Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
You have just said yourself you did it so much of your retirement income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.
Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.
Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.
You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.
Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.
And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.
I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).
You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live
I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.
Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:
a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.
b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.
You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
Actually you probably can't. My wife and I had this with Child Tax Credits when we refused to take them. They forced us to fill out all the forms anyway under threat of prosecution and then sent us the money anyway. We donated it to charity. The following year they tried to force us to fill out the forms again and this time we went to our MP when they were threatening to prosecute. He eventually got them to back down.
You can earn up to £58k and still get child tax credits
I know. That was what we objected to and why we refused to take them. Admittedly this was 20 years ago or more. We simply didn't believe that anyone earning that amount of money (or its equivalent 2 decades ago) should be getting Government handouts.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media
So what is the logical conclusion of your claim? Should other countries be wary of British emigrants going into their country?
Or have we become better at recognising the crime and not tolerating it?
In too many countries, including this one in the past, women who were raped would be expected to suffer in silence.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
You have just said yourself you did it so much of your retirement income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.
Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.
Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.
You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.
Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.
And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.
I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).
You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live
I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.
Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:
a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.
b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.
You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
Actually you probably can't. My wife and I had this with Child Tax Credits when we refused to take them. They forced us to fill out all the forms anyway under threat of prosecution and then sent us the money anyway. We donated it to charity. The following year they tried to force us to fill out the forms again and this time we went to our MP when they were threatening to prosecute. He eventually got them to back down.
You can earn up to £58k and still get child tax credits
I know. That was what we objected to and why we refused to take them. Admittedly this was 20 years ago or more. We simply didn't believe that anyone earning that amount of money (or its equivalent 2 decades ago) should be getting Government handouts.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
You have just said yourself you did it so much of your retirement income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.
Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.
Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.
You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.
Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.
And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.
I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).
You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live
I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.
Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:
a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.
b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.
You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
Spending your savings (as opposed to interest on your savings) is not income.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
You have just said yourself you did it so much of your retirement income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.
Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.
Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.
You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.
Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.
And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.
I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).
You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live
I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.
Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:
a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.
b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.
You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
Spending your savings (as opposed to interest on your savings) is not income.
For a pensioner it is
No, it really is not.
It is given that is the whole reason kjh is whinging he shouldn't be getting WFA
I feel like there is a conspiracy of silence, ironically, about players screaming when they play every point in tennis. Commentators never seem to remark upon it, when even if it is not intended to put off opponents it is demonstrably unnecessary to be quite that loud when other players do not do it.
If you watch Navratilova v Evert it's amazing how they don't make any noise when playing shots.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
You have just said yourself you did it so much of your retirement income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.
Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.
Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.
You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.
Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.
And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.
I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).
You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live
I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.
Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:
a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.
b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.
You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
Actually you probably can't. My wife and I had this with Child Tax Credits when we refused to take them. They forced us to fill out all the forms anyway under threat of prosecution and then sent us the money anyway. We donated it to charity. The following year they tried to force us to fill out the forms again and this time we went to our MP when they were threatening to prosecute. He eventually got them to back down.
You can earn up to £58k and still get child tax credits
I know. That was what we objected to and why we refused to take them. Admittedly this was 20 years ago or more. We simply didn't believe that anyone earning that amount of money (or its equivalent 2 decades ago) should be getting Government handouts.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
No I want increased child benefit and child credits for working class parents as well, our fertility rate at 1.57 is well below replacement level
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
You have just said yourself you did it so much of your retirement income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.
Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.
Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.
You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.
Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.
And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.
I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).
You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live
I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.
Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:
a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.
b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.
You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
This is a very special kind of stupid. Schrödinger's capital.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
Nonsense.
Why? It’s my genuine opinion. I don’t think she’s quite good enough.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media
So what is the logical conclusion of your claim? Should other countries be wary of British emigrants going into their country?
Or have we become better at recognising the crime and not tolerating it?
In too many countries, including this one in the past, women who were raped would be expected to suffer in silence.
The only way you can get a genuine handle on the incidence of rape is some kind of anonymous survey. And even then, things are blurred.
I'm reminded of when I went to school in Horsham in the 1980s. There was a woodwork teacher at our (mixed) school who was previously fired from the local girls school for taking 14 and 15 year old girls back to his house and taking photos of them naked. Somehow this didn't disqualify him from a school where there were both boys and girls.
Pretty much every one of my female friends has a tale of having had sex when they didn't really want it. Not quite rape, perhaps. But also something I hope is far less acceptable today than it was 30 years ago.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
Certainly not!
I only want to pay out in the event of her death.
Checks memory and recalls I’m older than you, so it may need to go on the will.
It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media
So what is the logical conclusion of your claim? Should other countries be wary of British emigrants going into their country?
Or have we become better at recognising the crime and not tolerating it?
In too many countries, including this one in the past, women who were raped would be expected to suffer in silence.
The only way you can get a genuine handle on the incidence of rape is some kind of anonymous survey. And even then, things are blurred.
I'm reminded of when I went to school in Horsham in the 1980s. There was a woodwork teacher at our (mixed) school who was previously fired from the local girls school for taking 14 and 15 year old girls back to his house and taking photos of them naked. Somehow this didn't disqualify him from a school where there were both boys and girls.
Pretty much every one of my female friends has a tale of having had sex when they didn't really want it. Not quite rape, perhaps. But also something I hope is far less acceptable today than it was 30 years ago.
Come to mention it, I find it astonishing he wasn't prosecuted.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
Nonsense.
Why? It’s my genuine opinion. I don’t think she’s quite good enough.
She's 22, has talent and drive, and needs only marginal improvements to be right in the top mix. That was close today, and Sab played pretty well too. It's bizarre to write her off.
Do you follow tennis? (serious question, not being snarky)
Boris Johnson's advice to the Tories: ignore Farage.
Source: Newsnight paper review.
The only Tory leader in the last ten years able to completely ignore Farage throughout his time as leader as Farage's party was a mere asterisk in the polls being one Boris Johnson of course, as Boris well knows
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
Nonsense.
Why? It’s my genuine opinion. I don’t think she’s quite good enough.
She's 22, has talent and drive, and needs only marginal improvements to be right in the top mix. That was close today, and Sab played pretty well too. It's bizarre to write her off.
Do you follow tennis? (serious question, not being snarky)
Yes I do follow tennis. Twenty two is old enough to know. She did amazingly to win the US open, but the circumstances suited her. I see too many other players that are just that bit better. Players who would have closed out the tie break, players who step up at the right time. I like her a lot and she will be a top 20 player, but she’s not top 10 material. You are very welcome to disagree.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I still don't regret it. Labour have performed pretty much as I expected - roughly the same as the Tories but with less scandal. The important thing was to kick the Tory party in the face, to punish it, and I say that as a member. We couldn't carry on like that.
Where I have miscalculated is I thought Kemi would be better. But there's still time...
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
Nonsense.
Why? It’s my genuine opinion. I don’t think she’s quite good enough.
