From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

Sent yesterday morning. U-turn already on item 4, and on 2 is
increasingly likely given Trump's renewed opposition. I expect a quick
reverse ferret on 1 soon as well as 3 and 5 longer term.

Dear Mr. Yasin,

I have hesitated to write this latest email given the risk of being
overtaken by events - how many U-turns has it been now ?

I believe that the Government needs to add the following to the
ever-growing list:

1. The proposed changes to the right to Trial by Jury. Everyone knows
this will make no difference to the backlog.

2. The "sale" of the Chagos Islands. This is especially egregious now
given the occupation of their own country by the Chagossians and the
prospect of them being arrested and deported. The legal basis for the
takeover by Mauritius has been seriously challenged and in my opinion it should not override the requests by the original inhabitants - evicted
by a Labour Government - to be allowed to return to their own country.
The -u35Bn should be given to them over 100 years as compensation for
that eviction and on the understanding that we could occupy Diego Garcia
for as long as we and the USA deem necessary.

3. A huge reduction in the minimum wage. We all know that Governments
love it because the low-waged now get more of their income from their employers rather than UC and also pay tax, so there's a double benefit,
while at the same time employers costs go up and the number of jobs they
can afford drops, especially for the young where the unemployment rate
is obscene.

4. Removal of the demand to delete the court records database that is of
so much use to the media and other researchers. If there's a privacy
concern that should be addressed, but since a complaint was never raised
this seems to be a spurious reason.

5. Complete removal of IHT for family farms and businesses. The increase
in the threshold for farmers was a step in the right direction but it
needs to go much further.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 19.2.26 11:42, BrritSki wrote:

Sent yesterday morning. U-turn already on item 4, and on 2 is
increasingly likely given Trump's renewed opposition. I expect a quick reverse ferret on 1 soon as well as 3 and 5 longer term.

Dear Mr. Yasin,

I have hesitated to write this latest email given the risk of being overtaken by events - how many U-turns has it been now ?

I believe that the Government needs to add the following to the ever- growing list:

1. The proposed changes to the right to Trial by Jury. Everyone knows
this will make no difference to the backlog.

2. The "sale" of the Chagos Islands. This is especially egregious now
given the occupation of their own country by the Chagossians and the prospect of them being arrested and deported. The legal basis for the takeover by Mauritius has been seriously challenged and in my opinion it should not override the requests by the original inhabitants - evicted
by a Labour Government - to be allowed to return to their own country.
The -u35Bn should be given to them over 100 years as compensation for
that eviction and on the understanding that we could occupy Diego Garcia
for as long as we and the USA deem necessary.

3. A huge reduction in the minimum wage. We all know that Governments
love it because the low-waged now get more of their income from their employers rather than UC and also pay tax, so there's a double benefit, while at the same time employers costs go up and the number of jobs they
can afford drops, especially for the young where the unemployment rate
is obscene.

4. Removal of the demand to delete the court records database that is of
so much use to the media and other researchers. If there's a privacy
concern that should be addressed, but since a complaint was never raised this seems to be a spurious reason.

5. Complete removal of IHT for family farms and businesses. The increase
in the threshold for farmers was a step in the right direction but it
needs to go much further.

I am not sure I understand item 3. The rates are currently -u7.55 for
those under 18 and -u8 from 1 April, for those 18-20 it is -u10 going to -u10.85. The rates are set for 1 April commencement and if an employee
cannot generate added value of -u10 plus employer NI in an hour then the
job does not exist.

I entirely support items 1 and 4 as I understand them. Item 2 I
honestly do not know what is "right" but then apparently President Trump
does not know his mind either. Apparently the legal profession have
been working on solving the "Chagos problem" for years but I am not sure anyone understands what the problem is. Item 5 seems unlikely given the partial reverse ferret as Pip mentioned the other evening.

The one change the government should do immediately is to re-instate Rooker-Wise and similarly change the other stupid bands in Income Tax by inflation (without being sure I have all of them - but higher rate break point, recovery of child benefit, removal of personal allowances,
imposition of extra higher rate (or whatever it is actually called).
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

I rarely agree with you, dear Brittski, but now and then you have a point.

