In the news

That's the rub though. Chances are he wasn't on the radar for the necessary support services for them to have seen the triggers and intervened. Youth Support Service (ANY kind of support - mental health included) is being cut at a blinding rate. Southwark for example are cutting their funding for youth services by 73% next year. 73%!!!!!! Clearly there are no vulnerable or at risk young people in Southwark any more.

Or they were aware and didn't have the resources to do anything about it.

Clearly there are no vulnerable or at risk young people in Southwark any more.

oh they're there, it's just the tories want them shunted into the criminal justice system asap so their mates who build / maintain privately run prisons can make a mint out of them.

The shittiest retort I heard was that their parents should be picking up the slack. A lot of the time the parents are the young people themselves!!!!

Vote Tory? GITFS

their parents should be picking up the slack

And so they should.

Given the appropriate psychiatric training, psychology training, and funding, of course.

You just couldn't make up this story:

http://road.cc/content/news/172836-driver-who-killed-cyclist-distracted-oral-sex-say-police

Randy Joe Allen at Liquid Larry's Bar in Lakeland.

I don't mean to make light of it. It is just horrifying:

Deputies subsequently traced the passenger who said she had been performing oral sex on him at the time, and that when she heard a bump he claimed that he had hit a road sign.

and:

The victim was a homeless man who was identified through fingerprint analysis. His out-of-state family was notified of his death.

It conjures up an image of someone who was perhaps travelling around by bike, being homeless, and it's just sickening that he was killed like that.

Already over 100,000 signatures (in one day) on the petition to block Trump from entering the UK on hate speech grounds.

Hate speech? I'll see that and raise you active support and fundraising for terrorism within the UK:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/09/donald-trump-ireland-sinn-fein-terrorism

I saw some people on these in St George's Road not so long ago:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/09/shoppers-panic-hoverboard-explodes-washington-outlet-collection-mall-kiosk

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/09/council-tenants-lose-lifetime-right-to-live-in-property

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said the changes would “improve local authorities abilities to provide social housing for those who need it most, as long as they need it”.

The race to the bottom continues unabated.

rich people: deserving of a home.
poor people: should be grateful for temporary shelter.

The only thing left to hope is for a civil war.

brilliant!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12043155/CCTV-shows-man-riding-hoverboard-into-shop-and-stealing-crate-of-Lucozade.html

And any suitable safeguards have been swept aside in the name of 'efficiencies'?

Presumably, the likelihood of someone who qualifies for council housing ever getting through the barrier that they would no longer require social housing is slim. So then the bigger picture would mean this is essentially a symbolic, but otherwise useless additional piece of bureaucracy, as the same people will occupy the same housing, but have to go through a process every five years or so? And the overall effect that it will upset (putting it mildly) a group of people less likely to vote for the present administration and will seem to some others, who are far-removed from the social housing system, like something is being done about social housing when it isn't really, while saving approximately no money and requiring more civil servants to perform the assessments? Sir Humphrey couldn't have done better himself.

Contrasted with their stance on inheritance tax, protectiong homes for people after they are dead.

Wankers.

I don't actually see the problem with the current stance on inheritance tax. Joe Bloggs works his entire adult life to build a secure environment for his family. He pays all appropriate income tax. He dies knowing the security he has worked for hard is secure in the home he leaves behind. Let's say his home is his entire estate for this argument. His family get taxed 40% of the value of the home (which was bought using money earned and taxed already). It is effectively double taxed money. Is this not an appropriate level of taxation? Or am i missing something significant?

Working people, working hard, working to secure advantages for their offspring to leverage against the lazy, orphaned nobodies.

No, because once you are dead it is no longer your money. If you are giving it to your children, then it is their income which should be taxed.

And it's 40% above £325,000

Okay, so 'double taxed' is not an appropriate turn of phrase. But it is taxed the second time round effectively as income under current rules. So I don't see what's wrong with that?

I don't see anything wrong in aspiring to wealth. What people do with their wealth is up to them, but a blanket negative attitude towards wealthy people is an unhealthy one. Probably not going to be a popular attitude on here.

Is your question is "What is the problem with the current laws?"? If so, fair enough. I wouldn't mind knowing more details as well.

Or is there some sort of normative argument being made in your question? (Dare I say, begging the question). That was my initial gut reaction having read your post, and it seems others.

His family get taxed 40% of the value of the home (which was bought using money earned and taxed already).

It most cases only some of that money (and likely only a small fraction) has been taxed. Much of the value of a property will be from the (untaxed) growth of its value over time.

Consider someone who bought a house in 1980 for £25,000. Someone gets to inherit it in 2015 and it is now worth £2,500,000.

How much of that £2,500,000 has come from already taxed income? The £25,000 mortgage might have been paid off by only paying ~£40,000.

Even if someone has slowly climbed the property ladder over that time most the incremental growth would have come from house price rises and those capital gains along the way aren't taxed (assuming it's been a primary residence).

A terrorist sympathiser? He'll fit right in then.

Working people, working hard, working to secure advantages for their offspring to leverage against the lazy, orphaned nobodies.

I wish I could rep this. I would rep this all night long.

Currently no capital gains is paid on property in the event of a death (only on any increase in value between the date of death and date of sale), which is a terrible approach in my opinion (individuals benefitting from the masses).

I don't see anything wrong in aspiring to wealth. What people do with their wealth is up to them, but a blanket negative attitude towards wealthy people is an unhealthy one. Probably not going to be a popular attitude on here.

Hah. I don't hate ALL wealthy people. Just the entitled ones!