She's 22, has talent and drive, and needs only marginal improvements to be right in the top mix. That was close today, and Sab played pretty well too. It's bizarre to write her off.
Do you follow tennis? (serious question, not being snarky)
Yes I do follow tennis. Twenty two is old enough to know. She did amazingly to win the US open, but the circumstances suited her. I see too many other players that are just that bit better. Players who would have closed out the tie break, players who step up at the right time. I like her a lot and she will be a top 20 player, but she’s not top 10 material. You are very welcome to disagree.
Ah well that's different to "she'll never win another slam."
What you mean is you'll be surprised if she does. Which is fair enough. Slams are hard to win.
Me, I'll be surprised if she doesn't. But not that surprised. For the same reason, that slams are hard to win.
It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media
So what is the logical conclusion of your claim? Should other countries be wary of British emigrants going into their country?
Or have we become better at recognising the crime and not tolerating it?
In too many countries, including this one in the past, women who were raped would be expected to suffer in silence.
The only way you can get a genuine handle on the incidence of rape is some kind of anonymous survey. And even then, things are blurred.
I'm reminded of when I went to school in Horsham in the 1980s. There was a woodwork teacher at our (mixed) school who was previously fired from the local girls school for taking 14 and 15 year old girls back to his house and taking photos of them naked. Somehow this didn't disqualify him from a school where there were both boys and girls.
Pretty much every one of my female friends has a tale of having had sex when they didn't really want it. Not quite rape, perhaps. But also something I hope is far less acceptable today than it was 30 years ago.
Come to mention it, I find it astonishing he wasn't prosecuted.
But different times.
A female pupil at my school found our R.E teacher 'pleasuring himself' during a break (he'd left the door somewhat ajar and his room was next to the girls loo's).
Next morning there was 10ft high black spraypaint outside his room explaining that "MISTER XXXXX IS A W*ANKER".
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
(By 2035 - don’t want it dragging on…)
Can I have some of this please too? Up to £250 in 2035 pounds inflation adjusted...
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
Nonsense.
Why? It’s my genuine opinion. I don’t think she’s quite good enough.
She's 22, has talent and drive, and needs only marginal improvements to be right in the top mix. That was close today, and Sab played pretty well too. It's bizarre to write her off.
Do you follow tennis? (serious question, not being snarky)
Yes I do follow tennis. Twenty two is old enough to know. She did amazingly to win the US open, but the circumstances suited her. I see too many other players that are just that bit better. Players who would have closed out the tie break, players who step up at the right time. I like her a lot and she will be a top 20 player, but she’s not top 10 material. You are very welcome to disagree.
Ah well that's different to "she'll never win another slam."
What you mean is you'll be surprised if she does. Which is fair enough. Slams are hard to win.
Me, I'll be surprised if she doesn't. But not that surprised. For the same reason, that slams are hard to win.
No, I don’t think she will ever win another slam, and those are the reasons. And yes I’ll be very surprised if she does, and no one will be more delighted than me. Even if it makes me poorer!
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
Nonsense.
Why? It’s my genuine opinion. I don’t think she’s quite good enough.
She's 22, has talent and drive, and needs only marginal improvements to be right in the top mix. That was close today, and Sab played pretty well too. It's bizarre to write her off.
Do you follow tennis? (serious question, not being snarky)
I don't really follow tennis, but there have been many false dawns of British players who have had heroic defeats and been tipped for great things as a result. Barry Cowan nearly beating a past-his-best Pete Sampras is an example that springs to mind. Sometimes players lift their game when playing better players.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
(By 2035 - don’t want it dragging on…)
Can I have some of this please too?
If you insist, but only on the @kinabalu variant. Can’t have this hanging over us into Labours third term.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Ireland now has a gdp per capita significantly higher than we do under FG and FF, why would an asylum seeker want to make the leap from there to poor old Starmer's Labour UK? Even Dublin is buzzing and with less crime than London
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
(By 2035 - don’t want it dragging on…)
Can I have some of this please too?
If you insist, but only on the @kinabalu variant. Can’t have this hanging over us into Labours third term.
How about by end of decade or end of Labour's 2nd term, whichever comes last?
I'm very glad the President isn't playing the game the EU way, like Sunak, Blair, May, Starmer and frankly everybody else we've sent to negotiate with them since Thatcher. Bugger them.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
(By 2035 - don’t want it dragging on…)
Can I have some of this please too?
If you insist, but only on the @kinabalu variant. Can’t have this hanging over us into Labours third term.
How about by end of decade or end of Labour's 2nd term, whichever comes last?
It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media
So what is the logical conclusion of your claim? Should other countries be wary of British emigrants going into their country?
Or have we become better at recognising the crime and not tolerating it?
In too many countries, including this one in the past, women who were raped would be expected to suffer in silence.
The only way you can get a genuine handle on the incidence of rape is some kind of anonymous survey. And even then, things are blurred.
I'm reminded of when I went to school in Horsham in the 1980s. There was a woodwork teacher at our (mixed) school who was previously fired from the local girls school for taking 14 and 15 year old girls back to his house and taking photos of them naked. Somehow this didn't disqualify him from a school where there were both boys and girls.
Pretty much every one of my female friends has a tale of having had sex when they didn't really want it. Not quite rape, perhaps. But also something I hope is far less acceptable today than it was 30 years ago.
Come to mention it, I find it astonishing he wasn't prosecuted.
But different times.
A female pupil at my school found our R.E teacher 'pleasuring himself' during a break (he'd left the door somewhat ajar and his room was next to the girls loo's).
Next morning there was 10ft high black spraypaint outside his room explaining that "MISTER XXXXX IS A W*ANKER".
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
(By 2035 - don’t want it dragging on…)
Can I have some of this please too?
If you insist, but only on the @kinabalu variant. Can’t have this hanging over us into Labours third term.
How about by end of decade or end of Labour's 2nd term, whichever comes last?
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
Nonsense.
Why? It’s my genuine opinion. I don’t think she’s quite good enough.
She's 22, has talent and drive, and needs only marginal improvements to be right in the top mix. That was close today, and Sab played pretty well too. It's bizarre to write her off.
Do you follow tennis? (serious question, not being snarky)
I don't really follow tennis, but there have been many false dawns of British players who have had heroic defeats and been tipped for great things as a result. Barry Cowan nearly beating a past-his-best Pete Sampras is an example that springs to mind. Sometimes players lift their game when playing better players.
Yes, I remember that. This doesn't feel like a Barry Cowan situation though. There was only one Barry Cowan.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Ireland now has a gdp per capita significantly higher than we do under FG and FF, why would an asylum seeker want to make the leap from there to poor old Starmer's Labour UK? Even Dublin is buzzing and with less crime than London
If you were an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to be as close to @Leon as possible? If only to annoy him.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
(By 2035 - don’t want it dragging on…)
Can I have some of this please too?
If you insist, but only on the @kinabalu variant. Can’t have this hanging over us into Labours third term.
How about by end of decade or end of Labour's 2nd term, whichever comes last?
