We've run out of room in our prisons, it seems. Amazing, considering that
the Law and Order Conservative Party has been in power for over a decade.
We've run out of room in our prisons, it seems. Amazing, considering
that the Law and Order Conservative Party has been in power for over a decade.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-told-not-to-jail-rapists-as-prisons-are-full-2tfgb2czs
11 October 2023
Judges told not to jail rapists as prisons are full
Crown courts ordered to delay sentencing hearings
Convicted rapists and burglars will be spared jail from next week after judges were told that the country’s prisons are full.
Crown court judges have been ordered to delay sentencing hearings, The
Times has learnt, as the prison population has reached bursting point.
Lord Edis, the senior presiding judge for England and Wales, has ordered
that sentencing of convicted criminals who are currently on bail should
be delayed from Monday.
One senior crown court judge said that from Monday, judges have been “ordered/strongly encouraged” not to send to prison a defendant who appears before them on bail so as not to add to the prison population.
The judge said: “We have been told that this is a ‘short-term measure’, but nobody knows what that means.”
On 11/10/2023 05:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
One senior crown court judge said that from Monday, judges have been
ordered/strongly encouraged not to send to prison a defendant who
appears before them on bail so as not to add to the prison population.
The judge said: We have been told that this is a short-term measure,
but nobody knows what that means.
"Sentence to something non-custodial" *, or "delay sentencing altogether"?
[* Let's not have the half-hour argument about whether a suspended is >non-custodial.]
its true regrettably that the mainland UK has the highest
incarceration rate in
Western Europe
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 02:51:27 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 05:03 pm, The Todal wrote:
One senior crown court judge said that from Monday, judges have been
“ordered/strongly encouraged” not to send to prison a defendant who
appears before them on bail so as not to add to the prison population.
The judge said: “We have been told that this is a ‘short-term measure’,
but nobody knows what that means.”
"Sentence to something non-custodial" *, or "delay sentencing altogether"?
[* Let's not have the half-hour argument about whether a suspended is
non-custodial.]
It's an interesting point, though. The circumstances where a suspended custodial sentence may be imposed are when
a) The nature of the offence fully justifies an immediate custodial
sentence, but
b) There is a sufficiently strong prospect of rehabilitation for it to be
acceptable to suspend the sentence in order to give the convict the
opportunity to demonstrate that they have mended their ways.
Now, while suspending a sentence does, indeed, reduce the umber of people sent to prison (presuming that at least some of those with suspended sentences successfully complete their suspension period without re-offending), I don't think that's a valid argument in favour of suspending a sentence. The decision on whether or not to suspend has to be taken on a case by case basis and is solely based on an assessment of the likelihood that an offender will either re-offend or keep clean, at least for the
period of suspension.
I think, therefore, that the directive to minimise custodial sentences has
to be taken into account at the first stage, rather than the second. That
is, the judge first has to decide whether, even despite the directive, imprisonment is justified, before going on to consider whether it can be suspended. So a paraphrase of the judge's reasoning would be something like
"Normally, I would sentence you to a year's imprisoment, but because the
prisons are full, I'm sentencing you instead to community service and a
hefty fine"
and not
"I am sentencing you to a year's imprisonment. But because the prisons are
full, I am suspending it, even though you don't deserve it".
If I'm right, therefore, I would expect that the outcome of the directive is a reduction in the number of custodial sentences imposed, rather than an increase in the number of custodial sentences suspended.
Am 11/10/2023 um 17:49 schrieb billy bookcase:
its true regrettably that the mainland UK has the highest
incarceration rate in
Western Europe
Genuinely asking what's wrong with that? The Yanks have managed to turn
the prison system into a profitable business and we need money post
Breaksit.
Am 11/10/2023 um 17:49 schrieb billy bookcase:
its true regrettably that the mainland UK has the highest
incarceration rate in
Western Europe
Genuinely asking what's wrong with that?
The Yanks have managed to turn the prison system into a profitable
business
We've run out of room in our prisons, it seems. Amazing, considering
that the Law and Order Conservative Party has been in power for over a decade.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-told-not-to-jail-rapists-as-prisons-are-full-2tfgb2czs
11 October 2023
Judges told not to jail rapists as prisons are full
Crown courts ordered to delay sentencing hearings
Convicted rapists and burglars will be spared jail from next week after judges were told that the country’s prisons are full.
Crown court judges have been ordered to delay sentencing hearings, The
Times has learnt, as the prison population has reached bursting point.
Lord Edis, the senior presiding judge for England and Wales, has ordered
that sentencing of convicted criminals who are currently on bail should
be delayed from Monday.
One senior crown court judge said that from Monday, judges have been “ordered/strongly encouraged” not to send to prison a defendant who appears before them on bail so as not to add to the prison population.
The judge said: “We have been told that this is a ‘short-term measure’, but nobody knows what that means.”
