Lawyers of Light

If there is one thing, if I may beg, for subscribers to get involved in, it is the debate about assisted dying. We will end up like Canada if we allow the state to get engaged in this.

I'm not telling anyone whether they should agree with assisted dying or not. But I am asking people to think through the ramifications of having the state get involved by 'law' in this area. Please consider what has happened over the last 5 years, and how much things have expanded. I showed you yesterday in my article, Matt Hancock lying in parliament about the jabs being for adults only. What then happened?

I would also ask people to consider the widespread use of unlawful DNRs over the last 5 years. We have laws that prevent this but it didn't matter, it still happened, and there has been ZERO accountability for it.

We also have to consider the end of life protocols used over the last 5 years (and this goes back years) and ask what guidance, if any, NICE will put out about assisted dying. I'm all over their site like a rash looking at stuff.

And lastly, do you trust doctors over this? Do you trust politicians with this? What if the process is abused like DNRs?

Let's all lend our voices to the debate. If enough people do, we can have a conversation about what is a difficult and complex area. Personal choice is everything. I don't want to stop people doing what they want with their own bodies, but the fact is that no one needs the state to get involved in this area. There are ways for people to plan this 'intervention' early enough if they wish.

We don't need state sanctioned euthanasia on top of everything else.

I'm considering putting together some basic responses that people could use to lobby their MP's with.

There's a video in the above 👆 of Matt Hancock that everyone should have (in my opinion) but it doesn't show up in instant view. I don't know why. So use the long link and you will see the video. Important from the perspective of lies by the state

My predictions for the budget, if you are interested are:

She's going to hammer CGT, (capital gains tax) and raise the tax rate thereon. She might also remove some reliefs

She's going to hammer farmers and restrict APR (agricultural property relief)

She's going to hammer private pensions as noted above, but also likely take other pension tax breaks away for the private sector - it's why I haven't bothered to write about salary sacrifice schemes for income tax efficency yet

She's going to remove or restrict some IHT (Inheritance tax) allowances

Fuel duty & tobacco duty will go up

In a throw back to times gone by Reeves might also chuck a curve ball and tax windows again. Or maybe long or short hair. Or log burners. Or pets. Maybe even blades of grass

Or, scarily, she could bring in a swear tax - I will be fu**ed then

"Ms Reeves could put the country on track to pay the highest tax as a proportion of GDP since comparable records began nearly eight decades ago"

It will only become paying the most tax as a proportion of GDP if people actually pay it.................