I'm very glad the President isn't playing the game the EU way, like Sunak, Blair, May, Starmer and frankly everybody else we've sent to negotiate with them since Thatcher. Bugger them.
Just as a matter of interest, what game is he playing? And how will Americans benefit?
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
(By 2035 - don’t want it dragging on…)
Can I have some of this please too?
If you insist, but only on the @kinabalu variant. Can’t have this hanging over us into Labours third term.
How about by end of decade or end of Labour's 2nd term, whichever comes last?
I'm very glad the President isn't playing the game the EU way, like Sunak, Blair, May, Starmer and frankly everybody else we've sent to negotiate with them since Thatcher. Bugger them.
Just as a matter of interest, what game is he playing? And how will Americans benefit?
Americans eat too much food, so there's an argument for treating European food cartels like Mexican drug cartels.
It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media
So what is the logical conclusion of your claim? Should other countries be wary of British emigrants going into their country?
Or have we become better at recognising the crime and not tolerating it?
In too many countries, including this one in the past, women who were raped would be expected to suffer in silence.
The only way you can get a genuine handle on the incidence of rape is some kind of anonymous survey. And even then, things are blurred.
I'm reminded of when I went to school in Horsham in the 1980s. There was a woodwork teacher at our (mixed) school who was previously fired from the local girls school for taking 14 and 15 year old girls back to his house and taking photos of them naked. Somehow this didn't disqualify him from a school where there were both boys and girls.
Pretty much every one of my female friends has a tale of having had sex when they didn't really want it. Not quite rape, perhaps. But also something I hope is far less acceptable today than it was 30 years ago.
Come to mention it, I find it astonishing he wasn't prosecuted.
But different times.
A female pupil at my school found our R.E teacher 'pleasuring himself' during a break (he'd left the door somewhat ajar and his room was next to the girls loo's).
Next morning there was 10ft high black spraypaint outside his room explaining that "MISTER XXXXX IS A W*ANKER".
(somewhat less edited)
Most "I won't tell if you won't" moment at my school was when three of us were looking at a porno mag during lunch break. Our foreign language teacher (we'll call him Mr. X for our purposes) happened to enter the room, and saw us. Mr X calmly went over to us, grabbed the girly mag, and started perusing it himself! He did so for several uncomfortable seconds, before handing it back to us, without uttering a word. And we didn't say anything either!
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Can someone explain to me why we don’t want asylum seekers to have jobs? In a country where it’s very easy to find menial work (so it’s not like they’re taking jobs off others) what we ought to have is asylum seekers allowed to work - and if we still want to be a bit nasty, maybe tax them at 50% from £0 or something to pay for their room and board.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
Can someone explain to me why we don’t want asylum seekers to have jobs? In a country where it’s very easy to find menial work (so it’s not like they’re taking jobs off others) what we ought to have is asylum seekers allowed to work - and if we still want to be a bit nasty, maybe tax them at 50% from £0 or something to pay for their room and board.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
Because it would be too much of a loophole in the visa system. Asylum claims take a very long time to process and if you let people work formally then it will be exploited, plus it will make it harder to turn claims down because people will use all the human rights arguments we're familiar with to argue that they are already settled here.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Update on the hands-free cyclist who posted the clip of the City of London Constable having been ticketed for hands-free riding in traffic as "without due care or consideration". There are places where hands-free is OK if you have the skill, eg empty cycle track with good views; near Bank Station is not such a place.
It turns out he was ticketed in early March, and this video was from early April when he confronted - so the chatter about ticketed for the Human Rights Act Clause 2 was a red herring, that she should probably not have said in the later conversation.
I'm comfortable with the charge because hands free means that the brakes cannot be engaged quickly if there is eg a pedestrian wandering across with their head in their phone, and the cyclist has a duty of care under the HWC.
The barrister cyclist was trolling imo, and needs to grow up.
UPDATE: Please note this story has been updated to include the context that the video shared on social media took place on 2 April 2025, a month after the cyclist was issued a ticket by the same officer for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 5 March 2025. While the officer who ticketed the cyclist in March is the same officer seen in the video filmed in April, the footage is not from the day he received the ticket.
A barrister and climate campaigner has accused City of London Police of wasting resources after he was issued a ticket for cycling without hands on the handlebars — with the officer allegedly claiming the action contravened Article 2 of the Human Rights Act — and criticised the force for prioritising the fining of 285 red-light-jumping cyclists in 2025 instead of focusing on rampant bike theft and phone snatching in the capital.
Paul Powlesland posted a video of the encounter, which happened on 2 April, on social media, stating that he had been stopped during rush hour and fined for “cycling no-handed” — something he argued was not an offence. City of London Police this afternoon explained that Powlesland was stopped and ticketed by the same officer a month prior to that video being filmed, on 5 March, for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-fined-riding-no-handed-under-human-rights-act-314787
Can someone explain to me why we don’t want asylum seekers to have jobs? In a country where it’s very easy to find menial work (so it’s not like they’re taking jobs off others) what we ought to have is asylum seekers allowed to work - and if we still want to be a bit nasty, maybe tax them at 50% from £0 or something to pay for their room and board.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
Because it would be too much of a loophole in the visa system. Asylum claims take a very long time to process and if you let people work formally then it will be exploited, plus it will make it harder to turn claims down because people will use all the human rights arguments we're familiar with to argue that they are already settled here.
I did think these were the arguments but I'm not convinced by either of them.
Update on the hands-free cyclist who posted the clip of the City of London Constable having been ticketed for hands-free riding in traffic as "without due care or consideration". There are places where hands-free is OK if you have the skill, eg empty cycle track with good views; near Bank Station is not such a place.
It turns out he was ticketed in early March, and this video was from early April when he confronted - so the chatter about ticketed for the Human Rights Act Clause 2 was a red herring, that she should probably not have said in the later conversation.
I'm comfortable with the charge because hands free means that the brakes cannot be engaged quickly if there is eg a pedestrian wandering across with their head in their phone, and the cyclist has a duty of care under the HWC.
The barrister cyclist was trolling imo, and needs to grow up.
UPDATE: Please note this story has been updated to include the context that the video shared on social media took place on 2 April 2025, a month after the cyclist was issued a ticket by the same officer for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 5 March 2025. While the officer who ticketed the cyclist in March is the same officer seen in the video filmed in April, the footage is not from the day he received the ticket.
A barrister and climate campaigner has accused City of London Police of wasting resources after he was issued a ticket for cycling without hands on the handlebars — with the officer allegedly claiming the action contravened Article 2 of the Human Rights Act — and criticised the force for prioritising the fining of 285 red-light-jumping cyclists in 2025 instead of focusing on rampant bike theft and phone snatching in the capital.
Paul Powlesland posted a video of the encounter, which happened on 2 April, on social media, stating that he had been stopped during rush hour and fined for “cycling no-handed” — something he argued was not an offence. City of London Police this afternoon explained that Powlesland was stopped and ticketed by the same officer a month prior to that video being filmed, on 5 March, for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-fined-riding-no-handed-under-human-rights-act-314787
The problem with this is there are more important things for the police to be doing, such as stopping all the cyclists who think it's okay to ride through red lights when pedestrians are crossing the road. They always seem to get their priorities wrong.