1. Exactly. Fund the courts properly, make sure that the police always
attend on time and with the correct evidence and things will look up immediately.

2. I would have disagreed with you on this, having read that
international law apparently required us to give the islands to
Mauritius. But reading further about some other tricky little points of
law (including a legally binding letter exchanged between the UK and the
US which seems to have stipulated that the US will only remain on Diego
Garcia as long as the UK is sovereign there, and which gives the US a
veto), I start to wonder about the general competence of all concerned.
But most of all I find it appalling that absolutely no-one (and
certainly not the Mauritians) cares a button about the Chagossians.

On the other hand, it appears that Trump's latest U-turn on the treaty
stems not from a deep dive into the legalities but from the fact that
Starmer told him he couldn't launch strikes on Iran from there. So
hurrah for Keir, for a change.

3. No, non-starter. A reduction in the minimum wage simply means more
working people having to sign on, and more people having to have
multiple jobs simply to keep a roof over their heads.

4. Absolutely. A question of transparency and accountability. I'm just
hoping the actual records are not being pruned in the cause of
affordability - historians are going to be tearing their hair out
(assuming hair is still a thing. And historians) on the lack of physical evidence of anything from the twenty-first century.

5. I'd agree on lower IHT (why should they get away with nothing?), as
long as it is for properly, seriously, legally attested family firms and doesn't include the Clarksons and their corporate pals who are just out
to preserve their millions.





On 19/02/2026 11:42, BrritSki wrote:

Sent yesterday morning. U-turn already on item 4, and on 2 is
increasingly likely given Trump's renewed opposition. I expect a quick reverse ferret on 1 soon as well as 3 and 5 longer term.

Dear Mr. Yasin,

I have hesitated to write this latest email given the risk of being overtaken by events - how many U-turns has it been now ?

I believe that the Government needs to add the following to the ever- growing list:

1. The proposed changes to the right to Trial by Jury. Everyone knows
this will make no difference to the backlog.

2. The "sale" of the Chagos Islands. This is especially egregious now
given the occupation of their own country by the Chagossians and the prospect of them being arrested and deported. The legal basis for the takeover by Mauritius has been seriously challenged and in my opinion it should not override the requests by the original inhabitants - evicted
by a Labour Government - to be allowed to return to their own country.
The -u35Bn should be given to them over 100 years as compensation for
that eviction and on the understanding that we could occupy Diego Garcia
for as long as we and the USA deem necessary.

3. A huge reduction in the minimum wage. We all know that Governments
love it because the low-waged now get more of their income from their employers rather than UC and also pay tax, so there's a double benefit, while at the same time employers costs go up and the number of jobs they
can afford drops, especially for the young where the unemployment rate
is obscene.

4. Removal of the demand to delete the court records database that is of
so much use to the media and other researchers. If there's a privacy
concern that should be addressed, but since a complaint was never raised this seems to be a spurious reason.

5. Complete removal of IHT for family farms and businesses. The increase
in the threshold for farmers was a step in the right direction but it
needs to go much further.

--
Kate B
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 19/02/2026 14:33, Kosmo wrote:

On 19.2.26 11:42, BrritSki wrote:

3. A huge reduction in the minimum wage. We all know that Governments
love it because the low-waged now get more of their income from their
employers rather than UC and also pay tax, so there's a double
benefit, while at the same time employers costs go up and the number
of jobs they can afford drops, especially for the young where the
unemployment rate is obscene.

I am not sure I understand item 3.-a The rates are currently -u7.55 for those under 18 and -u8 from 1 April, for those 18-20 it is -u10 going to -u10.85.-a The rates are set for 1 April commencement and if an employee cannot generate added value of -u10 plus employer NI in an hour then the
job does not exist.

Out of roughly 33 million people in employment, nearly three million are
on UC while working. Of these, around two million are on or close to the minimum wage.

