Current Affairs

[towny44]

One of the biggest problems is that time served prisoners are released back into the same environment from which they honed their skills. The blame lies with successive governments who have created the ghettos in which crime becomes a way of life.

Not sure why you blame the govt, most ghettos started out as pleasant areas to live, their deterioration into squalid areas littered with graffiti and fly tipped waste is surely down to the standards set by the people who live there.
Or are you attributing poverty to crime, I grew up in a back to back with an outside loo and a tin bath in the cellar, with hardly 2 pennies to rub together, but kept meticulously clean by my war widowed mother, and I know that poverty does not of itself lead to crime.

[screwy]

Why are psychiatrists and psychologists always right.?
Because. ‘ they ‘ say they are.!

Please don’t underestimate the skill sets of Prison Officers, Officers not Screws.

[Kendhni]

Ken, I suspect that because human nature is so varied that your ideas of re-educating prisoners would only work on a certain percentage, and that it is likely you would need several treatment regimes to convince enough prisoners to reform when released, and of course not all would succeed.
Which sort of leaves the cheapest and most effective system as deterrence, make prison so uncomfortable and dire that a life of crime loses its appeal. Not necessarily what I would propose but it does have its appeal to the masses.

Not that long ago I would probably have agreed with you almost completely, however over the last few years I have learned that people are easily manipulated and they are not as individual as they like to think they are. When you think about it that actually becomes more obvious. We receive similar education, read the same news, similar upbringing and get roughly the same moral values instilled in us ... although the 'weight' each individual puts on what they learn determines what we call individuality ... but, in the main, they are minor deviations from a median.

Part of my job is to get feedback from users .. the most difficult part of that is trying to determine a set of words that does not lead or sway the user (and yes I have had to throw results away because I have used the wrong phraseology). There is a running joke between me and one of the project managers whereby I can simply change the question slightly and I will be able to get the answer he wants, 100% reliably.


The prison service has, at best, a mediocre track record in relation to the prevention of recidivism. I have heard many different reasons for that but one thing I would be pretty sure of is that if you treat prisoners like animals then all you will do is produce more feral personalities with even less respect for civilised society - that has been proven. Countries that allow for the death sentence or torture do not necessarily show a lower crime rate.

[Kendhni]

Please don’t underestimate the skill sets of Prison Officers, Officers not Screws.

Definitely not, their input is important, but only as a small part of a much larger jigsaw puzzle.

[Kendhni]

Triple lock suspended and tax rises.
I know that some will focus on the broken manifesto promises but I really can't see that the government has had any choice. The government has been shaking its magic money tree for many years now and it was obvious at some point we were going to have to pay this back. Personally I would have put the tax rise on income tax rather than NI (which has limited it to being a tax on workers).

[towny44]

I dont know the exact comparison figures Ken, but since half the money raised will be paid by employers then I assume that to raise the equivalent amount via income tax would have required a much higher percentage increase. If I am correct then I guess it is a sensible move by the govt since everyone judges tax increases by the percentage increase.

[david63]

The government has been shaking its magic money tree for many years now and it was obvious at some point we were going to have to pay this back.

And this is only the start - there are going to be a lot more tax rises before we are done in order to pay for Covid

[oldbluefox]

This should have been done years ago but successive governments have avoided doing anything about it for fear of the political backlash which will inevitably follow.
If we want an effective social care system we need to pay for it. Since 1995 Germany has developed a social care policy which certainly seems to be working but it involves a tax on workers of 2.5% of salary and possibly going up to 4.5% or 6.5%. I can just imagine the outcry in this country. However social care should not come cheap; carers and those working in it should receive a proper salary for the work they do. Minimum wage is demeaning as a reward for their labours especially when many of those in care homes are paying £1200+pw. We should not accept low pay to subsidise care.

https://www.if.org.uk/2018/03/27/englan ... ny-answer/

[Stephen]

So what is happening with the billions we are supposed to be saving having left the EU. I thought a large chunk of that was supposed to go towards health care, before COVID came along.

[Ranchi]

Just a quick change of subject. I saw yesterday that Police Scotland had been fined £100k for failing to act appropriately in an incident where a car ran off the road in the Perth/Stirling region. Despite the incident being reported by a local farmer nothing was done for a couple of days and both of the occupants of the car died. This event occurred soon after the communications system for police in Scotland changed from a regional system to a national system and the lack of local knowledge of the communications teams was criticised at the time. What puzzles me is what useful purpose does fining a publicly funded service serve? To my mind it means that in the future the service will have less funds and will therefore be less likely to function effectively in the future. (it’s not as if the £100k would have been used to fund the annual police outing to Skegness which would now have to be cancelled.)