I'm comfortable with the charge because hands free means that the brakes cannot be engaged quickly if there is eg a pedestrian wandering across with their head in their phone, and the cyclist has a duty of care under the HWC.
There are plenty of situations in cycling (or driving) where there is no credible need to apply a brake instantly, and it doesn't take long to move hands/legs from wherever (if wherever is sensible) to the controls.
Admittedly these situations are unlikely to apply in London and the particular case might be fully justified... but I don't think that it should be an automatic offence.
Two minutes of President Reagan on what makes America great (although I suspect it has been posted for its contrast with President Trump):- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J5upAEZOchM
Its clear that America has become a much angrier place in the Trump era, and it was only a few months ago that he was threatening to annex Greenland and wanted to make Canada the 51st State. But is there really even a small possibility of the State of California seceding from the US due to political polarization reaching breaking point within 10 years?
"California could secede from the US, sparking a second Civil War within the next 10 years, a political expert has revealed.
Professor Benjamin Cohen from the University of California-Santa Barbara warned that the possibility of political polarization reaching a violent breaking point throughout the US was 'substantially greater than zero.'
In one scenario, the political economist and author of 20 books envisioned California declaring its independence from the US in 2035, amid growing friction with the federal government - prompting the next president to take drastic action."
I'm very glad the President isn't playing the game the EU way, like Sunak, Blair, May, Starmer and frankly everybody else we've sent to negotiate with them since Thatcher. Bugger them.
Can someone explain to me why we don’t want asylum seekers to have jobs? In a country where it’s very easy to find menial work (so it’s not like they’re taking jobs off others) what we ought to have is asylum seekers allowed to work - and if we still want to be a bit nasty, maybe tax them at 50% from £0 or something to pay for their room and board.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
Because the Daily Mail (and much less importantly Leon) would go absolutely mental.
I'm comfortable with the charge because hands free means that the brakes cannot be engaged quickly if there is eg a pedestrian wandering across with their head in their phone, and the cyclist has a duty of care under the HWC.
There are plenty of situations in cycling (or driving) where there is no credible need to apply a brake instantly, and it doesn't take long to move hands/legs from wherever (if wherever is sensible) to the controls.
Admittedly these situations are unlikely to apply in London and the particular case might be fully justified... but I don't think that it should be an automatic offence.
I've recently got dumb (*) aerobars fitted onto my road bike, and they're great fun. It's fun being in that position, leaning forwards. But the issue is that your hands are away from your brakes. However, unlike cycling hands free, you still have full directional control over your bike.
If I'm coming up to somewhere that I think I might need to brake, but am not sure - say, a sharpish bend, I take my left hand off the aerobars and put it on the hoods, allowing me to apply the rear brake to scrub off some speed.
It's rare to get aerobars with brakes on as well as shifters; I'm unsure why, but I read somewhere that applying brakes in an aero position, with your body weight so far forwards, makes braking more skittish so it's better to go for the normal brakes, which requires shifting more bodyweight backwards.
I never really enjoyed cycling that much; it was something I'd do for a change from walking or running, or use as a tool (e.g. to go to the shops). I'm quite surprised that, in my early fifties, I've started enjoying 'serious' cycling.
If cycling with no hands is illegal, there's a possibility that aerobars will be as well, despite the fact you still maintain directional control.
It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media
So what is the logical conclusion of your claim? Should other countries be wary of British emigrants going into their country?
Or have we become better at recognising the crime and not tolerating it?
In too many countries, including this one in the past, women who were raped would be expected to suffer in silence.
The only way you can get a genuine handle on the incidence of rape is some kind of anonymous survey. And even then, things are blurred.
I'm reminded of when I went to school in Horsham in the 1980s. There was a woodwork teacher at our (mixed) school who was previously fired from the local girls school for taking 14 and 15 year old girls back to his house and taking photos of them naked. Somehow this didn't disqualify him from a school where there were both boys and girls.
Pretty much every one of my female friends has a tale of having had sex when they didn't really want it. Not quite rape, perhaps. But also something I hope is far less acceptable today than it was 30 years ago.
Come to mention it, I find it astonishing he wasn't prosecuted.
But different times.
A female pupil at my school found our R.E teacher 'pleasuring himself' during a break (he'd left the door somewhat ajar and his room was next to the girls loo's).
Next morning there was 10ft high black spraypaint outside his room explaining that "MISTER XXXXX IS A W*ANKER".
(somewhat less edited)
My school had a reverend who was from the very open, happy-clappy end of the Church of England. In one RE lesson, he said we could all write any questions we had about sex on a piece of paper, and he would anonymously read them out and try to answer them. The idea being that we would all have questions, and someone would be brave enough to ask the ones many of us were asking.
So he went through them: some were sensible; others he just shook his head and did not answer. Then he read one: "I use a vibrator every day. Will it harm me?" At which every boy and girl in the class laughed, except for one girl, who started crying and ran out of the room...
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Index linked, of course, and at what age ?
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
My wife has two NHS pensions.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
Still a very good deal though.
The old scheme if that was it denied me a widowers pension when I remarried. I lost 4k a yr. (My wife who was a GP gave yrs of service but fell ill in her 50s and died) .It's something that will grate with me from time to time when I think of it. The new scheme allows the spouse pension to remain. Grossly unfair.
Update on the hands-free cyclist who posted the clip of the City of London Constable having been ticketed for hands-free riding in traffic as "without due care or consideration". There are places where hands-free is OK if you have the skill, eg empty cycle track with good views; near Bank Station is not such a place.
It turns out he was ticketed in early March, and this video was from early April when he confronted - so the chatter about ticketed for the Human Rights Act Clause 2 was a red herring, that she should probably not have said in the later conversation.
I'm comfortable with the charge because hands free means that the brakes cannot be engaged quickly if there is eg a pedestrian wandering across with their head in their phone, and the cyclist has a duty of care under the HWC.
The barrister cyclist was trolling imo, and needs to grow up.
UPDATE: Please note this story has been updated to include the context that the video shared on social media took place on 2 April 2025, a month after the cyclist was issued a ticket by the same officer for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 5 March 2025. While the officer who ticketed the cyclist in March is the same officer seen in the video filmed in April, the footage is not from the day he received the ticket.
A barrister and climate campaigner has accused City of London Police of wasting resources after he was issued a ticket for cycling without hands on the handlebars — with the officer allegedly claiming the action contravened Article 2 of the Human Rights Act — and criticised the force for prioritising the fining of 285 red-light-jumping cyclists in 2025 instead of focusing on rampant bike theft and phone snatching in the capital.
Paul Powlesland posted a video of the encounter, which happened on 2 April, on social media, stating that he had been stopped during rush hour and fined for “cycling no-handed” — something he argued was not an offence. City of London Police this afternoon explained that Powlesland was stopped and ticketed by the same officer a month prior to that video being filmed, on 5 March, for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-fined- riding-no-handed-under-human-rights-act-314787
In one occasion my father was (atypically) driving his Morgan down the Strand while under the speed limit. He was surprised to be flagged down by the cops.