In April 2025 the minimum wage rose by 7%, from an annual wage of
-u23,900 to -u25,500 rCo about -u1,600 more a year. That makes a fine headline. But it is not just those on the minimum wage who receive
increases. Employers must raise the pay of other lower-paid workers by a similar amount to preserve incentives for skill, experience and responsibility.

Now look at what actually happens to that -u1,600 increase for the two
million lower-paid workers affected.

The pay rise costs the employer -u1,840 once EmployerrCOs National
Insurance is included.

The worker immediately loses -u880 as UC is withdrawn at 55%.

Income tax takes a further -u320.

National Insurance takes another -u130.

The result is stark. Out of a supposed -u1,600 pay rise, which costs the employer over -u1,800 to provide, the worker keeps -u270, just a sixth of
the claimed pay increase.

Where does the missing -u1,600 go? To the government.


The above copied from this article:

<https://dailysceptic.org/2025/12/22/why-governments-love-raising-the-minimum-wage-because-its-really-a-tax/>

More good reasons from same author for it being a pernicious measure:

<https://dailysceptic.org/2025/12/18/the-problem-with-the-minimum-wage/>

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 19/02/2026 14:46, Kate B wrote:

I rarely agree with you, dear Brittski, but now and then you have a point.

1. Exactly. Fund the courts properly, make sure that the police always attend on time and with the correct evidence and things will look up immediately.

2. I would have disagreed with you on this, having read that
international law apparently required us to give the islands to
Mauritius. But reading further about some other tricky little points of
law (including a legally binding letter exchanged between the UK and the
US which seems to have stipulated that the US will only remain on Diego Garcia as long as the UK is sovereign there, and which gives the US a
veto), I start to wonder about the general competence of all concerned.
But most of all I find it appalling that absolutely no-one (and
certainly not the Mauritians) cares a button about the Chagossians.

Powell was implicit in Mandelson's hire as Ambassador and has strong
links to China and here he is pushing the Chagos deal, which Starmerer's friend and fellow Human Rights (for everyone except Chagossians) KC
Phillippe Sands has made -u8m from:

https://order-order.com/2026/02/19/exc-the-chagos-files-powell-visited-china-and-spoke-at-front-organisation-conference-while-he-was-starmers-chagos-negotiator/

<Snip remainder>
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 19/02/2026 15:08, BrritSki wrote:

On 19/02/2026 14:33, Kosmo wrote:

On 19.2.26 11:42, BrritSki wrote:

3. A huge reduction in the minimum wage. We all know that Governments
love it because the low-waged now get more of their income from their
employers rather than UC and also pay tax, so there's a double
benefit, while at the same time employers costs go up and the number
of jobs they can afford drops, especially for the young where the
unemployment rate is obscene.

I am not sure I understand item 3.-a The rates are currently -u7.55 for
those under 18 and -u8 from 1 April, for those 18-20 it is -u10 going to
-u10.85.-a The rates are set for 1 April commencement and if an employee
cannot generate added value of -u10 plus employer NI in an hour then
the job does not exist.

Out of roughly 33 million people in employment, nearly three million are
on UC while working. Of these, around two million are on or close to the minimum wage.

In April 2025 the minimum wage rose by 7%, from an annual wage of
-u23,900 to -u25,500 rCo about -u1,600 more a year. That makes a fine headline. But it is not just those on the minimum wage who receive increases. Employers must raise the pay of other lower-paid workers by a similar amount to preserve incentives for skill, experience and responsibility.

Now look at what actually happens to that -u1,600 increase for the two million lower-paid workers affected.

The pay rise costs the employer -u1,840 once EmployerrCOs National
Insurance is included.

The worker immediately loses -u880 as UC is withdrawn at 55%.

Income tax takes a further -u320.

National Insurance takes another -u130.

The result is stark. Out of a supposed -u1,600 pay rise, which costs the employer over -u1,800 to provide, the worker keeps -u270, just a sixth of the claimed pay increase.

Where does the missing -u1,600 go? To the government.

