Replying to @MagistratesBlog
If he pleads guilty at trial, will he forfeit some credit due to not doing so at first chance?
Both answers seem bad! Unjust if he is punished for the court literally refusing his plea. Exploitable if you can use this tactic to delay a guilty plea without forfeiting full credit.
Replying to @edwest
Not correct, I think? You're conflating the actions of the two attackers. Brown bottled him; Akinlolu (who is sentenced on the basis that he wrongly thought the victim was the initial attacker and joined the fight to protect Brown) is the one who kicked him on the ground.
Replying to @rorymeakin
That mitigates the seriousness but doesn't change the principle, IMO
Replying to @XplodingCabbage @rorymeakin
If I understand right, the problem was that some of her crazy woke utterances (entirely unrelated to her job) were deemed dishonest, and thus violations of the code of conduct for architects?
Okay - so do we also strike off architects who cheat on their wives and lie about it?
Replying to @rorymeakin
Sounds like a lunatic but
1. we don't have full context for any of this
2. lots of it, maybe all of it, should be within the realm of what we consider free speech
3. even if some is rightly not, I do not see why it is any business of the ARB!
Replying to @BettyBoochichi2 @PC_Angry
Clearly the police had, at a minimum, contact details for her solicitor.
Replying to @annaellis_net
This letter is not being sent to £200k earners. It's being sent to billionaires. You can of course still object to that, but I have no idea where the notion is coming from that everyone covered by the WMBC team is going to get sent this letter. I certainly haven't!
Yeah.
Asking for a listing of assets and non-professional guesstimate values from every £200k+ earner would be obnoxious but is maybe plausible.
But literally THIS letter as claimed? A detailed face-to-face tax analysis with every £200k+ earner? Completely insane, surely?
Perhaps we'll be proved wrong, but I tend to think @camdenInCrypto is right that the claim is laughable bullshit; doing that would obviously make no sense!
In any case the OP in this thread clearly implied that's what's happening NOW, which is just false.
Do you have a subscription to The Times? What is their basis for claiming this could be extended to anyone with £200k in income? Seems obviously absurd on its face. Do they claim any actual evidence of that or is it just wild engagement-seeking speculation?
Replying to @KatarinaHill2
For those of us not in the loop, what and who are you talking about?
Replying to @adam_copp @StatisticUrban
Why would they do that, though? There's no reason to. Just take the promotion, put the extra money in your SIPP, and look forward to a more comfortable and/or earlier retirement.
Replying to @XplodingCabbage @StatisticUrban
(And there is both a productivity-wastage and an equality angle to that story. I have friends who, just by virtue of not having a middle-class dad telling them what to do, made stupid mistakes for years like not having an ISA (because they didn't know such a thing even existed).)
Replying to @XplodingCabbage @StatisticUrban
(IMO the right story here is not about a true disincentive to earn that extra £1000, because there isn't one, but rather about how much of succeeding at modern UK life is about knowing how to navigate tax and benefit systems & other bureaucracy, not doing anything useful!)
Replying to @XplodingCabbage @StatisticUrban
It's still dumb and should be fixed, of course, but when trying to understand why it doesn't get fixed, one should understand that the problem is somewhat overstated by right-wingers on Twitter.
Replying to @XplodingCabbage @StatisticUrban
And PROBABLY if you are earning £100k you are in fact sufficiently aware of how tax rules on this stuff work that you know you can do this, and you'll avoid getting caught in the trap.
Probably.
Replying to @StatisticUrban
It's PERHAPS not actually THAT big a deal. If you are financially literate you don't really get a marginal rate of 2000% because you can chuck that extra income in a SIPP (pension) or give it to charity and thereby deduct it from your "adjusted net income" and avoid the cliffs.
Replying to @BarbaraRich_law @willieckerslike
The IHRA definition is awful and deserves contempt - but more importantly, it's antisemitic and racist simply in the plain ordinary sense of those words.
