Farmer who took own life ‘wasn't going to let Starmer beat him' over inheritance tax raid
A farmer who took his own life in fear of the Government's inheritance tax raid wasn't going to let Sir Keir Starmer 'beat him', his son has said.
John Charlesworth, 78, killed himself the day before Rachel Reeves's maiden budget after worrying about what it would mean for the family farm for weeks.
He was found dead by his son Jonathan Charlesworth, 47, in a barn of their farm in Silkstone, Barnsley, on Oct 29 last year.
The Telegraph revealed in November that he had killed himself in anticipation of a higher inheritance tax bill.
An inquest at Sheffield Coroner's Court heard that Mr Charlesworth had been struggling to care for his wife, who had severe dementia and had recently been diagnosed with cancer.
The hearing was told that in the months before the Budget he had been 'growing more and more anxious about inheritance tax and the implications for the farm'.
Jonathan Charlesworth told the hearing: 'I think he was under stress looking after my mum but if it hadn't been for worries about inheritance tax he would still be here today. He wouldn't have put us all through that for any other reason.
'He thought he was doing it for the good. I don't agree with that, but he thought he was doing it for the greater good.
'There was a lack of information, it wasn't actually as bad as it could have been but we didn't know that.
'I think he woke up that morning and thought, 'I'm not risking it, I'm not risking losing everything I've worked for'.'
He added: 'In the couple of months before it happened the only thing he talked about was inheritance tax.
'I think he just wasn't going to let the Government beat him, that was his final hurrah.'
The inquest heard that Mr Charlesworth had retired from the farm, which had been bought by his own father, and that his son was responsible for the day-to-day running while he cared for his wife, who died in February this year.
A coroner was told he had no reported mental health issues, but had been seen by a mental health team about support for his wife several days before he died.
His daughter Verity Charlesworth, 45, said farming was a part of Mr Charlesworth's 'life and identity', and that he was also a grandfather of six and a keen bell-ringer.
Recording a conclusion of suicide, coroner Tanyka Rawden said Mr Charlesworth was under stress with caring responsibilities for his wife.
'A typical Yorkshireman'
She said: 'He was worried about implications of new regulations around inheritance tax that would see the family lose 50 per cent of the farm, taking his life the day before the changes were due to be announced.'
After the inquest, Jonathan Charlesworth said his father was 'a typical Yorkshireman, typical farmer – tight with money but generous with time', adding: 'He'd do anything for anybody.'
In a message to Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves after his father's death, he said: 'I would tell them they've killed my dad. He didn't know the details but all the scaremongering around it beforehand frightened him to death.
'He was the most kind-hearted person you'd ever meet, my dad. He wouldn't take any nonsense. He would do anything for anybody, I don't think anyone had a bad word to say about my dad.
'The battles we had guided me for the future. You couldn't ask for better really.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Chris Mason: Spending Review a gamble on patience in an era of impatience
The hours, days, weeks and even months after a Spending Review can feel like peeling away the layers of an there is the speech from the chancellor in the Commons: the political rhetoric and the numbers often designed to sound big but which are often there are accompanying documents - in this instance in particular a blue-covered, 128-page tome crammed with words, numbers and work of months, much of it conducted privately with intermittent blasts of authorised and unauthorised briefing, talking up and grumbling, then suddenly bursts out in public demanding digestion. But that takes time. And as the detail is pored over, elements that were not put up in lights by the chancellor become clearer.A good example is the expectation many, many people in England and Wales will be paying higher council tax to help fund the police - something not set out explicitly by Rachel Reeves at the dispatch details on what is planned are expected in the coming weeks - with the government's infrastructure plans due to be set out other elements could take much longer to play out: for example, an obscure budget in a particular department that was culled, only for an outcry in six months time. Or, conversely, a budget that hasn't been culled but is later determined to be a waste of money. Seven ways the Spending Review affects youWinners and losers: Who got what in the review?What has the chancellor has announced? The key pointsWatch: Where the money is being spent The government is seeking to badge this moment as a turning prime minister told the Cabinet and has now written in the Guardian that "this week we bettered a new stage in the mission for national renewal. Last autumn we fixed the foundations. Today we showed Britain we will rebuild."Let's curiosity here is the standard critique of political leaders is turned on its head with much of this Spending often the grumble is one of short-termism, the quick win, the lack of strategic long term yet the gamble the government has taken is a willingness for patience in an era of term, so called capital spending, can - the argument goes - transform the public realm and in so doing transform economic it doesn't happen quickly and day-to-day spending is limited, even cut in this at a time of volatile politics and a restlessness among an electorate, many of whom feel squeezed and have done for years and Chancellor Rachel Reeves acknowledged to me there was an impatience for change - the very thing Labour promised - and pointed to an expansion of entitlement to free school meals and breakfast clubs in England, for big bet though remains on economic growth - finding it and sustaining lack of it is the shackle on so much within government and beyond: the national mood, taxes, you name yes the prospect of more tax rises in the autumn will hang in the air all the big test of this Spending Review is the contribution it can make to delivering growth - and when.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Firm linked to Baroness Bra 'must pay back £122m for faulty PPE': Government suing over Covid contract 'initiated' by Tory peer