Why don't I copy and paste something I posted to uk.legal in 2014,
it's as true today as it was then, I wonder why politicians aren't
paying attention to it. Maybe they don't give a toss about the sweaty >masses? Anyway, here it is:
"There is apparently capacity for an absolute maximum of 85,000 prisoners
in the UK.
Each prisoner costs the UK taxpayer 37,000 a year (2012-13 figures)
just to be kept fed, watered and pandered to with gyms, plasma tvs and >internet access.
There are something like 165,000 people (excluding the incarcerated 85,000) >who probably ought to be locked up but aren't because there isn't the room - >we all know the sort, a product of the revolving door style of justice;
they get released, reoffend and return to prison.
The 165,000 is my figure, it could be higher (I suspect it is) or lower.
The UKIP manifesto reckons the prison population should double so they're >pitching their figure at another 85,000 but I reckon they're underestimating >what's going on in urban Britain these days.
So, privatise the whole shooting match.
A private contractor is told to build more prisons (or extend existing ones) >so that there is capacity for 250,000 prisoners.
How they deal with them is their business - if they don't want to provide the >aforementioned luxuries then they don't have to.
For each prisoner, they'll receive 25,000 a year pro-rata. 250,000 x 25,000 >= 6.25 billion in revenue. A 5% profit (conservative) equates to 312.5m per year.
You'd have the likes of Richard Branson queuing up for the contract.
The savings for the UK taxpayer? 12,000 per prisoner per year plus the >massive savings in benefits being drawn by those who are now locked up.
Additionally, you free up our overworked Plod who can mop up any remaining >miscreants at large.
It's also estimated crime costs the UK economy £10 billion per year. Insurance
premiums for householders should fall (I say *should*) because there's less >likelihood of the Brendan Fearon's of this world helping themselves to other >people's goods.
What punchline am I missing?"
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 17:04:47 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:and return to prison.
We've run out of room in our prisons, it seems. Amazing, considering
that the Law and Order Conservative Party has been in power for over a
decade.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-told-not-to-jail-rapists-as-prisons-are-full-2tfgb2czs
11 October 2023
Judges told not to jail rapists as prisons are full
Crown courts ordered to delay sentencing hearings
Convicted rapists and burglars will be spared jail from next week after
judges were told that the country’s prisons are full.
Crown court judges have been ordered to delay sentencing hearings, The
Times has learnt, as the prison population has reached bursting point.
Lord Edis, the senior presiding judge for England and Wales, has ordered
that sentencing of convicted criminals who are currently on bail should
be delayed from Monday.
One senior crown court judge said that from Monday, judges have been
“ordered/strongly encouraged†not to send to prison a defendant who
appears before them on bail so as not to add to the prison population.
The judge said: “We have been told that this is a ‘short-term measure’,
but nobody knows what that means.â€
Why don't I copy and paste something I posted to uk.legal in 2014, it's as true today as it was then, I wonder why politicians aren't paying attention to it. Maybe they don't give a toss about the sweaty masses? Anyway, here it is:
"There is apparently capacity for an absolute maximum of 85,000 prisoners in the UK.
Each prisoner costs the UK taxpayer £37,000 a year (2012-13 figures) just to be kept fed, watered and pandered to with gyms, plasma tvs and internet access.
There are something like 165,000 people (excluding the incarcerated 85,000) who probably ought to be locked up but aren't because there isn't the room - we all know the sort, a product of the revolving door style of justice; they get released, reoffend
The 165,000 is my figure, it could be higher (I suspect it is) or lower.
The UKIP manifesto reckons the prison population should double so they're pitching their figure at another 85,000 but I reckon they're underestimating what's going on in urban Britain these days.
So, privatise the whole shooting match.
A private contractor is told to build more prisons (or extend existing ones) so that there is capacity for 250,000 prisoners.
How they deal with them is their business - if they don't want to provide the aforementioned luxuries then they don't have to.
For each prisoner, they'll receive £25,000 a year pro-rata. 250,000 x £25,000 = £6.25 billion in revenue. A 5% profit (conservative) equates to £312.5m per year.
You'd have the likes of Richard Branson queuing up for the contract.
The savings for the UK taxpayer? £12,000 per prisoner per year plus the massive savings in benefits being drawn by those who are now locked up.
Additionally, you free up our overworked Plod who can mop up any remaining miscreants at large.
It's also estimated crime costs the UK economy £10 billion per year. Insurance premiums for householders should fall (I say *should*) because there's less likelihood of the Brendan Fearon's of this world helping themselves to other people's goods.
What punchline am I missing?"
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 08:27:47 -0700 (PDT), Tony The Welsh Twat <tonythewelshtwat@gmail.com> wrote:
Why don't I copy and paste something I posted to uk.legal in 2014,
it's as true today as it was then, I wonder why politicians aren't
paying attention to it. Maybe they don't give a toss about the sweaty
masses? Anyway, here it is:
"There is apparently capacity for an absolute maximum of 85,000 prisoners
in the UK.