Apparently they had wanted to pull him over in the past but had never been able to catch him…
Its clear that America has become a much angrier place in the Trump era, and it was only a few months ago that he was threatening to annex Greenland and wanted to make Canada the 51st State. But is there really even a small possibility of the State of California seceding from the US due to political polarization reaching breaking point within 10 years?
"California could secede from the US, sparking a second Civil War within the next 10 years, a political expert has revealed.
Professor Benjamin Cohen from the University of California-Santa Barbara warned that the possibility of political polarization reaching a violent breaking point throughout the US was 'substantially greater than zero.'
In one scenario, the political economist and author of 20 books envisioned California declaring its independence from the US in 2035, amid growing friction with the federal government - prompting the next president to take drastic action."
Not happening. The US can’t afford to lose California and would use force to retain it
Its clear that America has become a much angrier place in the Trump era, and it was only a few months ago that he was threatening to annex Greenland and wanted to make Canada the 51st State. But is there really even a small possibility of the State of California seceding from the US due to political polarization reaching breaking point within 10 years?
"California could secede from the US, sparking a second Civil War within the next 10 years, a political expert has revealed.
Professor Benjamin Cohen from the University of California-Santa Barbara warned that the possibility of political polarization reaching a violent breaking point throughout the US was 'substantially greater than zero.'
In one scenario, the political economist and author of 20 books envisioned California declaring its independence from the US in 2035, amid growing friction with the federal government - prompting the next president to take drastic action."
Not happening. The US can’t afford to lose California and would use force to retain it
If US uses force to retain California, then that sounds a bit like a civil war? I'd say 10% chance at least one State tries to quit the union, with an obvious flash point being if Trump decides to run for a third term/refuses to relinquish power following an election.
Its clear that America has become a much angrier place in the Trump era, and it was only a few months ago that he was threatening to annex Greenland and wanted to make Canada the 51st State. But is there really even a small possibility of the State of California seceding from the US due to political polarization reaching breaking point within 10 years?
"California could secede from the US, sparking a second Civil War within the next 10 years, a political expert has revealed.
Professor Benjamin Cohen from the University of California-Santa Barbara warned that the possibility of political polarization reaching a violent breaking point throughout the US was 'substantially greater than zero.'
In one scenario, the political economist and author of 20 books envisioned California declaring its independence from the US in 2035, amid growing friction with the federal government - prompting the next president to take drastic action."
Not happening. The US can’t afford to lose California and would use force to retain it
If US uses force to retain California, then that sounds a bit like a civil war? I'd say 10% chance at least one State tries to quit the union, with an obvious flash point being if Trump decides to run for a third term/refuses to relinquish power following an election.
A situation that China and Russia would absolutely love. Putin, in particular, would see it as 'revenge' for the breakup of the USSR.
Trump and the GOP really are the best friends of dictators.
Update on the hands-free cyclist who posted the clip of the City of London Constable having been ticketed for hands-free riding in traffic as "without due care or consideration". There are places where hands-free is OK if you have the skill, eg empty cycle track with good views; near Bank Station is not such a place.
It turns out he was ticketed in early March, and this video was from early April when he confronted - so the chatter about ticketed for the Human Rights Act Clause 2 was a red herring, that she should probably not have said in the later conversation.
I'm comfortable with the charge because hands free means that the brakes cannot be engaged quickly if there is eg a pedestrian wandering across with their head in their phone, and the cyclist has a duty of care under the HWC.
The barrister cyclist was trolling imo, and needs to grow up.
UPDATE: Please note this story has been updated to include the context that the video shared on social media took place on 2 April 2025, a month after the cyclist was issued a ticket by the same officer for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 5 March 2025. While the officer who ticketed the cyclist in March is the same officer seen in the video filmed in April, the footage is not from the day he received the ticket.
A barrister and climate campaigner has accused City of London Police of wasting resources after he was issued a ticket for cycling without hands on the handlebars — with the officer allegedly claiming the action contravened Article 2 of the Human Rights Act — and criticised the force for prioritising the fining of 285 red-light-jumping cyclists in 2025 instead of focusing on rampant bike theft and phone snatching in the capital.
Paul Powlesland posted a video of the encounter, which happened on 2 April, on social media, stating that he had been stopped during rush hour and fined for “cycling no-handed” — something he argued was not an offence. City of London Police this afternoon explained that Powlesland was stopped and ticketed by the same officer a month prior to that video being filmed, on 5 March, for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-fined- riding-no-handed-under-human-rights-act-314787
In one occasion my father was (atypically) driving his Morgan down the Strand while under the speed limit. He was surprised to be flagged down by the cops.
Apparently they had wanted to pull him over in the past but had never been able to catch him…
I'm very glad the President isn't playing the game the EU way, like Sunak, Blair, May, Starmer and frankly everybody else we've sent to negotiate with them since Thatcher. Bugger them.
The E.U. seem to want negotiation to be getting one over on the other party rather than something mutually agreeable.
Of course, in Starmer, they found the perfect patsy. A guy who’d pay full price for a Carpetright carpet. But Trump wants a deal.
Earlier in the week it was being reported, not by tribal nutters like the twitter account above, they were close to a deal.
That was a terrific performance by Emma Raducanu against the clear world #1 and likely winner of the tournament. Fell short but not by much. Success is coming, I think.
Will never win another grand slam. Good but not quite good enough, as this match showed.
£5 at evens she wins another Grand Slam?
I’m up for that. Time limited? And excluding doubles, mind. @kinabalu too if you want in.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
A refugee can get Irish citizenship after three years. Then move to the UK. It's Dutch Somalis all over again.
British Citizenship is a red herring: once granted citizenship in Ireland they can move to the UK under the CTA.
Actually, the CTA is irrelevant. Under British law, Irish citizens are not considered aliens.
But we can vote in certain elections and get hounded by the local Electoral Roll Officer for not filling out the forms - and the comment "you'll get fined if you don't"
Its clear that America has become a much angrier place in the Trump era, and it was only a few months ago that he was threatening to annex Greenland and wanted to make Canada the 51st State. But is there really even a small possibility of the State of California seceding from the US due to political polarization reaching breaking point within 10 years?
"California could secede from the US, sparking a second Civil War within the next 10 years, a political expert has revealed.
Professor Benjamin Cohen from the University of California-Santa Barbara warned that the possibility of political polarization reaching a violent breaking point throughout the US was 'substantially greater than zero.'
In one scenario, the political economist and author of 20 books envisioned California declaring its independence from the US in 2035, amid growing friction with the federal government - prompting the next president to take drastic action."
Not happening. The US can’t afford to lose California and would use force to retain it
Not happening for different reasons. The USA doesn't have red states, it has red counties. Even in California the rural areas are Trumpistan, just as in the Midwest the cities are blue.