[towny44]

Ranchi, the NHS suffers the highest number of fines for misconduct, and the highest level of compensation payouts. However from someone senior in the our local NHS I understand that these fines and comp claims are viewed by senior management as a very major deterrence and they are a major influence on staff to ensure mistakes are not made.

[Kendhni]

What puzzles me is what useful purpose does fining a publicly funded service serve? To my mind it means that in the future the service will have less funds and will therefore be less likely to function effectively in the future. (it’s not as if the £100k would have been used to fund the annual police outing to Skegness which would now have to be cancelled.)

I often wonder the same, every year we see lawsuits for incompetence and negligence against public services, and every year they tell us lessons will be learned but year on year the level of incompetence and negligence keeps rising. If I recall correctly there is currently over £80billion in outstanding claims against the NHS - maybe it is time to directly hold management and staff more accountable?

Fining public bodies though just means that they demand more money from tax payers.

[Kendhni]

So what is happening with the billions we are supposed to be saving having left the EU. I thought a large chunk of that was supposed to go towards health care, before COVID came along.

There never was a saving beyond mythology and lies - every prediction and model (including Minford) predicted that leaving the EU would cost significantly more. The amount is unknown but it is thought that the annual cost will be somewhere between 2 and 5 times that of being a member, not forgetting the estimated £200-400bn the government has already spent/borrowed to cover the costs of leaving the EU (that amount is above the amount the government claims as COVID costs). On the plus side we now have our sovereignty back which we are busy selling out to the first bidder around the world.

[Ranchi]

Yes, Towny I can see that. Also compensation paid to victims can to a degree make their future lives better. Fines may well have a deterrent effect (but sadly this can often lead to defensive practises and/or massaging of target data.)
Speaking of defensive practises, have you tried to open a new bank account ( in person) recently? A while ago I went to a bank ( I have been a long standing customer) to open a regular saver acc. First I had to book an appointment and then during the scheduled meeting I made the fatal error of admitting that I had forgotten my spectacles and consequently I could not see the sheets of densely typed paper the banker flashed in front of me. The result was that the information was given to me by a 20 min video. I guess that was a result of the mis selling of banking products scandal of a few years ago.

[Ranchi]

Fining public bodies though just means that they demand more money from tax payers.
[/quote]

That just about sums it up!

[towny44]

Ranchi, we fairly regularly open new bank savings accounts, but always online, and hardly ever have any problems. Of course we do avoid the notoriously inefficient Halfax, who do seem to go out of their way to create unnecessary problems and demand all sorts of unrealistic form filling.

[oldbluefox]

So what is happening with the billions we are supposed to be saving having left the EU. I thought a large chunk of that was supposed to go towards health care, before COVID came along.

We are still paying into the EU coffers, Stephen as part of the divorce bill.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/51110096
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lia ... 021-07-08/

[Ray Scully]

So what is happening with the billions we are supposed to be saving having left the EU. I thought a large chunk of that was supposed to go towards health care, before COVID came along.

Stephen great question , I look forward to the many responses from our knowledgeable leaver inspired members But hey can I carp at this Government? Despite owning a couple of properties Both of us having index linked company pensions. Pharmacy supplies which would cost a small fortunate if we had to pay. We will hardly feel the effects of yesterday.(a few quid extra tax on investments) BUT come one or both of us needing full time care, our not inconsiderable assets will be substantially protected' Win win hey?

[oldbluefox]

Lucky you!!!!
My mother died four years ago. We were always taught to live within our means and to save for a rainy day. My parents worked hard throughout their lives (no investments, index linked pensions, second homes for them) and had a few savings put by. They never knew what cruising or fancy hotels were since they could never afford them.
When my mother had to go into a care home we quickly saw her savings disappear and then we had to sell the house to pay for her care. By the time she died just two years later there was little left.
What upset her most was the fact she was paying full price in order to subsidise those who could not afford to pay, the very same people she knew had lived life to the hilt and had spent everything having a good time whilst we lived within our means. Is that what we mean by fairness?
Unfortunately my parents never had an accountant who could manage their tax affairs and use whatever means they could to reduce their tax liability.
Of course there will be anomalies and some will jump with glee at any opportunity to exploit them but what is proposed is far better than anything ANY government has come up with before and my sister and I would have welcomed it. But good luck to you Ray.