Each prisoner costs the UK taxpayer £37,000 a year (2012-13 figures)
just to be kept fed, watered and pandered to with gyms, plasma tvs and
internet access.
There are something like 165,000 people (excluding the incarcerated 85,000) >> who probably ought to be locked up but aren't because there isn't the room - >> we all know the sort, a product of the revolving door style of justice;
they get released, reoffend and return to prison.
The 165,000 is my figure, it could be higher (I suspect it is) or lower.
The UKIP manifesto reckons the prison population should double so they're
pitching their figure at another 85,000 but I reckon they're underestimating >> what's going on in urban Britain these days.
So, privatise the whole shooting match.
A private contractor is told to build more prisons (or extend existing ones) >> so that there is capacity for 250,000 prisoners.
How they deal with them is their business - if they don't want to provide the
aforementioned luxuries then they don't have to.
For each prisoner, they'll receive £25,000 a year pro-rata. 250,000 x £25,000
= £6.25 billion in revenue. A 5% profit (conservative) equates to £312.5m per year.
You'd have the likes of Richard Branson queuing up for the contract.
The savings for the UK taxpayer? £12,000 per prisoner per year plus the
massive savings in benefits being drawn by those who are now locked up.
Additionally, you free up our overworked Plod who can mop up any remaining >> miscreants at large.
It's also estimated crime costs the UK economy £10 billion per year. Insurance
premiums for householders should fall (I say *should*) because there's less >> likelihood of the Brendan Fearon's of this world helping themselves to other >> people's goods.
What punchline am I missing?"
What you're missing, Chuckles, is that your sums simply don't add up.
Firstly, your proposed savings from privatisation are completely
unrealistic. The biggests costs of running a prison are not the provision of "luxuries", as you put it, but the absolute fundamentals of security and staffing. Commercial prison operators are not going to be able to save much, if anything, on those.
Secondly, there won't be any "massive savings in benefits". Prisoners in commercial prisons will still be eligible for the same benefits as they are now. Which is only a limited subset of benefits. Most prisoners don't get any. Which means that increasing the prison population would still cost more money, because - even at your implausibly low per-prisoner cost - it would still cost more to keep someone in prison than at home of the dole.
And, finally, privatising prisons won't mean that you will "free up our overworked Plod", because "plod" don't staff the prisons. Prison officers staff the prisons, and if you privatise the prisons then they will simply TUPE over to their new employers and carry on doing the same jobs. Or
they'll take redundancy and find a different job. They won't be available
for redeployment on the beat or investigating burglaries.
Now, there may well be an argument for privately run prisons. It does work, in other countries. But massive savings to the taxpayer is most certainly
not a part of that argument. The costs would not be that much different.
Mark
On 12/10/2023 06:04 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
Secondly, there won't be any "massive savings in benefits". Prisoners in
commercial prisons will still be eligible for the same benefits as they are >> now. Which is only a limited subset of benefits. Most prisoners don't get
any. Which means that increasing the prison population would still cost more >> money, because - even at your implausibly low per-prisoner cost - it would >> still cost more to keep someone in prison than at home of the dole.
There has to be a misunderstanding there somewhere. Prisoners do not get >weekly or fortnightly social security benefits - do they?
[If so, which ones?]
OK, not all potential prisoners are likely to be on benefits as the only >other likely option, but the PP did paint a vivid pen picture of people
who ARE likely to be on benefits when not in prison.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:53:01 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2023 06:04 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
Secondly, there won't be any "massive savings in benefits". Prisoners in >>> commercial prisons will still be eligible for the same benefits as they are >>> now. Which is only a limited subset of benefits. Most prisoners don't get >>> any. Which means that increasing the prison population would still cost more
money, because - even at your implausibly low per-prisoner cost - it would >>> still cost more to keep someone in prison than at home of the dole.
There has to be a misunderstanding there somewhere. Prisoners do not get
weekly or fortnightly social security benefits - do they?
Not most of them, no. Which is one of the reasons why the idea that privatised prisons will save on benefits is completely implausible.
But
there are some benefits that prisoners are still eligible for.
[If so, which ones?]
For short sentences, your eligibility for council tax and housing benefits will remain unchanged, as the expectation is that you will return to your home on release and the property will either be empty or occupied solely by your family while you are in prison. There's a limit of 13 weeks on conviction or 52 weeks on remand, though, so it is very much a short-term entitlement.
Your eligibility for child benefit is not directly affected by imprisonment, but in practice it's simpler in the majority of cases to transfer the
benefit entitlement to whoever will actually be looking after your
child(ren) while you are inside. Either way, though, that's entirely neutral to the taxpayer as child benefit eligibility is incurred by the child, not the claimant, and the location of the claimant is irrelevant.
Things you can't claim at all while in prison include JSA, Income Support, Working Tax Credit, Pension Credit, DLA and PIP, and all elements of Universal Credit other than those directly related to housing (as above).
