Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy
The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances
More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed
Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners
Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times
More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000
Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties
Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.
Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.
Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.
Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
You repeatedly say this, but I don’t recall you ever saying why.
Obviously this is hugely embarassing. But the total numbers are absolutely tiny. We all laughed when the claims were they would do 50 a week for the trial, instead isn't not even 50 a month. It would be interesting to know why it is so tiny. I presume they are only selecting the absolutely lowest hanging fruit that can't challenge anything in court.
Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy
The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances
More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed
Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners
Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times
More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000
Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties
Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.
Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.
Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.
Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
You repeatedly say this, but I don’t recall you ever saying why.
Do enlighten us.
So we move towards a more contributory welfare system like most developed nations have
Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.
The Lam thing is definitely worth more scrutiny, as is pretty much everything at the moment such as the economy, Ukraine etc etc. unfortunately you don’t get to look so worthy going on the tv and radio and tik tok saying how awful Prince Andrew is and spouting about living in a “30 room mansion” at the taxpayers expense and all that.
Margaret Hodge was worryingly excitable about it all this morning on Today with quite a lot of guesswork about the status of his lease leading to some pretty absolute conclusions on her part.
She was very open that she is using this to demand more scrutiny of the Royals’ funding and thought it awful that he was living it up in Royal Lodge at the taxpayers expense despite not knowing if it was the Royal Family’s own money paying for it, the sovereign grant, the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster, or even (regardless of how he earns it) his own money.
I’m still trying to think of one person, Hodge, Helena Kennedy the other morning, for examples who have made a large point about the vast number of men, especially in the US who are slipping under the radar for doing what Prince Andrew did. This is an easy kicking now, let’s see them go for other people who are alleged to have also been up to no good.
Most of the Royal Family's "own" money belongs to the crown, ie the state, not the family as individuals though.
If we became a republic then the Crown Estates would become our republic's estates, not disappear as the personal private fiefdom of an individual.
The Crown Estate and Duchies have belonged to the Crown since Norman and Medieval times, they are not public sector nor taxpayer funded.
That’s exactly the point.
They belong to the *Crown* not the *King*
If we became a republic (and I don’t believe that is a good idea) then the State and the Crown merge. (At the moment they are distinct which is why you have the fiction of the Government merely being the Crown-in-Parliament)
Off topic, but many will find these two small steps cheering:
One of the differences between President Donald Trump’s first and second terms is the meekness of Senate Republicans. The GOP caucus in 2025 has acquiesced to appointments of extreme or unqualified people to powerful executive-branch roles who never would have passed muster in 2017. But it’s good to know there’s still a limit somewhere after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) warned Monday night that his conference would reject the nomination of Paul Ingrassia, a 30-year-old provocateur, to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Thanks to their six-year terms, senators can often look farther ahead than House members -- and sometimes do.
Former senator John E. Sununu (R) said Wednesday that he is running to reclaim his old seat representing New Hampshire, hoping to return to the chamber to replace Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who is retiring next year.
In a video posted online Wednesday, the Republican pitched himself as a candidate who would help “calm the waters” in a “loud, dysfunctional, even angry” Congress.
Sununu has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump in the past and supported GOP rivals in Trump’s presidential primaries.
(For the record: I preferred the same two alternatives to the Loser than Sununu did in 2016 and 2024, John Kasich and Nikki Haley)
John Sununu's brother Chris was the Governor of New Hampshire.
That said... while New Hampshire is relatively purple (especially in its choice of Governor), I think a run at the Senate in a mid-term year is going to be a really tough ask.
In 2022, when Biden was extremely unpopular, the Democrats held it by ten percentage points.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
There is the law they brought in to enable prosecution of British people for sex crimes abroad even if not breaking the law in the UK think was mainly brought in for the Gary Glitters of the world - that seemed to be a line Helena Kennedy was taking the other day.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
I haven’t, no. I’m not particularly in a hurry to do so. I am not trying to excuse prince Andrew. I don’t like the man (although I do have a soft spot for Sarah). But either he has broken the law or he hasn’t. Punishing someone based on unproven allegations is a bad precedent to set.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
There is a difference between “excusing him” and I don’t think anyone here thinks he didn’t do a lot of bad things, and just punishing him for things that are either legal but distasteful/sick or unproven.
Whilst I haven’t read the book (have you?) someone who has a book written making accusations is not the same as something being proven in court. We have no real idea if a lot of what he is being lambasted for with regards to her are true because they can’t be tested and there is no clear evidence.
It’s a horrid situation but I still hope we live in a country where the law is the arbiter of guilt not a book.
Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
Has he been found guilty of anything?
No but they’re not proposing imprisoning him, which is a common outcome of what he’s been accused of. People legitimately get fired from jobs just for brining the employer into disrepute. Why not get him fired from the aristocracy?
