Britain on track to lose 'unprecedented' 16,500 millionaires in 2025 amid high taxes and non-dom crackdown
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Routinely disclosing the asylum status of suspects is a very dangerous step to take
The National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing have backed plans to offer greater 'transparency' on the ethnicity, and potentially the immigration status, of police suspects. But in a world where rumours travel faster than facts, this new approach will have profound consequences for justice – and for the people who will live with the consequences. The new national guidance says that 'police forces should consider disclosing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects when they are charged in high profile and sensitive investigations and operations'. It comes after Reform UK accused police of a 'cover-up' over two men who have been charged in connection with the alleged rape of a child in Nuneaton. Prior to this, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, had expressed her view that guidance should change to allow 'more transparency'. She was joined in this opinion by the chief inspector of constabulary, who warned that withholding such details could feed 'two-tier policing' claims (the allegation that the state polices majorities more harshly than minorities, contrary to the overwhelming body of evidence that shows otherwise). The idea that identity characteristics should feature, after arrest, in what information is publicly released during police investigations has been circling for years. Until very recently, officials and criminal justice practitioners had mostly resisted. Their concern was simple: routine publication of these details would invite the public to see suspects as examples of a group rather than as individuals in a case. The current approach is embedded in force policies that explicitly root decisions over what to share with the media in 'policing purpose' – releasing only what is necessary to protect life, prevent and detect crime, bring offenders to justice and maintain public confidence, rather than what satisfies curiosity or advances a political argument. It is reinforced by national professional guidance designed to prevent pre-trial publicity from straying into prejudice, including the longstanding norm that suspects should not be identified before they have been charged, except in clearly justified circumstances. This sits alongside the press regulator's rule, established after histories of press stereotyping playing a role in public incitement, that race or ethnicity should not be mentioned in reporting unless it is 'genuinely relevant to the story' (there is not even a public interest override to that clause). Together, these norms made early disclosure of ethnicity and immigration status the exception rather than the default. Now the explicit decision has been made to alter this in standard police disclosures and reporting. So, what has changed? The answer, simply put, is that there is a perception that the politics and the information environment is now different. The impact of the online falsehoods about the Southport killings in late July and early August 2024 – that the attacker was an asylum seeker who had recently arrived by boat – ricocheted through social media and spilled into street violence. In this instance, the police could not initially name the suspect because he was under 18. Subsequently, parliamentary committees, researchers and reporters have traced how rumour and identity claims fuelled disorder, while newsrooms and police forces were left firefighting conspiracy theories at speed. That crisis has bolstered the argument that withholding details such as nationality or asylum status can create a vacuum in which malign actors thrive, and that more routine disclosure will puncture misinformation. The problems with this argument are profound. First, conspiracies thrive on distortion, not on the careful absorption of official communications. A parliamentary committee concluded that social media's business models incentivise the spread of misinformation, which helped trigger last summer's violent disorder. In this climate, baking identity into the first telling of crime stories – before a suspect has been charged – is not transparency, it is kindling. Second, once an identity is put at the front of an update, the search for evidence gives way to the hunt for a 'type' ahead of the facts. It steers attention from what happened and what can be proved to who the person is said to be and what that is taken to mean. In that climate, each new detail is read through the label, and the space for careful judgment shrinks. The history of policing and ethnic minorities in this country has illustrated this in numerous moral panics. Third, the new disclosure regime lands in a political and media environment that routinely associates migrants and Black and ethnic minorities with illegality. The Runnymede Trust's recent analyses of millions of words in news articles and parliamentary debates documents how such groups are persistently paired with words about illegality. That pattern helps normalise hostility. These are not abstract academic points – they are the context in which the criminal justice system is brought into perpetual, manufactured culture wars that harm minorities and leave everyone less safe. Fourth, there's a very basic problem of data quality. Police forces are famously bad at this. Ethnicity can be recorded as self-defined by the person involved or as 'officer observed' using broad visual codes. Completion rates for self-defined data vary sharply between forces, and missing or mismatched records are common. National standards on ethnicity are also under review because the categories are contested and context-dependent. Now add the fact that 'ethnicity', 'nationality' and 'immigration status' are