The above copied from this article:

<https://dailysceptic.org/2025/12/22/why-governments-love-raising-the- minimum-wage-because-its-really-a-tax/>

More good reasons from same author for it being a pernicious measure:

<https://dailysceptic.org/2025/12/18/the-problem-with-the-minimum-wage/>

And this from the Speccie:

Forty-five per cent of 24-year-olds who are not in education,
employment, or training rCo known as rCyNEETsrCO rCo have never had a job. Not a
Saturday shift at a caf|-, not a summer stacking shelves, not an
entry-level role that teaches you what an invoice or balance sheet looks
like. Alan Milburn, former Labour health secretary and now chair of the governmentrCOs own young people and work review, delivered this verdict
this week with the weary authority of a doctor who knows the patient is deteriorating but cannot persuade them to change the treatment.

The latest figures from the National Institute of Economic and Social
Research (NIESR) confirm what anyone with a passing familiarity with
employing people will know. As they argue:

"There are indications that younger workers in particular are being
priced out of the market. A rise of 33 per cent in the minimum wage over
the past two years has pushed up the unemployment rate for 18-24 year
olds by more than two percentage points to 14 per cent rCo the highest in
a decade."

Overall unemployment is heading for 5.4 per cent this year, its worst
since 2015 (bar during the lockdowns). The cost of hiring an entry-level worker jumped 10.6 per cent last year alone owing to the rise in
employer National Insurance contributions. And the governmentrCOs
response? To consider delaying the next phase of wage equalisation for
the minimum wage, not scrapping it. A pause, not a rethink. Rearranging
the deckchairs as the bow of the ship slowly dips beneath the waterline.

This is what happens when politicians mistake price controls for pay
rises. LetrCOs be clear about what the minimum wage actually is. It is
not, in any meaningful sense, a guarantee of higher earnings. It is a government-imposed price floor on labour, identical in its economic
logic to any other administered price. Set it above the market-clearing
rate, and you generate a surplus of supply over demand.

In the labour market, that surplus has a name: unemployment. This is not controversial or new rCo as my learned colleague Dr Eamonn Butler
explained in his book Forty centuries of wage and price controls, since
the days of Hammurabi, price controls have caused chaos.

And yet successive governments, Conservative and Labour alike, have
treated the minimum wage as though it were a magic wand that conjures prosperity from thin air, rather than a blunt instrument that prices the
least experienced workers out of a job rCo and yes, that means young people. --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 19/02/2026 15:47, BrritSki wrote:

On 19/02/2026 15:08, BrritSki wrote:

On 19/02/2026 14:33, Kosmo wrote:

On 19.2.26 11:42, BrritSki wrote:

3. A huge reduction in the minimum wage. We all know that
Governments love it because the low-waged now get more of their
income from their employers rather than UC and also pay tax, so
there's a double benefit, while at the same time employers costs go
up and the number of jobs they can afford drops, especially for the
young where the unemployment rate is obscene.

I am not sure I understand item 3.-a The rates are currently -u7.55 for >>> those under 18 and -u8 from 1 April, for those 18-20 it is -u10 going
to -u10.85.-a The rates are set for 1 April commencement and if an
employee cannot generate added value of -u10 plus employer NI in an
hour then the job does not exist.

Out of roughly 33 million people in employment, nearly three million
are on UC while working. Of these, around two million are on or close
to the minimum wage.

In April 2025 the minimum wage rose by 7%, from an annual wage of
-u23,900 to -u25,500 rCo about -u1,600 more a year. That makes a fine
headline. But it is not just those on the minimum wage who receive
increases. Employers must raise the pay of other lower-paid workers by
a similar amount to preserve incentives for skill, experience and
responsibility.

Now look at what actually happens to that -u1,600 increase for the two
million lower-paid workers affected.

The pay rise costs the employer -u1,840 once EmployerrCOs National
Insurance is included.

The worker immediately loses -u880 as UC is withdrawn at 55%.

Income tax takes a further -u320.

National Insurance takes another -u130.