OK, not all potential prisoners are likely to be on benefits as the only
other likely option, but the PP did paint a vivid pen picture of people
who ARE likely to be on benefits when not in prison.
Indeed. And in almost all cases, it will cost more to keep someone in prison than to pay them benefits while living at home. So increasing the prison population will, contrary to the suggestion made by the aptly-named PP, increase the overall cost to the taxpayer rather than reduce it...
On 14/10/2023 01:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
Indeed. And in almost all cases, it will cost more to keep someone in prison >> than to pay them benefits while living at home. So increasing the prison
population will, contrary to the suggestion made by the aptly-named PP,
increase the overall cost to the taxpayer rather than reduce it...
...but it needs to be offset in order to produce an accurate calculation
of the cost (even if only on the macro scale).
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 17:40:12 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/10/2023 01:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
Indeed. And in almost all cases, it will cost more to keep someone in prison
than to pay them benefits while living at home. So increasing the prison >>> population will, contrary to the suggestion made by the aptly-named PP,
increase the overall cost to the taxpayer rather than reduce it...
...but it needs to be offset in order to produce an accurate calculation
of the cost (even if only on the macro scale).
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a
person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year.
That's an order of magnitude
less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're calculating costs in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits offset is negligible.
Obviously some people do get a lot more in benefits. But the people getting the most in benefits tend, on the whole, not to be committing crimes.
There
aren't that many people on DLA or PIP in prison, for example. And when they do end up in prison, they typically cost more to keep there, because they need special treatment inside as well as outside.
Plus, of course, child
benefit is a significant proportion of the overall budget, and that's not affected by imprisoning someone because either they remain eligible for it
or the eligibility transfers to whoever takes on the responsibility of looking after the child.
On the other hand, someone who had a job before being imprisoned will no longer have a job, and therefore no longer be paying any tax or NI. So that increases, rather than offsets, the cost of imprisoning them.
Without more detailed figures (which as far as I can find aren't published anywhere), it's obviously impossible to be certain. But my gut feeling is that the savings in benefits and losses in tax will broadly even out, and
the resulting profit/loss figure, whatever it is, will be almost entirely trivial compared to the cost of keeping someone in prison.
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a
person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year. That's an order of
magnitude less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're calculating costs in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits offset is negligible.
On 15/10/2023 02:34 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 17:40:12 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/10/2023 01:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a
person on benefits is just over 5,500 a year.
That doesn't matter.
The correct comparator is the *marginal* cost, not the average cost.
That's an order of magnitude
less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're calculating costs >> in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits offset is negligible.
He didn't use any figures AFAICR.
Obviously some people do get a lot more in benefits. But the people getting >> the most in benefits tend, on the whole, not to be committing crimes.
What data do you have?
Without more detailed figures (which as far as I can find aren't published >> anywhere), it's obviously impossible to be certain. But my gut feeling is
that the savings in benefits and losses in tax will broadly even out, and
the resulting profit/loss figure, whatever it is, will be almost entirely
trivial compared to the cost of keeping someone in prison.
It would be easier to reach conclusions if the data were available; not
only the empirical amounts, but also the differential in propensity to
commit (serious) offences as between layers and sub-layers of society.
On 15/10/2023 14:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a
person on benefits is just over 5,500 a year. That's an order of
magnitude less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're
calculating costs in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits
offset is negligible.
Mark, could you please share the source of that data?
I found something suggesting that the cost of benefits (including state >pension, the largest amount) is about 4400 per person.
But that's all people, not just the ones on benefits.
<https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16>
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:56:55 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 02:34 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 17:40:12 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/10/2023 01:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a
person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year.
That doesn't matter.
The correct comparator is the *marginal* cost, not the average cost.
So what is the marginal cost of a person on benefits? And what do you mean
by "marginal" ,in this context?
That's an order of magnitudeHe didn't use any figures AFAICR.
less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're calculating costs
in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits offset is negligible. >>
He suggested that £25,000 a year would be enough to pay for a prison place. The reality is that it's around double that.
Obviously some people do get a lot more in benefits. But the people getting >>> the most in benefits tend, on the whole, not to be committing crimes.
What data do you have?
Anecdata, mainly. It's reasonably well known that the demographic most
likely to commit crime is young men. Who, on the whole, don't get to claim a lot of benefits.
Without more detailed figures (which as far as I can find aren't published >>> anywhere), it's obviously impossible to be certain. But my gut feeling is >>> that the savings in benefits and losses in tax will broadly even out, and >>> the resulting profit/loss figure, whatever it is, will be almost entirely >>> trivial compared to the cost of keeping someone in prison.
It would be easier to reach conclusions if the data were available; not
only the empirical amounts, but also the differential in propensity to
commit (serious) offences as between layers and sub-layers of society.