If America has another civil war it won't be about secession, it will be between those supporting Constitutional democracy and those overthrowing it.
Can someone explain to me why we don’t want asylum seekers to have jobs? In a country where it’s very easy to find menial work (so it’s not like they’re taking jobs off others) what we ought to have is asylum seekers allowed to work - and if we still want to be a bit nasty, maybe tax them at 50% from £0 or something to pay for their room and board.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
Because it would be too much of a loophole in the visa system. Asylum claims take a very long time to process and if you let people work formally then it will be exploited, plus it will make it harder to turn claims down because people will use all the human rights arguments we're familiar with to argue that they are already settled here.
Basically the government causes a problem with its own laziness and incompetence, then undertakes disastrous measures meant to manage it, but which fail and cause lots of other problems in the process, then bills taxpayers bills of pounds for the cost of those measures.
Just like in the housing market, where it causes disastrous housing shortages through the planning system, then makes a fortune off the stamp duty and capital gains tax revenues for which its own catastrophic cowardice and incompetence is responsible, incidentally destroying the life chance of a generation in the process.
Unfortunately, because seeing these things needs people to think things through for more than a few seconds, neither the press nor the public will ever catch on.
I'm very glad the President isn't playing the game the EU way, like Sunak, Blair, May, Starmer and frankly everybody else we've sent to negotiate with them since Thatcher. Bugger them.
The E.U. seem to want negotiation to be getting one over on the other party rather than something mutually agreeable.
Of course, in Starmer, they found the perfect patsy. A guy who’d pay full price for a Carpetright carpet. But Trump wants a deal.
Earlier in the week it was being reported, not by tribal nutters like the twitter account above, they were close to a deal.
Whenever I hear/read her name I immediately think of Lloyd Cole and the Commotions “Rattlesnakes”;
She looks like Eva Marie Saint in "On the Waterfront" She reads Simone de Beauvoir in her American circumstance
I absolutely love Lloyd Cole and the Commotions but they were magnificently pseudy - epitome of 80s black polo neck wearing, Gitanes smoking tortured middle class artists.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Index linked, of course, and at what age ?
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
My wife has two NHS pensions.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
Still a very good deal though.
The old scheme if that was it denied me a widowers pension when I remarried. I lost 4k a yr. (My wife who was a GP gave yrs of service but fell ill in her 50s and died) .It's something that will grate with me from time to time when I think of it. The new scheme allows the spouse pension to remain. Grossly unfair.
Yes, there are a number of NHS pensions schemes, the 1995 (Final Salary), 2008 (Career Average) and 2015 (Career Average) but they do vary in other ways, for example accrual rates, death in service benefits, retirement ages, and benefits to spouses and partners. One reason for the 2008 scheme was to give same sex partners rights etc.
On the whole the schemes have become less generous over time (no lump sum as standard in the 2008 or 2015 scheme for example), but for some circumstances they were more generous. When the 2008 scheme was launched we were all sent a pack explaining both so we could switch if we chose.
It gets complicated at times. Mrs Foxy has time in each scheme, each with a different retirement age, ranging from 60 in the 1995 scheme to 67 in the 2015 scheme, with 20 years of whole time equivalent spread across these.
Update on the hands-free cyclist who posted the clip of the City of London Constable having been ticketed for hands-free riding in traffic as "without due care or consideration". There are places where hands-free is OK if you have the skill, eg empty cycle track with good views; near Bank Station is not such a place.
It turns out he was ticketed in early March, and this video was from early April when he confronted - so the chatter about ticketed for the Human Rights Act Clause 2 was a red herring, that she should probably not have said in the later conversation.
I'm comfortable with the charge because hands free means that the brakes cannot be engaged quickly if there is eg a pedestrian wandering across with their head in their phone, and the cyclist has a duty of care under the HWC.
The barrister cyclist was trolling imo, and needs to grow up.
UPDATE: Please note this story has been updated to include the context that the video shared on social media took place on 2 April 2025, a month after the cyclist was issued a ticket by the same officer for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 5 March 2025. While the officer who ticketed the cyclist in March is the same officer seen in the video filmed in April, the footage is not from the day he received the ticket.
A barrister and climate campaigner has accused City of London Police of wasting resources after he was issued a ticket for cycling without hands on the handlebars — with the officer allegedly claiming the action contravened Article 2 of the Human Rights Act — and criticised the force for prioritising the fining of 285 red-light-jumping cyclists in 2025 instead of focusing on rampant bike theft and phone snatching in the capital.
Paul Powlesland posted a video of the encounter, which happened on 2 April, on social media, stating that he had been stopped during rush hour and fined for “cycling no-handed” — something he argued was not an offence. City of London Police this afternoon explained that Powlesland was stopped and ticketed by the same officer a month prior to that video being filmed, on 5 March, for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-fined-riding-no-handed-under-human-rights-act-314787
I agree, the more I’ve read about it and read his X feed, the more he comes over as a bit of a dickhead.
I don’t have a problem with the charge either. I’d also happily see anyone pulling wheelies charged under the law cited above.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Index linked, of course, and at what age ?
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
My wife has two NHS pensions.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
Still a very good deal though.
The old scheme if that was it denied me a widowers pension when I remarried. I lost 4k a yr. (My wife who was a GP gave yrs of service but fell ill in her 50s and died) .It's something that will grate with me from time to time when I think of it. The new scheme allows the spouse pension to remain. Grossly unfair.
Yes, there are a number of NHS pensions schemes, the 1995 (Final Salary), 2008 (Career Average) and 2015 (Career Average) but they do vary in other ways, for example accrual rates, death in service benefits, retirement ages, and benefits to spouses and partners. One reason for the 2008 scheme was to give same sex partners rights etc.
On the whole the schemes have become less generous over time (no lump sum as standard in the 2008 or 2015 scheme for example), but for some circumstances they were more generous. When the 2008 scheme was launched we were all sent a pack explaining both so we could switch if we chose.
It gets complicated at times. Mrs Foxy has time in each scheme, each with a different retirement age, ranging from 60 in the 1995 scheme to 67 in the 2015 scheme, with 20 years of whole time equivalent spread across these.
It was the same when the 2015 scheme was launched, a booklet came out, and there was guidance as to whether or not it was better to switch or remain.
My wife remained in the 95 scheme as she plans to access her 95 scheme this year. There was a point at which is was better to switch, if you were accessing after 60 IIRC.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Index linked, of course, and at what age ?
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
My wife has two NHS pensions.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
Still a very good deal though.
The old scheme if that was it denied me a widowers pension when I remarried. I lost 4k a yr. (My wife who was a GP gave yrs of service but fell ill in her 50s and died) .It's something that will grate with me from time to time when I think of it. The new scheme allows the spouse pension to remain. Grossly unfair.
Yes, there are a number of NHS pensions schemes, the 1995 (Final Salary), 2008 (Career Average) and 2015 (Career Average) but they do vary in other ways, for example accrual rates, death in service benefits, retirement ages, and benefits to spouses and partners. One reason for the 2008 scheme was to give same sex partners rights etc.