In the Middle Ages or even the Tudor period Andrew would probably have been heading for a cell in the Tower of London and beheading by now, certainly once his nephew became King
Traditionally, annoying royal dukes were permitted to choose their own deaths.
That's how the Duke of Clarence was drowned in a vat of Malmsey wine in 1478.
I'm wondering what the equivalent would be for Andrew, but I'm not comfortable with the images his - ahem - preferences are conjuring.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
There is the law they brought in to enable prosecution of British people for sex crimes abroad even if not breaking the law in the UK think was mainly brought in for the Gary Glitters of the world - that seemed to be a line Helena Kennedy was taking the other day.
When was that brought in though? The events Andrew is accused of were 15-20 years ago?
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
There is the law they brought in to enable prosecution of British people for sex crimes abroad even if not breaking the law in the UK think was mainly brought in for the Gary Glitters of the world - that seemed to be a line Helena Kennedy was taking the other day.
When was that brought in though? The events Andrew is accused of were 15-20 years ago?
No idea, it sort of makes a point that everyone is running around trying to find a way to hang him in every way they can without really asking if it’s appropriate, fair, possible, legal. They want blood and he’s the big target and a useful distraction for the many others who likely did the same.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
In a video posted online Wednesday, the Republican pitched himself as a candidate who would help “calm the waters” in a “loud, dysfunctional, even angry” Congress.
Except Congress is not loud or angry, it has made itself irrelevant
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
Councils (and those with Council like powers*) have the option to stop the process - the process being pay the fine or go to the Magistrates Court. The thought of the going to court frightens people and the instructions never mention the option of getting the Council to cancel these. So almost everyone pays.
(I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.
Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
Also the use of the phrase "died of suicide", which whilst technically correct assigns little agency to the decedent
Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
Has he been found guilty of anything?
No but they’re not proposing imprisoning him, which is a common outcome of what he’s been accused of. People legitimately get fired from jobs just for brining the employer into disrepute. Why not get him fired from the aristocracy?
In the Middle Ages or even the Tudor period Andrew would probably have been heading for a cell in the Tower of London and beheading by now, certainly once his nephew became King
Traditionally, annoying royal dukes were permitted to choose their own deaths.
That's how the Duke of Clarence was drowned in a vat of Malmsey wine in 1478.
I'm wondering what the equivalent would be for Andrew, but I'm not comfortable with the images his - ahem - preferences are conjuring.
Drowning is apparently very painful. Although I don't know how they know.
Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
Has he been found guilty of anything?
No but they’re not proposing imprisoning him, which is a common outcome of what he’s been accused of. People legitimately get fired from jobs just for brining the employer into disrepute. Why not get him fired from the aristocracy?
The RF and its wider household does seem to be called The Firm.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
There is the law they brought in to enable prosecution of British people for sex crimes abroad even if not breaking the law in the UK think was mainly brought in for the Gary Glitters of the world - that seemed to be a line Helena Kennedy was taking the other day.
I thought it was the opposite - it allowed prosecution of British people for things done abroad that were lawful there but would already be offences if done in the UK ?
Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
Has he been found guilty of anything?
As far as I can see it not even underage sex in the UK where the age of consent is 16, potentially in New York where the age of consent is 18. Not proved he knew Giuffre was trafficked either or the sex was not consensual.
In UK terms the only clear offence he is perhaps guilty of is leaking Giuffre's social security details to his security detail but DPA breaches are ICO not police matters unless breaches of police investigations
Personally, I think Andrew was plenty arrogant enough to believe that Giuffre was into him. Clearly he is a Grade 1 shitebag, but the hysteria over him is deeply confected, distracting as it does from Epstein's other pals, who are still able to travel around the world being feted as philanthropists. Andrew has had the misfortune to just be a British minor Royal, and stupid with it, so he's become the unwilling designated defendant.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
(I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.
Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
Also the use of the phrase "died of suicide", which whilst technically correct assigns little agency to the decedent
It's to prevent, or at least minimise, copycats, I believe. Commoner than one might think, above all where celebs are involved, but not jusdt them.
'The importance of responsible media reporting on suicides cannot be overstated, as the way suicidal behavior is portrayed can significantly impact public perception and behavior. Research indicates that media reporting and portrayal of suicidal acts can have negative influences, potentially facilitating suicidal behavior among those exposed to such information [30]. Studies have also shown that media items about suicide can be associated with increases in actual suicide rates, highlighting the critical need for careful and sensitive reporting [16]. Responsible reporting practices, such as avoiding sensationalism and providing information on where to seek help, can encourage open conversations about suicidality and stimulate help-seeking behavior among individuals considering suicide [31]. By adhering to ethical guidelines, media outlets can play a pivotal role in preventing suicide emulation and promoting a more informed and supportive public discourse.'