I'm sure someone, somewhere has done some research into the sociodemographic status of convicts which does include that data. But it's probably hidden away behind an academic publisher's paywall.
On 15/10/2023 10:10 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:56:55 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 02:34 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 17:40:12 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 14/10/2023 01:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a >>>> person on benefits is just over 5,500 a year.
That doesn't matter.
The correct comparator is the *marginal* cost, not the average cost.
So what is the marginal cost of a person on benefits? And what do you mean >> by "marginal" ,in this context?
That's an order of magnitude
less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're calculating costs
in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits offset is negligible.
He didn't use any figures AFAICR.
He suggested that 25,000 a year would be enough to pay for a prison place. >> The reality is that it's around double that.
On average, or at the margin?
That's a crucial question and you seem to be ignoring it.
It does not cost an extra 25,000 a year to imprison one prisoner.
Most of that sum is already being expended in overheads.
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:13:56 +0100, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 14:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a
person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year. That's an order of
magnitude less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're
calculating costs in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits
offset is negligible.
Mark, could you please share the source of that data?
A back of an envelope calculation from the figures in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63129705
Specifically, the article says that 22 million people were claiming some
form of benefits, and the government spent £122 billion on benefits. Assuming the now standard use of "billion" to mean a thousand million (and not the older usage of a million million), that works out as an average of £5,545.46 per claimant.
I found something suggesting that the cost of benefits (including state
pension, the largest amount) is about £4400 per person.
But that's all people, not just the ones on benefits.
<https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16>
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them.
To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:13:56 +0100, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 14:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a
person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year. That's an order of
magnitude less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're
calculating costs in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits
offset is negligible.
Mark, could you please share the source of that data?
A back of an envelope calculation from the figures in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63129705
Specifically, the article says that 22 million people were claiming some
form of benefits, and the government spent £122 billion on benefits. Assuming the now standard use of "billion" to mean a thousand million (and not the older usage of a million million), that works out as an average of £5,545.46 per claimant.
I found something suggesting that the cost of benefits (including state
pension, the largest amount) is about £4400 per person.
But that's all people, not just the ones on benefits.
<https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16>
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them.
To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 01:30:23 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 10:10 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:56:55 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 02:34 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 17:40:12 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 14/10/2023 01:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a >>>>> person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year.
That doesn't matter.
The correct comparator is the *marginal* cost, not the average cost.
So what is the marginal cost of a person on benefits? And what do you mean >>> by "marginal" ,in this context?
That's an order of magnitude
less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're calculating costs
in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits offset is negligible.
He didn't use any figures AFAICR.
He suggested that £25,000 a year would be enough to pay for a prison place.
The reality is that it's around double that.
On average, or at the margin?
I don't know what you mean by "margin" in this context. You seem to be dropping this word into the discussion without explaining why.
That's a crucial question and you seem to be ignoring it.
It does not cost an extra £25,000 a year to imprison one prisoner.
Most of that sum is already being expended in overheads.
Yes. But that's also why the PP's assertion is completely out of whack. A per-prisoner payment to a privately run prison takes no account of what the costs actually are.
On 16/10/2023 10:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:13:56 +0100, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 14:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a >>>> person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year. That's an order of
magnitude less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're
calculating costs in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits >>>> offset is negligible.
Mark, could you please share the source of that data?
A back of an envelope calculation from the figures in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63129705
Specifically, the article says that 22 million people were claiming some
form of benefits, and the government spent £122 billion on benefits.
Assuming the now standard use of "billion" to mean a thousand million
(and
not the older usage of a million million), that works out as an
average of
£5,545.46 per claimant.
I found something suggesting that the cost of benefits (including state
pension, the largest amount) is about £4400 per person.
But that's all people, not just the ones on benefits.
<https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16>
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded
them.
To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is
something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the
number of
pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
How do they stop prisoners from getting the state pension? How would the pension people know? And why shouldn't they get it as it is a non mean
tested contributory benefit?
On 16/10/2023 10:40 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:13:56 +0100, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 14:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a >>>> person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year. That's an order of
magnitude less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're
calculating costs in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits >>>> offset is negligible.
Mark, could you please share the source of that data?
A back of an envelope calculation from the figures in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63129705
Specifically, the article says that 22 million people were claiming some
form of benefits, and the government spent £122 billion on benefits.
Assuming the now standard use of "billion" to mean a thousand million (and >> not the older usage of a million million), that works out as an average of >> £5,545.46 per claimant.
I found something suggesting that the cost of benefits (including state
pension, the largest amount) is about £4400 per person.
But that's all people, not just the ones on benefits.
<https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16>
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them. >> To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is
something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of >> pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
Hmmm... I wonder what the rationale for suspending the payment of
Retirement Pension to pensioner prisoners can possibly be?
I hope they don't also lose entitlement to occupational and private
pensions as well. After all, they're contractual. And then there is the little matter of investment income (including, perhaps, rent for the
home they have "vacated" and don't wish to lose).