A firm linked to Michelle Mone must repay £122million for allegedly breaching a Covid PPE contract, a court heard yesterday. The bra tycoon had recommended PPE Medpro, which went on to provide 25 million 'faulty' surgical gowns. The consortium, led by the Tory peer's husband Doug Barrowman, was awarded contracts by the former Conservative administration during the pandemic. PPE Medpro is now being sued by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), with Government lawyers claiming the gowns couldn't be used because they were not sterile. Baroness Mone and the firm both deny any wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, plus an additional £8,648,691 for transporting and storing the items. PPE Medpro said it 'categorically denies' breaching the contract, with its lawyers claiming the company has been 'singled out for unfair treatment'. Opening the trial, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: 'This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns.' Mr Stanley said in written submissions the 'initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone', with contract discussions then going through one of the firm's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained 'active throughout' negotiations, he said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had 'years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains'. But he said Baroness Mone's communications were not part of this case, which was 'simply about compliance'. He added: 'The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody.' In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with almost £122million paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the firm it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage. Mr Stanley said 99.9999 per cent of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract. The DHSC claims the deal also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise them using a 'validated process', attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said 'none of those things happened', and that of 140 gowns tested for sterility, 103 failed. He added that the DHSC 'was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs'. Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the 'only plausible reason' for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to 'the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject' after delivery. He said testing was done several months after the gowns were rejected, and that the samples were not 'representative of the whole population'. Mr Samek described the DHSC's claim as 'contrived and opportunistic', with PPE Medpro 'made the fall guy for a catalogue of failures... and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money'. Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence during the five-week trial. A PPE Medpro spokesman said it 'categorically denies breaching its obligations' and will 'robustly defend' the claim.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Fears of tent cities as rough sleeping is decriminalised in end to 200-year-old law
Tent cities could pop up across the UK as rough sleeping is decriminalised, critics of the policy say. Ministers have announced plans to repeal the Vagrancy Act by next spring, meaning it will no longer be an offence to sleep on pavements. But there are fears scrapping the 200-year-old law despite rising numbers of the homeless will mean more people camping on the streets. Announcing the changes, Angela Rayner said she was 'drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society'. The Housing Secretary pledged to increase funding for homelessness services with an extra £233million this financial year to provide alternatives to rough sleeping. She said: 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.' Introduced in 1824 to tackle a homelessness crisis after the Industrial Revolution, the law was designed to punish 'idle and disorderly persons, and rogues and vagabonds'. Most parts of the act have been repealed but some remain in force in England and Wales to enable police to move on rough sleepers rather than prosecute them. Homeless charities called the move a 'landmark moment' they had long called for. However, there were concerns that the move could lead to more people sleeping on streets and the creation of 'tent cities'. The charity Shelter estimates there are 326,000 people, including 161,500 children, in England who are homeless, a 14 per cent increase on the previous year. This has caused camps to pop up in several cities, including on Park Lane in central London. Figures published in April showed the total number sleeping rough in the capital – those who spend at least one night on the streets – was 4,427 for the three months to March 2025, which was a near 8 per cent increase from 4,118 for the same quarter last year. The numbers classed as living on the streets had risen by 38 per cent year-on-year to 706 from 511. The Government said 'targeted measures will ensure police have the powers they need to keep communities safe – filling the gap left over by removing previous powers'. These will be new offences of facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime and will be brought in through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. Ministers said this will ensure organised begging – often by criminal gangs – remains an offence, meaning it is unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg. Ms Rayner's department said spending on homeless services would hit nearly £1billion this financial year. Kevin Hollinrake, Tory communities spokesman, said: 'Labour's approach will result in a pavement free-for-all in our towns and cities. They just don't understand or care how this affects law-abiding local residents and the impact it has on their pride of place.' Chris Philp, the Tory home affairs spokesman, told the Telegraph: 'This move risks turning British cities into a version of San Francisco, which has become overrun by encampments of homeless people.