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
There is the law they brought in to enable prosecution of British people for sex crimes abroad even if not breaking the law in the UK think was mainly brought in for the Gary Glitters of the world - that seemed to be a line Helena Kennedy was taking the other day.
I thought it was the opposite - it allowed prosecution of British people for things done abroad that were lawful there but would already be offences if done in the UK ?
Congratulations for spotting my deliberate mistake. Thanks.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
Has he been found guilty of anything?
As far as I can see it not even underage sex in the UK where the age of consent is 16, potentially in New York where the age of consent is 18. Not proved he knew Giuffre was trafficked either or the sex was not consensual.
In UK terms the only clear offence he is perhaps guilty of is leaking Giuffre's social security details to his security detail but DPA breaches are ICO not police matters unless breaches of police investigations
Personally, I think Andrew was plenty arrogant enough to believe that Giuffre was into him. Clearly he is a Grade 1 shitebag, but the hysteria over him is deeply confected, distracting as it does from Epstein's other pals, who are still able to travel around the world being feted as philanthropists. Andrew has had the misfortune to just be a British minor Royal, and stupid with it, so he's become the unwilling designated defendant.
There’s a whole set of other dodgy issues when it comes to Andrew and his work as a “Trade Envoy” alongside he sources of money.
The Epstein bit is just the most obvious bit of his dubiousness
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
The council would gave had to demonstrate that the 25ml of coffee would be “likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health”. Good luck with that.
Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.
The Lam thing is definitely worth more scrutiny, as is pretty much everything at the moment such as the economy, Ukraine etc etc. unfortunately you don’t get to look so worthy going on the tv and radio and tik tok saying how awful Prince Andrew is and spouting about living in a “30 room mansion” at the taxpayers expense and all that.
Margaret Hodge was worryingly excitable about it all this morning on Today with quite a lot of guesswork about the status of his lease leading to some pretty absolute conclusions on her part.
She was very open that she is using this to demand more scrutiny of the Royals’ funding and thought it awful that he was living it up in Royal Lodge at the taxpayers expense despite not knowing if it was the Royal Family’s own money paying for it, the sovereign grant, the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster, or even (regardless of how he earns it) his own money.
I’m still trying to think of one person, Hodge, Helena Kennedy the other morning, for examples who have made a large point about the vast number of men, especially in the US who are slipping under the radar for doing what Prince Andrew did. This is an easy kicking now, let’s see them go for other people who are alleged to have also been up to no good.
Most of the Royal Family's "own" money belongs to the crown, ie the state, not the family as individuals though.
If we became a republic then the Crown Estates would become our republic's estates, not disappear as the personal private fiefdom of an individual.
The Crown Estate and Duchies have belonged to the Crown since Norman and Medieval times, they are not public sector nor taxpayer funded.
That’s exactly the point.
They belong to the *Crown* not the *King*
If we became a republic (and I don’t believe that is a good idea) then the State and the Crown merge. (At the moment they are distinct which is why you have the fiction of the Government merely being the Crown-in-Parliament)
They belong to the monarch as corporation sole they are not nationalised public sector lands.
Indeed they existed for centuries when the State effectively was the King and his advisers and the aristocrats and wealthy gentry and burgesses who made up parliament. The state as we now know it with an NHS, welfare state and social homes, state education, a state police force, legal aid, state railways, sizeable civil service and local government etc only really developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Indeed even Prime Ministers only emerged in the 18th century with their Cabinets
Twitter are amusing calling Starmers small boats policy the “hokey cokey” system.
Where's @Leon? We have the release of a Conservative immigrant repatriation scheme beyond the fever dreams of Enoch Powell, and not a peep from him.
Is the Katie Lamifesto published somewhere in her own words?
She said: “There are also a large number of people in this country who came here legally, but in effect shouldn’t have been able to do so. It’s not the fault of the individuals who came here, they just shouldn’t have been able to do so.
“They will also need to go home. What that will leave is a mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.”
This will be considered the settled mainstream opinion before too long I suspect.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
I agree but ignorance of the law is no defence and she still broke the law even if just a warning would have been the sensible outcome given it was not lots of liquid poured down the drain
That nobody has noticed until late October shows the pickle the Conservatives are in. People aren't interested, even when they are proposing terrible batshit things.
Twitter are amusing calling Starmers small boats policy the “hokey cokey” system.
Where's @Leon? We have the release of a Conservative immigrant repatriation scheme beyond the fever dreams of Enoch Powell, and not a peep from him.
Is the Katie Lamifesto published somewhere in her own words?
She said: “There are also a large number of people in this country who came here legally, but in effect shouldn’t have been able to do so. It’s not the fault of the individuals who came here, they just shouldn’t have been able to do so.