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
On 16 Oct 2023 at 15:05:50 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Hmmm... I wonder what the rationale for suspending the payment of
Retirement Pension to pensioner prisoners can possibly be?
The state is already housing, clothing and feeding them? Until very recently the old age pension was suspended when a recipient spent more than six weeks in an NHS hospital. This was of course scandalous (but entirely logical*), and
I believe may have been changed some time this century. I can't remember which
bunch of crooks changed it, but look it up if these things matter to you.
"Marginal cost" is a familiar-enough term when used in discussion of
finance or economics more generally. In this context, it means the extra
cost of imprisoning one extra prisoner.
In a situation where the average cost per prisoner is (say) 25,000 pa,
the marginal cost will be MUCH lower because, as already agreed, most of
the 25,000 has already been expended in overhead costs.
On 16/10/2023 10:40 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them. >> To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is
something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of >> pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
Hmmm... I wonder what the rationale for suspending the payment of
Retirement Pension to pensioner prisoners can possibly be?
I hope they don't also lose entitlement to occupational and private
pensions as well. After all, they're contractual. And then there is the >little matter of investment income (including, perhaps, rent for the
home they have "vacated" and don't wish to lose).
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state >pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:13:56 +0100, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 14:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a
person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year. That's an order of
magnitude less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're
calculating costs in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits
offset is negligible.
Mark, could you please share the source of that data?
A back of an envelope calculation from the figures in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63129705
Specifically, the article says that 22 million people were claiming some
form of benefits, and the government spent £122 billion on benefits. Assuming the now standard use of "billion" to mean a thousand million (and not the older usage of a million million), that works out as an average of £5,545.46 per claimant.
I found something suggesting that the cost of benefits (including state
pension, the largest amount) is about £4400 per person.
But that's all people, not just the ones on benefits.
<https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16>
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them.
To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:05:50 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 10:40 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them. >>> To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is >>> something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of >>> pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
Hmmm... I wonder what the rationale for suspending the payment of
Retirement Pension to pensioner prisoners can possibly be?
The state pension is to help pay your living costs.
In prison, all your
living costs are already getting paid.
I hope they don't also lose entitlement to occupational and private
pensions as well. After all, they're contractual. And then there is the
little matter of investment income (including, perhaps, rent for the
home they have "vacated" and don't wish to lose).
That would depend on the terms and conditions of the pension.
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state
pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
The main moral difference is that the state pension is entirely paid for by taxpayers, while an occupational or personal pension is paid for by your employer and you...
On 16 Oct 2023 at 15:05:50 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 10:40 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:13:56 +0100, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 14:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
It would be a very small offset. The average cost to the treasury of a >>>>> person on benefits is just over £5,500 a year. That's an order of
magnitude less than the cost of keeping someone in prison. If you're >>>>> calculating costs in round figures, which the PP was, then the benefits >>>>> offset is negligible.
Mark, could you please share the source of that data?
A back of an envelope calculation from the figures in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63129705
Specifically, the article says that 22 million people were claiming some >>> form of benefits, and the government spent £122 billion on benefits.
Assuming the now standard use of "billion" to mean a thousand million (and >>> not the older usage of a million million), that works out as an average of >>> £5,545.46 per claimant.
I found something suggesting that the cost of benefits (including state >>>> pension, the largest amount) is about £4400 per person.
But that's all people, not just the ones on benefits.
<https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16>
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them. >>> To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is >>> something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of >>> pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
Hmmm... I wonder what the rationale for suspending the payment of
Retirement Pension to pensioner prisoners can possibly be?
The state is already housing, clothing and feeding them?
Until very recently
the old age pension was suspended when a recipient spent more than six weeks in an NHS hospital. This was of course scandalous (but entirely logical*), and
I believe may have been changed some time this century. I can't remember which
bunch of crooks changed it, but look it up if these things matter to you.
I hope they don't also lose entitlement to occupational and private
pensions as well. After all, they're contractual. And then there is the
little matter of investment income (including, perhaps, rent for the
home they have "vacated" and don't wish to lose).
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state
pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
*They are getting another more expensive non-contributory state benefit, NHS care, in lieu. It seems scandalous because the normative majority receive state pension, but 90% or 100% rates of marginal tax on benefit recipients seem ok; because they are "other", not "us".
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:14:37 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
"Marginal cost" is a familiar-enough term when used in discussion of
finance or economics more generally. In this context, it means the extra
cost of imprisoning one extra prisoner.
In a situation where the average cost per prisoner is (say) £25,000 pa,
the marginal cost will be MUCH lower because, as already agreed, most of
the £25,000 has already been expended in overhead costs.
Until you reach capacity, at which point the marginal cost is massively greater because it will also include the costs of constructing new
facilities and hiring new staff.
That's why the marginal cost is useless for statistical and budgetary purposes. It will vary so much according to circumstances. The overall average is much more useful.
