHS. While there are some things I would have done privately, there are others that are unsafe without full hospital back up including ICU etc.
MRSA is virtually extinct in my Trust, as indeed across the NHS. CRO is the current multi-drug resistant pathogen of concern, with strict control measures. The current Infection Control measures have driven down rates of other hospital acquired diseases, but the problem of Delta is that it is bloody contagious, and spreads by air rather than surfaces.
Edit: it was King Edward VII in London I have no reason to believe they lied to me they were talking about MRSA.
The Australians make tons of Rhône blend; they call it GSM.
Absolutely. Asserting that 'we've never had a case of infection' is up there with saying someone's never made a mistake.
It's many, many years since I worked in a private hospital, and then only for a short while, but transferring patients to the nearest NHS unit with an ICU was not unusual.
Some countries that you would think of as free market bastions are big on these hidden income taxes (such as Singapore, 20%), while in Europe, some are big on it, like France (23%), while others that one would think would be big abusers are not (Spain 6%).
A massive problem in the NHS IMO, and a very hard one to fix.