“They will also need to go home. What that will leave is a mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.”
This will be considered the settled mainstream opinion before too long I suspect.
That's it?
It's hardly Mein Kampf.
The Boriswave came here legally - there is widespread political consensus that they shouldn't have been able to do so, and ILR is (afaicr) already being delayed for that cohort.
On Andrew Windsor. The thornier question for Parliament is surely not what name or accommodation arrangements he keeps. But whether he is enjoying the undisclosed protection of the British state from foreign law enforcement.
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
That nobody has noticed until late October shows the pickle the Conservatives are in. People aren't interested, even when they are proposing terrible batshit things.
Regarding the bill, I respect your view, but...
CONTENTS PART 1 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 DISAPPLICATION 1 Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 PART 2 INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN 2 Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom 3 Revocation of Indefinite Leave to Remain in certain circumstances PART 3 VISAS 4 Cap on the number of entrants 5 Restrictions on visas and grants of indefinite leave to remain 6 Restrictions on visas for partners and civil partners 7 Removals from the United Kingdom: visa penalties for uncooperative countries PART 4 FOREIGN NATIONAL OFFENDERS 8 Offences and deportation PART 5 DATA PROTECTION 9 Exemptions from the UK GDPR: illegal migration and foreign criminals PART 6 SCIENTIFIC AGE ASSESSMENT 10 Age assessments: use of scientific methods
On Andrew Windsor. The thornier question for Parliament is surely not what name or accommodation arrangements he keeps. But whether he is enjoying the undisclosed protection of the British state from foreign law enforcement.
Yes spot on. You'd think some Republican would at least bring it up? Although I think I read apparently parliament isnt even allowed to discuss it... some system we have huh?
(I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.
Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
Also the use of the phrase "died of suicide", which whilst technically correct assigns little agency to the decedent
Surely you can't report that as a fact till after an inquest anyways? As it isn't a fact till then.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
That was hinted at on Sunday - can't remember where I saw it but somewhere said only 1 in 3 rooms have cameras.
Let's be blunt cameras aren't exactly expensive nowadays...
The story keeps getting better. In 2019, they changed the old jewel display cases - featuring bulletproof glass and metal drop safe inside - with regular glass museum display cases.
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
US authorities refused to hand over Anne Sacoolas to UK law enforcement after she killed Harry Dunn. So that she was able to only agree to plead and receive a suspended sentence from the Old Bailey by videolink from the US they can hardly complain about Andrew
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
Given US authorities refused to hand over Anne Sacoolas to UK law enforcement after she killed Harry Dunn. So that she was able to only agree to plead and receive a suspended sentence from the Old Bailey by videolink from the US they can hardly complain about Andrew
On Andrew Windsor. The thornier question for Parliament is surely not what name or accommodation arrangements he keeps. But whether he is enjoying the undisclosed protection of the British state from foreign law enforcement.
I know a Solicitor in Cheshire who has sadly just had her home repossessed. Surprisingly after just a couple of weeks she has been given a council flat.
I don't believe we should throw Andrew Windsor out on the street so a council flat works, if he can support the rent.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
Has he been found guilty of anything?
No but they’re not proposing imprisoning him, which is a common outcome of what he’s been accused of. People legitimately get fired from jobs just for brining the employer into disrepute. Why not get him fired from the aristocracy?
In the Middle Ages or even the Tudor period Andrew would probably have been heading for a cell in the Tower of London and beheading by now, certainly once his nephew became King
Traditionally, annoying royal dukes were permitted to choose their own deaths.
That's how the Duke of Clarence was drowned in a vat of Malmsey wine in 1478.
I'm wondering what the equivalent would be for Andrew, but I'm not comfortable with the images his - ahem - preferences are conjuring.
Drowning is apparently very painful. Although I don't know how they know.
I suppose quite a few people have drowned and been resuscitated, so can testify. Pretty much up there as worst possible death for me. Being a Babylon Berlin bore, this is one of the best (ie worst) drowning scenarios.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
US authorities refused to hand over Anne Sacoolas to UK law enforcement after she killed Harry Dunn. So that she was able to only agree to plead and receive a suspended sentence from the Old Bailey by videolink from the US they can hardly complain about Andrew
The two wrongs make a right school of thought. Personally I'd prefer justice for both Anne and Andrew but I'd take either as a win.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Biodegradable, non-toxic, too (usually - some stuff has strong effects on water life, but IIRC that's mainly drugs and so on, so girls and boys, don't pish in the gutter).
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
US authorities refused to hand over Anne Sacoolas to UK law enforcement after she killed Harry Dunn. So that she was able to only agree to plead and receive a suspended sentence from the Old Bailey by videolink from the US they can hardly complain about Andrew
The two wrongs make a right school of thought. Personally I'd prefer justice for both Anne and Andrew but I'd take either as a win.