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state
pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
The main moral difference is that the state pension is entirely paid for by taxpayers, while an occupational or personal pension is paid for by your employer and you.
On 16 Oct 2023 at 18:38:50 BST, Mark Goodge wrote:
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state
pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
The main moral difference is that the state pension is entirely paid for by >> taxpayers, while an occupational or personal pension is paid for by your
employer and you.
It could be argued that an individual's state pension has been provided by >direct and indirect tax contributions throughout their life - hence being >roughly morally equivalent.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:05:50 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 10:40 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them. >>> To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is >>> something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of >>> pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
Hmmm... I wonder what the rationale for suspending the payment of
Retirement Pension to pensioner prisoners can possibly be?
The state pension is to help pay your living costs. In prison, all your living costs are already getting paid.
On 16/10/2023 06:38 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:05:50 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 10:40 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them. >>>> To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is >>>> something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of
pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by
sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
Hmmm... I wonder what the rationale for suspending the payment of
Retirement Pension to pensioner prisoners can possibly be?
The state pension is to help pay your living costs.
Says who?
Please quote the Act and any relevant Statutory Instrument(s).
In prison, all your
living costs are already getting paid.
Would your private pension be suspended too?
Investment income?
I hope they don't also lose entitlement to occupational and private
pensions as well. After all, they're contractual. And then there is the
little matter of investment income (including, perhaps, rent for the
home they have "vacated" and don't wish to lose).
That would depend on the terms and conditions of the pension.
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state
pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
The main moral difference is that the state pension is entirely paid for by >> taxpayers, while an occupational or personal pension is paid for by your
employer and you...
...on contractual terms.
Has anyone ever been asked to contract to the withdrawal of their state >pension in any circumstances other then their (own) death?
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:41:56 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 16 Oct 2023 at 18:38:50 BST, Mark Goodge wrote:
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state >>>> pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
The main moral difference is that the state pension is entirely paid for by >>> taxpayers, while an occupational or personal pension is paid for by your >>> employer and you.
It could be argued that an individual's state pension has been provided by >> direct and indirect tax contributions throughout their life - hence being
roughly morally equivalent.
Anyone arguing that would be fundamentally wrong.
The pensions being paid now are being paid for by taxpayers now. When
current pensioners were earning and paying tax, those taxes went towards paying the pensioners then, not into some hypothetical savings account that they would be able to draw on later.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 02:41:23 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 06:38 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:05:50 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 10:40 am, Mark Goodge wrote:
My calculations excluded pensions, because the context also excluded them.
To some extent that does affect the figures, because the state pension is >>>>> something else that you don't get while in prison either. But the number of
pensioners in prison is relatively low, so the savings on pensions by >>>>> sending people to prison are not likely to be significant.
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
Hmmm... I wonder what the rationale for suspending the payment of
Retirement Pension to pensioner prisoners can possibly be?
The state pension is to help pay your living costs.
Says who?
Me. Although I think it's a good summary of the point of the state pension.
Please quote the Act and any relevant Statutory Instrument(s).
It's not based on legislation. It's just a simple explanation of what the state pension is for. You might want to look up the history of the National Insurance Act and National Assistance Act, though.
In prison, all your
living costs are already getting paid.
Would your private pension be suspended too?
Investment income?
No, because those aren't being paid by the state.
I hope they don't also lose entitlement to occupational and private
pensions as well. After all, they're contractual. And then there is the >>>> little matter of investment income (including, perhaps, rent for the
home they have "vacated" and don't wish to lose).
That would depend on the terms and conditions of the pension.
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state >>>> pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
The main moral difference is that the state pension is entirely paid for by >>> taxpayers, while an occupational or personal pension is paid for by your >>> employer and you...
...on contractual terms.
Has anyone ever been asked to contract to the withdrawal of their state
pension in any circumstances other then their (own) death?
The state pension is a form of welfare.
It isn't provided on a contractual basis.
So the state can withdraw it under whatever circumstances it chooses
(or, more pertiently, whatever circumstances it feels are politically acceptable and won't be slapped down by the courts under the Human Rights Act). Just like it can withdraw any other form of welfare payment.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:41:56 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 16 Oct 2023 at 18:38:50 BST, Mark Goodge wrote:
What can be the moral difference between Retirement Pension ("the state >>>> pension") and any other form of pension or continuing income?
The main moral difference is that the state pension is entirely paid for by >>> taxpayers, while an occupational or personal pension is paid for by your >>> employer and you.
It could be argued that an individual's state pension has been provided by >> direct and indirect tax contributions throughout their life - hence being
roughly morally equivalent.
Anyone arguing that would be fundamentally wrong.
The pensions being paid now are being paid for by taxpayers now. When
current pensioners were earning and paying tax, those taxes went towards paying the pensioners then, not into some hypothetical savings account that they would be able to draw on later.