different things. Nationality may be known at the point of charging a suspect if documents are checked. Immigration status often is not – indeed, the police guidance confirms that, 'It is not the role or responsibility of the police to verify a suspect's immigration status' and that, 'It is for the Home Office to decide if it is appropriate in all the circumstances to confirm immigration status.' Turning any such labels into front-of-house communications is an open invitation to error, before a correction that is too late to catch up with the narrative. The truth is that the demand for default disclosure of ethnicity or immigration status is not about transparency but advancing a political narrative. This is why the script scarcely needs facts to run. If police hold back, it is proof of concealment; if they disclose the information and those details fit the stereotype, this is used to indict the wider group. If the details do not fit, attention moves elsewhere. The new guidance might reconcile pressure for 'transparency' with established privacy and contempt protections, and the ability to explain reasons for restraint (for instance, to safeguard a fair trial; to protect victims and witnesses; to avoid inflaming tensions). These too are a service to transparency as they tell the public that the police understand the rights of suspects and the realities of community safety. The real question, however, is not whether the public should be trusted with information. It is whether the state should normalise ethnicity and immigration status as the organising facts of crime reporting – and burden already marginalised communities with more suspicion. Nasar Meer is a professor of social and political sciences at the University of Glasgow
Glasgow Times
18 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Row breaks out after Reform politician blasts LEZ schemes
Councillor Jamie McGuire labelled the schemes as 'little more than cash cows' and said the local authority 'must have no part in this' in a blistering statement. But the elected member for Renfrew North and Braehead has been accused of 'hyperbolic word salad' on an issue that was settled almost two years ago. In September 2023, the SNP administration confirmed it was not considering the introduction of an LEZ in Paisley or any other part of Renfrewshire at a full council meeting. Councillor McGuire, who defected from Labour to Nigel Farage's Reform in June, said: 'Scotland's four main cities already have LEZs in place and their experience should be a warning. 'These schemes have acted as little more than cash cows, generating income for councils while hitting those who can least afford it. Councillor Jamie McGuire (Image: Newsquest) 'People on the lowest incomes, who are far more likely to drive older vehicles, have been penalised simply for trying to get to work, take their children to school or care for relatives. 'Renfrewshire must have no part in this. A congestion charge or LEZ in our towns would be a hammer blow to local households and businesses. 'We are a working community that depends on accessible, affordable transport. 'Many residents travel across Renfrewshire for work, education, and caring responsibilities, while small enterprises rely heavily on vans and cars to serve customers and move goods. 'Imposing extra charges on them is not just unreasonable, it risks undermining our local economy and making it harder for people to live and work here.' He added: 'The SNP-led Renfrewshire Council must act now to rule out – clearly, unequivocally and permanently – ever introducing either a congestion charge or a low emission zone in our area. Councillor Jim Paterson (Image: Newsquest) 'Residents deserve certainty, not the constant threat of new charges hanging over them.' Councillor Jim Paterson, SNP convener of the planning and climate change policy board, claimed Councillor McGuire was 'trying to raise his profile' with the comments. The elected member for Renfrew South and Gallowhill said: 'Another day, another fabricated outrage from Councillor McGuire. 'The position of the SNP administration and indeed Councillor McGuire on this issue was settled in 2023 when the Conservative group called on the council to rule out establishing any form of LEZ in Paisley and wider Renfrewshire for the duration of this council term. 'The SNP position along with a Labour amendment was agreed then by the vast majority of councillors which stated that the council would not consider the introduction of a low emission zone (LEZ/ULEZ) in Paisley or any other parts of Renfrewshire. That position remains unchanged. 'Councillor McGuire, like his newfound political hero Nigel Farage, may like to trade in misinformation but to imply that there has been any change to the agreed position of 2023 is just nonsense and to suggest there is a 'constant fear' hanging over residents is just hyperbolic word salad from a councillor desperately trying to raise his profile to secure the top spot in his party's internal list for Holyrood 2026.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Treasury looks at inheritance tax ahead of autumn budget
The Treasury is reportedly considering tightening inheritance tax rules to address a £50bn shortfall in public finances. Proposed measures include scrapping the 'seven-year rule' for gifts and introducing a potential lifetime cap on gifts to limit pre-death asset transfers. Inheritance tax, which applies to estates worth more than £325,000, generated a record £6.7bn in 2022-2023 and is seen by some as a de facto wealth tax. The move comes amid pressure on Rachel Reeves to find solutions for a projected £41.2bn shortfall by 2029-2030, with calls for a broader wealth tax. Despite suggestions for wealth taxes from some Labour figures, the Treasury's official stance is to focus on economic growth and avoid raising income tax, National Insurance, or VAT.