No, otherwise US law enforcement and the FBI and CIA will just take it as one way traffic for them to charge Brits who convict crimes in the US in US courts in person while Yanks who commit crimes in the UK go to UK courts by videolink only if at all
Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
Has he been found guilty of anything?
As far as I can see it not even underage sex in the UK where the age of consent is 16, potentially in New York where the age of consent is 18. Not proved he knew Giuffre was trafficked either or the sex was not consensual.
In UK terms the only clear offence he is perhaps guilty of is leaking Giuffre's social security details to his security detail but DPA breaches are ICO not police matters unless breaches of police investigations
Personally, I think Andrew was plenty arrogant enough to believe that Giuffre was into him. Clearly he is a Grade 1 shitebag, but the hysteria over him is deeply confected, distracting as it does from Epstein's other pals, who are still able to travel around the world being feted as philanthropists. Andrew has had the misfortune to just be a British minor Royal, and stupid with it, so he's become the unwilling designated defendant.
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
How many Americans do the US authorities want to question in association with Epstein ?
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
On Andrew Windsor. The thornier question for Parliament is surely not what name or accommodation arrangements he keeps. But whether he is enjoying the undisclosed protection of the British state from foreign law enforcement.
I know a Solicitor in Cheshire who has sadly just had her home repossessed. Surprisingly after just a couple of weeks she has been given a council flat.
I don't believe we should throw Andrew Windsor out on the street so a council flat works, if he can support the rent.
That seems an improbable story, if I'm honest.
First, it suggests there are councils with the ability to rehome at short notice rather than getting endlessly tied up in red tape doing pointless impact assessments.
Second, it suggests a solicitor somehow ran out of money.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
Has he been found guilty of anything?
As far as I can see it not even underage sex in the UK where the age of consent is 16, potentially in New York where the age of consent is 18. Not proved he knew Giuffre was trafficked either or the sex was not consensual.
In UK terms the only clear offence he is perhaps guilty of is leaking Giuffre's social security details to his security detail but DPA breaches are ICO not police matters unless breaches of police investigations
Personally, I think Andrew was plenty arrogant enough to believe that Giuffre was into him. Clearly he is a Grade 1 shitebag, but the hysteria over him is deeply confected, distracting as it does from Epstein's other pals, who are still able to travel around the world being feted as philanthropists. Andrew has had the misfortune to just be a British minor Royal, and stupid with it, so he's become the unwilling designated defendant.
(I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.
Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
Also the use of the phrase "died of suicide", which whilst technically correct assigns little agency to the decedent
EXCLUSIVE: Kemi Badenoch 'caught red handed' trying to pass Tories off as ordinary voters in video Kemi Badenoch has been mocked after sharing a clip showing her visiting a woman's home and talking about stamp duty - only for it to emerge that two people who took part are Tory councillors https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/kemi-badenoch-caught-red-handed-36110211
Small potatoes, and we have seen this sort of thing before, but it really does like CCHQ is setting up their leader for ritual humiliation.
Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
Has he been found guilty of anything?
No but they’re not proposing imprisoning him, which is a common outcome of what he’s been accused of. People legitimately get fired from jobs just for brining the employer into disrepute. Why not get him fired from the aristocracy?
In the Middle Ages or even the Tudor period Andrew would probably have been heading for a cell in the Tower of London and beheading by now, certainly once his nephew became King
Traditionally, annoying royal dukes were permitted to choose their own deaths.
That's how the Duke of Clarence was drowned in a vat of Malmsey wine in 1478.
I'm wondering what the equivalent would be for Andrew, but I'm not comfortable with the images his - ahem - preferences are conjuring.
Drowning is apparently very painful. Although I don't know how they know.
Presumably from those who very nearly drowned but came back.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
Same disclaimer, but AIUI she was OVER the age of consent in UK, although BELOW it in New York.
Twitter are amusing calling Starmers small boats policy the “hokey cokey” system.
Where's @Leon? We have the release of a Conservative immigrant repatriation scheme beyond the fever dreams of Enoch Powell, and not a peep from him.
Is the Katie Lamifesto published somewhere in her own words?
She said: “There are also a large number of people in this country who came here legally, but in effect shouldn’t have been able to do so. It’s not the fault of the individuals who came here, they just shouldn’t have been able to do so.
“They will also need to go home. What that will leave is a mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.”
This will be considered the settled mainstream opinion before too long I suspect.
That's it?
It's hardly Mein Kampf.
The Boriswave came here legally - there is widespread political consensus that they shouldn't have been able to do so, and ILR is (afaicr) already being delayed for that cohort.
Whether it is acceptable to sane opinion is left open.
The words could mean: There are people lawfully in this country who may have had expectation of being allowed to stay longer than presently permitted but will be disappointed.