On the whole the schemes have become less generous over time (no lump sum as standard in the 2008 or 2015 scheme for example), but for some circumstances they were more generous. When the 2008 scheme was launched we were all sent a pack explaining both so we could switch if we chose.
It gets complicated at times. Mrs Foxy has time in each scheme, each with a different retirement age, ranging from 60 in the 1995 scheme to 67 in the 2015 scheme, with 20 years of whole time equivalent spread across these.
It was the same when the 2015 scheme was launched, a booklet came out, and there was guidance as to whether or not it was better to switch or remain.
My wife remained in the 95 scheme as she plans to access her 95 scheme this year. There was a point at which is was better to switch, if you were accessing after 60 IIRC.
It sounds as if she has the right under the Mcloud judgement to have some of her time in the 2015 scheme (we were all migrated to it) re-credited to the 1995 scheme. I did this, and due to the complec way both schemes interact with the Annual Allowance am due a tax refund of about £5000. It could be more than that in some circumstances. I know a good specialist firm that can calculate this if she is interested. Their advice has saved me tens of thousands by timing my partial retirement optimally.
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
You have just said yourself you did it so much of your retirement income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.
Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.
Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.
You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.
Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.
And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.
I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).
You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live
I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.
Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:
a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.
b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.
You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
Actually you probably can't. My wife and I had this with Child Tax Credits when we refused to take them. They forced us to fill out all the forms anyway under threat of prosecution and then sent us the money anyway. We donated it to charity. The following year they tried to force us to fill out the forms again and this time we went to our MP when they were threatening to prosecute. He eventually got them to back down.
You can earn up to £58k and still get child tax credits
I know. That was what we objected to and why we refused to take them. Admittedly this was 20 years ago or more. We simply didn't believe that anyone earning that amount of money (or its equivalent 2 decades ago) should be getting Government handouts.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
No I want increased child benefit and child credits for working class parents as well, our fertility rate at 1.57 is well below replacement level
But the evidence is that neither of those things make any difference.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
You have just said yourself you did it so much of your retirement income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.
Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.
Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.
You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.
Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.
And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.
I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).
You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live
I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.
Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:
a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.
b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.
You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
Actually you probably can't. My wife and I had this with Child Tax Credits when we refused to take them. They forced us to fill out all the forms anyway under threat of prosecution and then sent us the money anyway. We donated it to charity. The following year they tried to force us to fill out the forms again and this time we went to our MP when they were threatening to prosecute. He eventually got them to back down.
You can earn up to £58k and still get child tax credits
I know. That was what we objected to and why we refused to take them. Admittedly this was 20 years ago or more. We simply didn't believe that anyone earning that amount of money (or its equivalent 2 decades ago) should be getting Government handouts.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
No I want increased child benefit and child credits for working class parents as well, our fertility rate at 1.57 is well below replacement level
But the evidence is that neither of those things make any difference.
Would surely depend on how much it was though. We take home a decent wage but having a son has meant we have a lot less free money (and time, but that’s a different story!) The £100 a month child benefit helps more than I thought it would. Make it a grand and there is am incentive… Plus nursery is ruinous. Getting better - we get 15 hours funded now up to 30 in the autumn. Kids cost, but are worth it. But I’m sure cost is a factor for some (would be) parents.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Index linked, of course, and at what age ?
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
My wife has two NHS pensions.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
Still a very good deal though.
The old scheme if that was it denied me a widowers pension when I remarried. I lost 4k a yr. (My wife who was a GP gave yrs of service but fell ill in her 50s and died) .It's something that will grate with me from time to time when I think of it. The new scheme allows the spouse pension to remain. Grossly unfair.
Yes, there are a number of NHS pensions schemes, the 1995 (Final Salary), 2008 (Career Average) and 2015 (Career Average) but they do vary in other ways, for example accrual rates, death in service benefits, retirement ages, and benefits to spouses and partners. One reason for the 2008 scheme was to give same sex partners rights etc.
On the whole the schemes have become less generous over time (no lump sum as standard in the 2008 or 2015 scheme for example), but for some circumstances they were more generous. When the 2008 scheme was launched we were all sent a pack explaining both so we could switch if we chose.
It gets complicated at times. Mrs Foxy has time in each scheme, each with a different retirement age, ranging from 60 in the 1995 scheme to 67 in the 2015 scheme, with 20 years of whole time equivalent spread across these.
Yes - when I started my career the company scheme was a 1/80ths plus lump sum one, but only a few years later they replaced it with a 1/60ths scheme, with no lump sum, the catch being that it was ‘integrated’ with the state pension such that the income members will be getting from the state pension was effectively deducted from company pension by making some thousand pounds of your earnings non-pensionable.
At the time, as a mid-ranking manager, the 1/60ths scheme appeared demonstrably worse, but as time passed, life expectancy increased (affecting the balance of attractiveness between pension and lump sum), and I became more senior, such that by the time I left - still in the 1/80ths scheme - if I manage to live to my mid-80s I’d probably have been marginally better off had I switched to the 1/60ths scheme was back in the ‘80s.
Except that the latter had an inflation cap and the former didn’t - and that recent year of 10% CPI would have cut the real value of the 1/60ths pension by 5%, making it again the worse choice.
So, yes, it’s complicated and often impossible to work out in advance what the optimal choices are.
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
It was just our regular low IQ troll, trying to turn crimes that arise from the behaviour of men into a justification for one of his usual, pitiful, sad little racist rants.
Comments
Or have we become better at recognising the crime and not tolerating it?
In too many countries, including this one in the past, women who were raped would be expected to suffer in silence.
@EricIdle
Happy Getting Rid of Mad Kings Day America. Good idea. Hope you don’t go backwards. Know what I mean?
@TheStingisBack
Eva Marie Saint is 101 years old today.
https://x.com/TheStingisBack/status/1941179476571992088
(By 2035 - don’t want it dragging on…)
I'm reminded of when I went to school in Horsham in the 1980s. There was a woodwork teacher at our (mixed) school who was previously fired from the local girls school for taking 14 and 15 year old girls back to his house and taking photos of them naked. Somehow this didn't disqualify him from a school where there were both boys and girls.
Pretty much every one of my female friends has a tale of having had sex when they didn't really want it. Not quite rape, perhaps. But also something I hope is far less acceptable today than it was 30 years ago.
I only want to pay out in the event of her death.
But different times.
Source: Newsnight paper review.
Do you follow tennis? (serious question, not being snarky)
You are very welcome to disagree.
In this decade.
The only reason to consider bringing him back is as a last desperate roll of the dice against being wiped out by Farage surely.
Where I have miscalculated is I thought Kemi would be better. But there's still time...
@SpencerHakimian
·
5h
🚨🚨 Out of absolutely fucking nowhere, we are now threatening 17% tariffs on all European food.
No context. No alleged grievance. No warning.
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1941175141200953588
What you mean is you'll be surprised if she does. Which is fair enough. Slams are hard to win.