[towny44]

Well said Foxy, and I agree that this seems a fair way to provide some way to protect everything above the £85000 threshold, and I have still not heard how Labour would fund this, but feel certain they would find some way to disadvantage the thrifty, in order to enable the feckless to have more.

[Ray Scully]

Lucky you!!!!
My mother died four years ago. We were always taught to live within our means and to save for a rainy day. My parents worked hard throughout their lives (no investments, index linked pensions, second homes for them) and had a few savings put by. They never knew what cruising or fancy hotels were since they could never afford them.
When my mother had to go into a care home we quickly saw her savings disappear and then we had to sell the house to pay for her care. By the time she died just two years later there was little left.
What upset her most was the fact she was paying full price in order to subsidise those who could not afford to pay, the very same people she knew had lived life to the hilt and had spent everything having a good time whilst we lived within our means. Is that what we mean by fairness?
Unfortunately my parents never had an accountant who could manage their tax affairs and use whatever means they could to reduce their tax liability.
Of course there will be anomalies and some will jump with glee at any opportunity to exploit them but what is proposed is far better than anything ANY government has come up with before and my sister and I would have welcomed it. But good luck to you Ray.

Well Foxy, my wife's mum and my dad both 'ended up' in care. Neither of our families where property owning so it was just a bog standard existence for them both. I admit to my previous post being somewhat TIC. Good luck, not being super clever or particularly hard working is the main reason for our current situation. I have long been of the opinion that we have been part of and participated in a golden generation. A first house cost only a total of 3 years wages, less if both partners worked, both our lads went fee free to Uni, I could carry on.. So I admit to being a little ingenious, I would have been comfortable to have given a little more back and made a decent contribution to the current difficulties i.e paying N.I. at the standard rate all our income or a tax on our house after our demise. But then I am not a Conservative so Johnson does not have to please me.

[Gill W]

Well said Foxy, and I agree that this seems a fair way to provide some way to protect everything above the £85000 threshold, and I have still not heard how Labour would fund this, but feel certain they would find some way to disadvantage the thrifty, in order to enable the feckless to have more.

The £86000 threshold is just for the cost of care. If people go into a care home, if they have assets they will still have to pay for the cost of their accommodation and food. Therefore, in many cases they will still have to sell their homes to cover these costs.

At the moment, I can see a plan for raising money. I haven’t seen what the plan is to make the service better for the end user, and how success would be measured. That’s if the money ever gets to the care sector two or three years down the line if the NHS ever stops needing it.

[Gill W]

Yes, Towny I can see that. Also compensation paid to victims can to a degree make their future lives better. Fines may well have a deterrent effect (but sadly this can often lead to defensive practises and/or massaging of target data.)
Speaking of defensive practises, have you tried to open a new bank account ( in person) recently? A while ago I went to a bank ( I have been a long standing customer) to open a regular saver acc. First I had to book an appointment and then during the scheduled meeting I made the fatal error of admitting that I had forgotten my spectacles and consequently I could not see the sheets of densely typed paper the banker flashed in front of me. The result was that the information was given to me by a 20 min video. I guess that was a result of the mis selling of banking products scandal of a few years ago.

It’s much easier to open an account online. In fact, I would rather chew off my own arm that actually go into a bank branch !

[Kendhni]

At the moment, I can see a plan for raising money. I haven’t seen what the plan is to make the service better for the end user, and how success would be measured. That’s if the money ever gets to the care sector two or three years down the line if the NHS ever stops needing it.

At least Johnsons finally has a plan of some sorts, even if it is just to increase taxation. As far as improving services and spending? I suspect he will play his usual game ... just play it by ear in the hope that it works out in the end and have a scapegoat ready for when it doesn't.

[Kendhni]

Pharmacy supplies which would cost a small fortunate if we had to pay.

I was at a medical conference a few years back in Boston. One of the speakers was talking about costs of medicine going forward. He mentioned several numbers projecting costs of treatment including impact to systems like the NHS within the UK. His figures showed that within a few decades the current amount we pay for the NHS will not even cover the costs of drugs, not to worry treatment, unless something significant is done.

That is why I believe that the NHS cannot survive in its current state and has no choice but to move towards a co-pay system. However I also don't think any government will have the guts to do this in time to save the NHS. I think the actions of the last few years have now left it exposed and ripe for more and more privatization and suspect we will see the equivalents of Medicare and Medicaid in this country before 2050, or huge tax increases to cover the costs.