The result is stark. Out of a supposed -u1,600 pay rise, which costs
the employer over -u1,800 to provide, the worker keeps -u270, just a
sixth of the claimed pay increase.

Where does the missing -u1,600 go? To the government.


The above copied from this article:

<https://dailysceptic.org/2025/12/22/why-governments-love-raising-the-
minimum-wage-because-its-really-a-tax/>

More good reasons from same author for it being a pernicious measure:

<https://dailysceptic.org/2025/12/18/the-problem-with-the-minimum-wage/>

And this from the Speccie:

Forty-five per cent of 24-year-olds who are not in education,
employment, or training rCo known as rCyNEETsrCO rCo have never had a job. Not a
Saturday shift at a caf|-, not a summer stacking shelves, not an entry- level role that teaches you what an invoice or balance sheet looks like.

This means very little without the contextualising figure for what
percentage of all 24-year-olds are NEETs, and of those what fraction are involuntarily NEET (e.g. physically or mentally ill or disabled)

john

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 11:42:29 +0000, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sent yesterday morning. U-turn already on item 4, and on 2 is
increasingly likely given Trump's renewed opposition. I expect a quick >reverse ferret on 1 soon as well as 3 and 5 longer term.

Dear Mr. Yasin,

I have hesitated to write this latest email given the risk of being >overtaken by events - how many U-turns has it been now ?

I believe that the Government needs to add the following to the
ever-growing list:

<snip>

Okay, so I have read this post several times and I'm having difficulty
parsing it. I'm obviously hard of thinking right now so treat me as if
I were a six-year-old. But not a smart six-year-old obvs.

Are you writing to Mohammad Yasin to inform him how one of his
constituents feels? Are you asking him for a reply? Do you want him to
do something: if so, what? Since you describe this as the "latest"
email, would he (or I) get more context for this "latest" email if he
(or I) were to have read earlier emails first?

Nick
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 20/02/2026 16:52, Nick Odell wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 11:42:29 +0000, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sent yesterday morning. U-turn already on item 4, and on 2 is
increasingly likely given Trump's renewed opposition. I expect a quick
reverse ferret on 1 soon as well as 3 and 5 longer term.

Dear Mr. Yasin,

I have hesitated to write this latest email given the risk of being
overtaken by events - how many U-turns has it been now ?

I believe that the Government needs to add the following to the
ever-growing list:

<snip>

Okay, so I have read this post several times and I'm having difficulty parsing it. I'm obviously hard of thinking right now so treat me as if
I were a six-year-old. But not a smart six-year-old obvs.

Are you writing to Mohammad Yasin to inform him how one of his
constituents feels? Are you asking him for a reply? Do you want him to
do something: if so, what? Since you describe this as the "latest"
email, would he (or I) get more context for this "latest" email if he
(or I) were to have read earlier emails first?

Nick

I think it's a plea for the reversal of the enumerated government
policies. Pointless, really, when simply waiting would save the price of
a stamp.
john
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 20/02/2026 16:52, Nick Odell wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 11:42:29 +0000, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sent yesterday morning. U-turn already on item 4, and on 2 is
increasingly likely given Trump's renewed opposition. I expect a quick
reverse ferret on 1 soon as well as 3 and 5 longer term.

Dear Mr. Yasin,

I have hesitated to write this latest email given the risk of being
overtaken by events - how many U-turns has it been now ?

I believe that the Government needs to add the following to the
ever-growing list:

<snip>

Okay, so I have read this post several times and I'm having difficulty parsing it. I'm obviously hard of thinking right now so treat me as if
I were a six-year-old. But not a smart six-year-old obvs.

Are you writing to Mohammad Yasin to inform him how one of his
constituents feels? Are you asking him for a reply? Do you want him to
do something: if so, what? Since you describe this as the "latest"
email, would he (or I) get more context for this "latest" email if he
(or I) were to have read earlier emails first?

All of the above - it follows on from earlier discussions with him and suggestions of what he should be supporting and vice-versa.

And there's an element of piss-taking too.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2