That is fair.
Or, at the other extreme, it may mean: No-one who arrived here from abroad, whatever their current status, should assume they have any right to remain, and statuses like citizenship and ILR can and will be removed where the government feels like it, including those whose status was established by treaty (eg in the Brexit deal) and just because you have been here since Windrush makes no difference.
On Andrew Windsor. The thornier question for Parliament is surely not what name or accommodation arrangements he keeps. But whether he is enjoying the undisclosed protection of the British state from foreign law enforcement.
Yes spot on. You'd think some Republican would at least bring it up? Although I think I read apparently parliament isnt even allowed to discuss it... some system we have huh?
At least that saves us the spectacle of endless numbers of MPs standing up tearfully telling us how they too had to suffer orgies with Prince Andrew and Epstein.
It seems to be the way of parliament these days in that MPs feel the need to emote and share their personal stories at any opportunity.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
That none of the “consumers” of the Epstein girls have been charged is deeply suspicious. What absolutely stinks the house down is that nothing much has been revealed about the sources and uses of cash in his investment firm. Quite frankly, the sex might just be the dead cat to industrial scale money laundering on behalf of his clients. The girls were just the after party.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
Same disclaimer, but AIUI she was OVER the age of consent in UK, although BELOW it in New York.
Plus over the age of consent on Epstein's island, astonishingly the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is just 13, though 16 if a much older adult involved (still would have been legal in Andrew's case though)
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Indeed, what is the point of being a Prince if one has to bother to be concerned about what common voters think? Surely getting elected and winning votes is for members of the House of Commons to bother with? One was not even King, one's boring effete over educated brother was
Indeed, what is the point of being a Prince if one has to bother to be concerned about what common voters think? Surely getting elected and winning votes is for members of the House of Commons to bother with? One was not even King, one's boring effete over educated brother was
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Yes exactly right. If the higher rate tax deduction is eliminated, it’s bye bye monthly SIPP direct debit for me.
EXCLUSIVE: Kemi Badenoch 'caught red handed' trying to pass Tories off as ordinary voters in video Kemi Badenoch has been mocked after sharing a clip showing her visiting a woman's home and talking about stamp duty - only for it to emerge that two people who took part are Tory councillors https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/kemi-badenoch-caught-red-handed-36110211
Small potatoes, and we have seen this sort of thing before, but it really does like CCHQ is setting up their leader for ritual humiliation.
Kemi's number must be up now we have found the new Thatcher and Thatcher with a hint of Peter Griffiths and Enoch Powell at that. What's not to like?
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
Under the age of consent, which is 18 if they have crossed state lines which she did, IIRC.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
That none of the “consumers” of the Epstein girls have been charged is deeply suspicious. What absolutely stinks the house down is that nothing much has been revealed about the sources and uses of cash in his investment firm. Quite frankly, the sex might just be the dead cat to industrial scale money laundering on behalf of his clients. The girls were just the after party.
I think that is very probably the elephant in the room. A foreign power which is usually understood to be Israel is said to have been involved. However suppose that's a false flag. It would certainly be a mechanism for that country to direct some of its assets, notably, but probably not exclusively, DJT.
EXCLUSIVE: Kemi Badenoch 'caught red handed' trying to pass Tories off as ordinary voters in video Kemi Badenoch has been mocked after sharing a clip showing her visiting a woman's home and talking about stamp duty - only for it to emerge that two people who took part are Tory councillors https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/kemi-badenoch-caught-red-handed-36110211
Small potatoes, and we have seen this sort of thing before, but it really does like CCHQ is setting up their leader for ritual humiliation.
Never put down to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
This really might be the best that the shattered remains of CCHQ can produce.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
You can only put £20K pa into an ISA. If wealthy people don't want to save for a pension, that's up to them.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
I can see the benefit to society in encouraging people to save say 500k to pay for retirement so the taxpayer doesnt have to for everyone.
What on earth is the benefit to society in encouraging people who already have saved 500k, or £1m to save further money? Why should we forego tax to do this?
I am yet to come up with a better answer than it suits the powers that be, who are wealthy enough to take advantage, including MPs.
That nobody has noticed until late October shows the pickle the Conservatives are in. People aren't interested, even when they are proposing terrible batshit things.
Regarding the bill, I respect your view, but...
CONTENTS PART 1 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 DISAPPLICATION 1 Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 PART 2 INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN 2 Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom 3 Revocation of Indefinite Leave to Remain in certain circumstances PART 3 VISAS 4 Cap on the number of entrants 5 Restrictions on visas and grants of indefinite leave to remain 6 Restrictions on visas for partners and civil partners 7 Removals from the United Kingdom: visa penalties for uncooperative countries PART 4 FOREIGN NATIONAL OFFENDERS 8 Offences and deportation PART 5 DATA PROTECTION 9 Exemptions from the UK GDPR: illegal migration and foreign criminals PART 6 SCIENTIFIC AGE ASSESSMENT 10 Age assessments: use of scientific methods
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, oh, and yes.