Me, I'll be surprised if she doesn't. But not that surprised. For the same reason, that slams are hard to win.
Next morning there was 10ft high black spraypaint outside his room explaining that "MISTER XXXXX IS A W*ANKER".
(somewhat less edited)
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Just incredible
https://x.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1941134911332839496?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Labours third term.
British Citizenship is a red herring: once granted citizenship in Ireland they can move to the UK under the CTA.
Andrey Badalov, the VP of Russia’s state oil pipeline corp Transneft, died after falling from a 17th-floor balcony in Moscow.
He lived on the 10th floor.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/e7kdEEOGau8
It turns out he was ticketed in early March, and this video was from early April when he confronted - so the chatter about ticketed for the Human Rights Act Clause 2 was a red herring, that she should probably not have said in the later conversation.
I'm comfortable with the charge because hands free means that the brakes cannot be engaged quickly if there is eg a pedestrian wandering across with their head in their phone, and the cyclist has a duty of care under the HWC.
The barrister cyclist was trolling imo, and needs to grow up.
UPDATE: Please note this story has been updated to include the context that the video shared on social media took place on 2 April 2025, a month after the cyclist was issued a ticket by the same officer for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 on 5 March 2025. While the officer who ticketed the cyclist in March is the same officer seen in the video filmed in April, the footage is not from the day he received the ticket.
A barrister and climate campaigner has accused City of London Police of wasting resources after he was issued a ticket for cycling without hands on the handlebars — with the officer allegedly claiming the action contravened Article 2 of the Human Rights Act — and criticised the force for prioritising the fining of 285 red-light-jumping cyclists in 2025 instead of focusing on rampant bike theft and phone snatching in the capital.
Paul Powlesland posted a video of the encounter, which happened on 2 April, on social media, stating that he had been stopped during rush hour and fined for “cycling no-handed” — something he argued was not an offence. City of London Police this afternoon explained that Powlesland was stopped and ticketed by the same officer a month prior to that video being filmed, on 5 March, for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-fined-riding-no-handed-under-human-rights-act-314787
Admittedly these situations are unlikely to apply in London and the particular case might be fully justified... but I don't think that it should be an automatic offence.
Investors are getting fed up of being used by governments around the world as a low-cost cash machine
Katie Martin" (£)
https://www.ft.com/content/ce1d3967-62a3-4871-aef0-079a26bd0d6c
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J5upAEZOchM
Daily Mail - 'Ominous civil war warning as expert predicts exact date the US will split'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14876397/civil-war-warning-date-trump.html
"California could secede from the US, sparking a second Civil War within the next 10 years, a political expert has revealed.
Professor Benjamin Cohen from the University of California-Santa Barbara warned that the possibility of political polarization reaching a violent breaking point throughout the US was 'substantially greater than zero.'
In one scenario, the political economist and author of 20 books envisioned California declaring its independence from the US in 2035, amid growing friction with the federal government - prompting the next president to take drastic action."
If I'm coming up to somewhere that I think I might need to brake, but am not sure - say, a sharpish bend, I take my left hand off the aerobars and put it on the hoods, allowing me to apply the rear brake to scrub off some speed.
It's rare to get aerobars with brakes on as well as shifters; I'm unsure why, but I read somewhere that applying brakes in an aero position, with your body weight so far forwards, makes braking more skittish so it's better to go for the normal brakes, which requires shifting more bodyweight backwards.
I never really enjoyed cycling that much; it was something I'd do for a change from walking or running, or use as a tool (e.g. to go to the shops). I'm quite surprised that, in my early fifties, I've started enjoying 'serious' cycling.
If cycling with no hands is illegal, there's a possibility that aerobars will be as well, despite the fact you still maintain directional control.
(*) No shifters on the ends.
So he went through them: some were sensible; others he just shook his head and did not answer. Then he read one: "I use a vibrator every day. Will it harm me?" At which every boy and girl in the class laughed, except for one girl, who started crying and ran out of the room...
.It's something that will grate with me from time to time when I think of it. The new scheme allows the spouse pension to remain. Grossly unfair.
Amused to see in my e-mail something from Amazon about protecting myself from scams, with the line "Recent Prime Subscription Scams".
Oh, would that be trying to get me to opt-in every single time I buy something?
Apparently they had wanted to pull him over in the past but had never been able to catch him…
I'd say 10% chance at least one State tries to quit the union, with an obvious flash point being if Trump decides to run for a third term/refuses to relinquish power following an election.
Trump and the GOP really are the best friends of dictators.
Of course, in Starmer, they found the perfect patsy. A guy who’d pay full price for a Carpetright carpet. But Trump wants a deal.
Earlier in the week it was being reported, not by tribal nutters like the twitter account above, they were close to a deal.
Let’s see this week.
Do you fancy losing another fiver
If America has another civil war it won't be about secession, it will be between those supporting Constitutional democracy and those overthrowing it.
Just like in the housing market, where it causes disastrous housing shortages through the planning system, then makes a fortune off the stamp duty and capital gains tax revenues for which its own catastrophic cowardice and incompetence is responsible, incidentally destroying the life chance of a generation in the process.
Unfortunately, because seeing these things needs people to think things through for more than a few seconds, neither the press nor the public will ever catch on.
She looks like Eva Marie Saint in "On the Waterfront"
She reads Simone de Beauvoir in her American circumstance
I absolutely love Lloyd Cole and the Commotions but they were magnificently pseudy - epitome of 80s black polo neck wearing, Gitanes smoking tortured middle class artists.
On the whole the schemes have become less generous over time (no lump sum as standard in the 2008 or 2015 scheme for example), but for some circumstances they were more generous. When the 2008 scheme was launched we were all sent a pack explaining both so we could switch if we chose.
It gets complicated at times. Mrs Foxy has time in each scheme, each with a different retirement age, ranging from 60 in the 1995 scheme to 67 in the 2015 scheme, with 20 years of whole time equivalent spread across these.
I don’t have a problem with the charge either. I’d also happily see anyone pulling wheelies charged under the law cited above.
People like him give cyclists a bad name.
My wife remained in the 95 scheme as she plans to access her 95 scheme this year. There was a point at which is was better to switch, if you were accessing after 60 IIRC.
Plus nursery is ruinous. Getting better - we get 15 hours funded now up to 30 in the autumn.
Kids cost, but are worth it. But I’m sure cost is a factor for some (would be) parents.
At the time, as a mid-ranking manager, the 1/60ths scheme appeared demonstrably worse, but as time passed, life expectancy increased (affecting the balance of attractiveness between pension and lump sum), and I became more senior, such that by the time I left - still in the 1/80ths scheme - if I manage to live to my mid-80s I’d probably have been marginally better off had I switched to the 1/60ths scheme was back in the ‘80s.
Except that the latter had an inflation cap and the former didn’t - and that recent year of 10% CPI would have cut the real value of the 1/60ths pension by 5%, making it again the worse choice.
So, yes, it’s complicated and often impossible to work out in advance what the optimal choices are.
Still on for it?