The state pension is a form of welfare. It isn't provided on a contractual basis. So the state can withdraw it under whatever circumstances it chooses (or, more pertiently, whatever circumstances it feels are politically acceptable and won't be slapped down by the courts under the Human Rights Act). Just like it can withdraw any other form of welfare payment.
Mark
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 11:19:54 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
The state pension is a form of welfare. It isn't provided on a contractual >> basis. So the state can withdraw it under whatever circumstances it chooses >> (or, more pertiently, whatever circumstances it feels are politically
acceptable and won't be slapped down by the courts under the Human Rights
Act). Just like it can withdraw any other form of welfare payment.
Mark
Excuse me?
The state pension is something I hope to withdraw at age 67 having contributed >into for 42 years (since I started work at age 18). By the time I retire I will
have contributed for 49 years.
"The state can withdraw it"?
Is this North Korea?
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 11:19:54 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
The state pension is a form of welfare. It isn't provided on a contractual >> basis. So the state can withdraw it under whatever circumstances it chooses >> (or, more pertiently, whatever circumstances it feels are politically
acceptable and won't be slapped down by the courts under the Human Rights
Act). Just like it can withdraw any other form of welfare payment.
Mark
Excuse me?
The state pension is something I hope to withdraw at age 67 having contributed into for 42 years (since I started work at age 18). By the time I retire I will have contributed for 49 years.
"The state can withdraw it"?
Is this North Korea?
Now, please, behave.
On 17/10/2023 17:44, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 11:19:54 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
The state pension is a form of welfare. It isn't provided on a
contractual
basis. So the state can withdraw it under whatever circumstances it
chooses
(or, more pertiently, whatever circumstances it feels are politically
acceptable and won't be slapped down by the courts under the Human
Rights
Act). Just like it can withdraw any other form of welfare payment.
Mark
Excuse me?
The state pension is something I hope to withdraw at age 67 having
contributed into for 42 years (since I started work at age 18). By
the time I retire I will have contributed for 49 years.
"The state can withdraw it"?
Is this North Korea?
Now, please, behave.
Everything provided by the government can be withdrawn at any time. How
much of his police pension do you think Wayne Couzens will get if he
ever leaves prison[1]?
[1] Yes I know he has a whole life sentence but the point still holds.
On 17/10/2023 08:20 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/10/2023 17:44, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 11:19:54 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
The state pension is a form of welfare. It isn't provided on a
contractual
basis. So the state can withdraw it under whatever circumstances it
chooses
(or, more pertiently, whatever circumstances it feels are politically
acceptable and won't be slapped down by the courts under the Human
Rights
Act). Just like it can withdraw any other form of welfare payment.
Mark
Excuse me?
The state pension is something I hope to withdraw at age 67 having
contributed into for 42 years (since I started work at age 18). By
the time I retire I will have contributed for 49 years.
"The state can withdraw it"?
Is this North Korea?
Now, please, behave.
Everything provided by the government can be withdrawn at any time.
How much of his police pension do you think Wayne Couzens will get if
he ever leaves prison[1]?
[1] Yes I know he has a whole life sentence but the point still holds.
The very expensive police pension scheme has contractual provision for
the forfeiture of entitlement for members convicted of serious offences.
It isn't arbitrary.
<https://www.policeprofessional.com/news/forfeiture-of-police-pensions/#:~:text=Under%20this%20regulation%2C%20a%20police,has%20been%20sentenced%20on%20the>
On 18/10/2023 15:44, JNugent wrote:
On 17/10/2023 08:20 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/10/2023 17:44, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 11:19:54 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
The state pension is a form of welfare. It isn't provided on a
contractual
basis. So the state can withdraw it under whatever circumstances it
chooses
(or, more pertiently, whatever circumstances it feels are politically >>>>> acceptable and won't be slapped down by the courts under the Human
Rights
Act). Just like it can withdraw any other form of welfare payment.
Mark
Excuse me?
The state pension is something I hope to withdraw at age 67 having
contributed into for 42 years (since I started work at age 18). By
the time I retire I will have contributed for 49 years.
"The state can withdraw it"?
Is this North Korea?
Now, please, behave.
Everything provided by the government can be withdrawn at any time.
How much of his police pension do you think Wayne Couzens will get if
he ever leaves prison[1]?
[1] Yes I know he has a whole life sentence but the point still holds.
The very expensive police pension scheme has contractual provision for
the forfeiture of entitlement for members convicted of serious offences.
It isn't arbitrary.
<https://www.policeprofessional.com/news/forfeiture-of-police-pensions/#:~:text=Under%20this%20regulation%2C%20a%20police,has%20been%20sentenced%20on%20the>
Subject to: "certified by the Secretary of State either to have been
gravely injurious to the interests of the State or to be liable to lead
to serious loss of confidence in the public service".
I guess that can mean very different things to different ministers.
Either way, it is something the officer has paid into and can be removed
at a whim of a minister.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 44:57:50 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,113 |