To adapt and negate Estelle Reine's line from When Harry Met Sally, I won't have what he's having.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
You can only put £20K pa into an ISA. If wealthy people don't want to save for a pension, that's up to them.
It is - however - worth remembering that people in the UK save too little generally.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
Most of the time. It's only when there is a heavy flash flood that the system is overwhelmed and the heavy metal flaps open up into the river pouring out a mixture of rainwater and shit.
Thames Water has dumped large volumes of sewage into the Thames, with one estimate suggesting over 72 billion litres between 2020 and 2023 alone. That's about 72 million tons.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
I think you forget one big thing driving pension contributions: the employer contribution, which may well come with a required employee contribution or some kind of matching arrangement. If higher rate tax relief was removed I might put less in versus other options, but the employer contribution is "free money" so I would keep doing at least the minimum requirement to get that. People far enough up the income curve may also run into their ISA allowance limit, but IDK how big a slice of higher rate earners that affects.
As it is now, incidentally, for basic rate taxpayers the choice between ISA and pension is a bit of a tossup tax-wise, so the pension being only marginally beneficial for a chunk of the population is not new.
What do you think of the proposal to provide 30% relief to everyone, so basic rate taxpayers get a better deal on paying in and higher rate payers a worse one (but still better than ISAs) ?
(The thing we really want to avoid I think is people switching from a basically mostly equities by default pension to an ISA where I think many people will be likely to go for the cash ISA rather than the shares one when presented with the choice.)
That nobody has noticed until late October shows the pickle the Conservatives are in. People aren't interested, even when they are proposing terrible batshit things.
Regarding the bill, I respect your view, but...
CONTENTS PART 1 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 DISAPPLICATION 1 Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 PART 2 INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN 2 Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom 3 Revocation of Indefinite Leave to Remain in certain circumstances PART 3 VISAS 4 Cap on the number of entran ts 5 Restrictions on visas and grants of indefinite leave to remain 6 Restrictions on visas for partners and civil partners 7 Removals from the United Kingdom: visa penalties for uncooperative countries PART 4 FOREIGN NATIONAL OFFENDERS 8 Offences and deportation PART 5 DATA PROTECTION 9 Exemptions from the UK GDPR: illegal migration and foreign criminals PART 6 SCIENTIFIC AGE ASSESSMENT 10 Age assessments: use of scientific methods
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, oh, and yes.
To adapt and negate Estelle Reine's line from When Harry Met Sally, I won't have what he's having.
Indeed, what is the point of being a Prince if one has to bother to be concerned about what common voters think? Surely getting elected and winning votes is for members of the House of Commons to bother with? One was not even King, one's boring effete over educated brother was
Comments
Do enlighten us.
They belong to the *Crown* not the *King*
If we became a republic (and I don’t believe that is a good idea) then the State and the Crown merge. (At the moment they are distinct which is why you have the fiction of the Government merely being the Crown-in-Parliament)
(Ingrassia withdrew soon after this was published.)
Thanks to their six-year terms, senators can often look farther ahead than House members -- and sometimes do. source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/22/john-sununu-new-hampshire-senate/
Sununu earned a masters degree in mechanical engineering from MIT, and an MBA from Harvard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Sununu
(For the record: I preferred the same two alternatives to the Loser than Sununu did in 2016 and 2024, John Kasich and Nikki Haley)
John Sununu's brother Chris was the Governor of New Hampshire.
That said... while New Hampshire is relatively purple (especially in its choice of Governor), I think a run at the Senate in a mid-term year is going to be a really tough ask.
In 2022, when Biden was extremely unpopular, the Democrats held it by ten percentage points.
Whilst I haven’t read the book (have you?) someone who has a book written making accusations is not the same as something being proven in court. We have no real idea if a lot of what he is being lambasted for with regards to her are true because they can’t be tested and there is no clear evidence.
It’s a horrid situation but I still hope we live in a country where the law is the arbiter of guilt not a book.
making the council look like total idiotsa minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg435gg66gpo
*Railways
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c1wl05nvqz8t
Let's be blunt cameras aren't exactly expensive nowadays...
'The importance of responsible media reporting on suicides cannot be overstated, as the way suicidal behavior is portrayed can significantly impact public perception and behavior. Research indicates that media reporting and portrayal of suicidal acts can have negative influences, potentially facilitating suicidal behavior among those exposed to such information [30]. Studies have also shown that media items about suicide can be associated with increases in actual suicide rates, highlighting the critical need for careful and sensitive reporting [16]. Responsible reporting practices, such as avoiding sensationalism and providing information on where to seek help, can encourage open conversations about suicidality and stimulate help-seeking behavior among individuals considering suicide [31]. By adhering to ethical guidelines, media outlets can play a pivotal role in preventing suicide emulation and promoting a more informed and supportive public discourse.'
