Farmer killed himself the day before Budget ‘to save farm', son tells inquest
A farmer killed himself the day before the Budget after weeks of worrying about looming changes to inheritance tax, an inquest has heard.
John Charlesworth's son said he believed his father wanted to 'beat' the Government's proposals and 'save the farm for future generations'.
Mr Charlesworth, 78, who went by his middle name Philip, was found dead by his son Jonathan Charlesworth, 47, in a barn on their farm in Silkstone, Barnsley, on October 29 last year.
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 Rachel Reeves' 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.
'We couldn't find any information, we just knew it was coming, we didn't know how bad it was going to be.
'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 John 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.
She said: 'He was worried about implications of new regulations around inheritance tax that would see the family lose 50% 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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Rep. Randy Fine Pushes Back On Critics Of The Big, Beautiful Bill: 'Every Play Can't Be A Hail May Pass'
Florida Republican Congressman Randy Fine joins Fox Across America With guest host Paul Gleiser to respond to some of the criticisms Tesla CEO Elon Musk has publicly expressed regarding President Trump's 'one, big beautiful bill.' 'What he has to understand is we can't solve every problem. The bill can be beautiful, but that doesn't mean it's perfect and solves every problem.' What I wish he would say is, good job on this, but you better not declare victory. It's funny. When I got to Congress and they told me we're gonna cut spending by a trillion and a half dollars I was really excited because I said well the deficits about two trillion a year. So cutting it a trillion-and-a-half That's pretty good. That's 75% of the problem. And then they go, no, no, no that's over 10 years. I mean, you don't get to congratulate yourself at this point That's basically the it's a down payment on the problem But we have got to come up with a plan that gets us to a balanced budget and we don't have it yet and that and it is fair to criticize us for that That doesn't mean you don't move the ball down the field.' Rep. Chip Roy Discusses Elon's Spending Bill Criticisms To hear the full conversation, check out the podcast!
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?
Is Sir Keir Starmer KC – Left-wing human rights lawyer, former director of public prosecutions, and Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – a dangerous Right-wing extremist? Common sense, evidence and reality say emphatically not. Government materials issued as part of Prevent training programmes give a less clear answer. The Prime Minister's warning that uncontrolled migration risks turning Britain into an 'island of strangers' would appear to risk falling foul of the definitions used in a Prevent course taken by thousands of public sector professionals with a duty to make referrals to the scheme. This defines 'cultural nationalism' as a type of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideology, including the belief that 'Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups'. Sir Keir is no more an extremist than any other writer who has expressed concern over the unprecedented scale and pace of migration and cultural change in recent years. Why, then, has the Government risked labelling him as such? The short answer is that, riddled with political anxieties over the composition of terrorism in Britain – 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Police network's live investigations involved Islamism in 2023, compared with 10 per cent for the extreme Right – Prevent has given the appearance of loosening the definition of the latter in order to provide an artificial 'balance' to its work. As the Shawcross Review found in 2023, the programme has adopted a 'double standard' when dealing with Islamists and the extreme Right. The results have been farcical, with an 'expansive' definition of Right-wing extremism capturing 'mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, Right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation' even while Prevent funded organisations whose leaders have publicly made statements 'sympathetic to the Taliban' and referred to militant Islamists as 'so-called 'terrorists' of the legitimate resistance groups'. Such absurdities might be overlooked if Prevent had also proved ruthlessly effective at preventing atrocities. It has not. Prevent has failed to identify dangerous and violent suspects on multiple occasions, including Southport killer Axel Rudakubana, who was referred and dismissed on three occasions before carrying out his attack. A deradicalisation programme that seems to show less interest in deradicalising potential terrorists than in policing Right-wing thought is unfit for purpose. It beggars belief that two years after the Shawcross Review we are once again having the same conversations. Prevent must be reformed – or if incapable of change, dismantled entirely. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The case a federal judge called 'Kafkaesque'
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. Have you ever had a word stuck in your head? I can't seem to shake this one from a court decision this week: entombed. The haunting term came from the chief federal trial judge in Washington, D.C., James Boasberg. He's presiding over a lawsuit from scores of Venezuelan immigrants held in a Salvadoran prison known for human rights abuses, called the Center for Terrorism Confinement, or CECOT for short. The judge wrote a 69-page opinion, published Wednesday, explaining why the Trump administration must work to let the immigrants challenge their rushed renditions to that prison back in March. Boasberg opened with a nod to Franz Kafka's 'The Trial.' The Obama appointee compared the ordeal to that of Kafka's protagonist, Josef K., whose absurd legal saga is a helpful shorthand to draw attention to farcical affairs. While the term Kafkaesque can seem dramatic, it applies here. After all, U.S. agents hustled the men out of the country without due process, backed by the purported authority of an 18th-century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, whose factual and legal propriety has been called into grave doubt not only by judges around the country but by U.S. intelligence agencies. On the latter front, a declassified memo released last month showed that officials had rejected President Donald Trump's basis for citing the act. He had claimed the Venezuelan government controlled the gang to which these men allegedly belonged. But experts in Trump's own government disagreed. So, Trump's use of the law was bogus from the start. On top of that, at a hurried hearing in March, Boasberg had ordered the U.S. to keep custody of the men — an order the government ignored, and that disobedience is the subject of separate contempt litigation that the administration is appealing. But that foundational sham and defiance wasn't the issue in Boasberg's ruling this week. His narrower, modest point was that the men never got due process to challenge their removals under the act. 'Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, [government] Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members,' the judge wrote, adding: 'But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so.' Our word-of-the-week then emerged when the jurist observed that 'significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.' Entombed in CECOT. Now what? Boasberg said the government must facilitate the plaintiffs' ability to challenge their removals. But he left it to the government to decide how to make that happen. 'Exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings,' the judge wrote, giving the administration a week to come up with a plan. We'll be eagerly awaiting the official response — or, the latest emergency Supreme Court appeal from a judge's effort to bring the administration into legal compliance. At any rate, it doesn't seem like anyone is going anywhere anytime soon, even if Boasberg's order stays on track, which is not a sure bet. Until then: entombed. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them on this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal blog and newsletter. This article was originally published on