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11641853/#sec5-jcm-13-07118
The Epstein bit is just the most obvious bit of his dubiousness
Indeed they existed for centuries when the State effectively was the King and his advisers and the aristocrats and wealthy gentry and burgesses who made up parliament. The state as we now know it with an NHS, welfare state and social homes, state education, a state police force, legal aid, state railways, sizeable civil service and local government etc only really developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Indeed even Prime Ministers only emerged in the 18th century with their Cabinets
“They will also need to go home. What that will leave is a mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.”
This will be considered the settled mainstream opinion before too long I suspect.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0234/240234.pdf
Here's the Lamifesto (good work sir) in video form from July.
https://x.com/Katie_Lam_MP/status/1958837268614914361
That nobody has noticed until late October shows the pickle the Conservatives are in. People aren't interested, even when they are proposing terrible batshit things.
We all know who did it. Retired my arse.
It's hardly Mein Kampf.
The Boriswave came here legally - there is widespread political consensus that they shouldn't have been able to do so, and ILR is (afaicr) already being delayed for that cohort.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
PART 1
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 DISAPPLICATION
1 Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998
PART 2
INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN
2 Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom
3 Revocation of Indefinite Leave to Remain in certain circumstances
PART 3
VISAS
4 Cap on the number of entrants
5 Restrictions on visas and grants of indefinite leave to remain
6 Restrictions on visas for partners and civil partners
7 Removals from the United Kingdom: visa penalties for uncooperative
countries
PART 4
FOREIGN NATIONAL OFFENDERS
8 Offences and deportation
PART 5
DATA PROTECTION
9 Exemptions from the UK GDPR: illegal migration and foreign criminals
PART 6
SCIENTIFIC AGE ASSESSMENT
10 Age assessments: use of scientific methods
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, oh, and yes.
As it isn't a fact till then.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that?
If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings.
A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
https://x.com/bastionmediafr/status/1980314630888264121
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
...
I don't believe we should throw Andrew Windsor out on the street so a council flat works, if he can support the rent.
Being a Babylon Berlin bore, this is one of the best (ie worst) drowning scenarios.
https://youtu.be/qvBYHQsrudQ?si=L_IlRFsVRMbgx0bw
Personally I'd prefer justice for both Anne and Andrew but I'd take either as a win.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
First, it suggests there are councils with the ability to rehome at short notice rather than getting endlessly tied up in red tape doing pointless impact assessments.
Second, it suggests a solicitor somehow ran out of money.
Kemi Badenoch has been mocked after sharing a clip showing her visiting a woman's home and talking about stamp duty - only for it to emerge that two people who took part are Tory councillors
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/kemi-badenoch-caught-red-handed-36110211
Small potatoes, and we have seen this sort of thing before, but it really does like CCHQ is setting up their leader for ritual humiliation.
Although use of mediums cannot be ruled.
The words could mean: There are people lawfully in this country who may have had expectation of being allowed to stay longer than presently permitted but will be disappointed.
That is fair.
Or, at the other extreme, it may mean: No-one who arrived here from abroad, whatever their current status, should assume they have any right to remain, and statuses like citizenship and ILR can and will be removed where the government feels like it, including those whose status was established by treaty (eg in the Brexit deal) and just because you have been here since Windrush makes no difference.
That is the Mein Kampf tendency.
It seems to be the way of parliament these days in that MPs feel the need to emote and share their personal stories at any opportunity.
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs?
2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
This really might be the best that the shattered remains of CCHQ can produce.
If wealthy people don't want to save for a pension, that's up to them.
What on earth is the benefit to society in encouraging people who already have saved 500k, or £1m to save further money? Why should we forego tax to do this?
I am yet to come up with a better answer than it suits the powers that be, who are wealthy enough to take advantage, including MPs.
Anyone?
Thames Water has dumped large volumes of sewage into the Thames, with one estimate suggesting over 72 billion litres between 2020 and 2023 alone. That's about 72 million tons.
As it is now, incidentally, for basic rate taxpayers the choice between ISA and pension is a bit of a tossup tax-wise, so the pension being only marginally beneficial for a chunk of the population is not new.
What do you think of the proposal to provide 30% relief to everyone, so basic rate taxpayers get a better deal on paying in and higher rate payers a worse one (but still better than ISAs) ?
(The thing we really want to avoid I think is people switching from a basically mostly equities by default pension to an ISA where I think many people will be likely to go for the cash ISA rather than the shares one when presented with the choice.)