BREAKING NEWS Second man charged with 45 child sex offences, including rape, as part of wider child abuse investigation
More to come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
39 minutes ago
- BBC News
Thames Valley Police officers in Cowley sacked after sex video lies
A police officer found to have shown an intimate video of a woman he had been having an affair with has been sacked, along with a colleague a panel said lied about watching John Birch and Daniel Gunston, who were based in Cowley, Oxford, met up outside work and discussed the former's wife finding the sex video and other pictures on his later Gunston told colleagues he had seen an "interesting video" but later denied watching it and said he had briefly seen indistinct thumbnails on Mr Birch's Thames Valley Police officers were found guilty of gross misconduct and sacked following a hearing last month. Mr Gunston was a member of a team celebrated for its response to a crash that killed a mother and three of her children in a panel found his backtracking on what he had seen on his colleague's phone amounted to "operational dishonesty" and was "intentional and deliberate".Mr Birch, who had been friends with Mr Gunston before they joined the police, had the consensual sexual relationship with the woman in February acknowledged that he kept at least two videos of them on his phone and that he could not have "reasonably believed" the woman had consented to them being shown to other he denied showing at least one of those to his friend because he said he would have been "embarrassed".Mr Birch said he had instead "explained the videos in detail" and that Mr Gunston might have seen intimate images of the woman as he was "waving his mobile phone around".The panel found that "highly implausible".The police officers' identities were initially anonymised "for the purpose of protecting the welfare of [Mr Birch's] children" but revealed after they were dismissed. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
BBC News
40 minutes ago
- BBC News
Disorder in Havant as police make child sex offence arrest
A dispersal order has been put in place after disorder broke out as police arrested a man on suspicion of child sex Constabulary said officers were called to Middle Park Way in Havant shortly after 19:30 BST on Tuesday following allegations that a man had been sending sexually explicit messages to a child said officers were met with a crowd of about 100 people, "some of whom were engaged in disorder including throwing objects at police officers". No-one was injured and the crowd dispersal order has come into effect to "effectively minimise any ongoing disorder", the force said. The arrested man, 38, remains in police custody. In a statement, Ch Insp Alex Charge said: "Disorder as was seen last night will not be tolerated – it can cause real fear for residents, damage property and seriously impede our police officers who are working really hard to carry out their duties, make arrests and keep people safe."Officers attended quickly and robustly last night but were confronted by a group of people acting aggressively, including some who were throwing objects at police. "This is completely unacceptable and puts our officers at risk of harm when they are there to protect you – our community."The man was arrested on suspicion of engaging in sexual communication with a said any further offences identified during last night's disorder would be dispersal order, issued under Section 34 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, allows police to direct people away from the area within a specified time period. You can follow BBC Hampshire & Isle of Wight on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Ex-wife loses Supreme Court fight against retired banker over the £80m he gave her in a bid to avoid tax - before she divorced him and kept the money
An ex-wife of a retired banker has lost a Supreme Court battle over an £80million sum he granted her in an attempt to avoid tax before their divorce. Clive Standish, 70, a sheep farming tycoon and former chief financial officer of banking giant UBS, we d Anna Standish, 56, in December 2005. But the couple separated in 2020 after a 15-year marriage, during which they had two children. The marital assets at the time of the split amounted to £132million, almost all of which had grown from the £57.3million fortune Mr Standish brought into the marriage. He retired in 2007, living off the profits of a £28million sheep farm in Australia, while the couple enjoyed life in 18-bedroom mansion Moundsmere Manor, set in 83 acres near Hampshire village Preston Candover. The court heard of Mr Standish's worries about changes to the inheritance tax regime announced in 2016 by HM Revenue and Customs. He feared these would expose his personal assets to a 40 per cent levy on his death. He then transferred £80million-worth of assets to his wife in 2017, with a plan for them to eventually be placed in an offshore trust for the benefit of their children. But the marriage hit the rocks before that could happen, leaving the couple estranged and Mrs Standish claiming the £80million was hers outright. She said it had been 'gifted' to her and so should form part of the matrimonial pot to share on divorce. Mr Justice Moor ruled in the divorce courts in December 2023 that Mr Standish should get £87.6million of the total family wealth valued at a total £132,648,326, with his wife walking away with £45million. That decision was made using the so-called 'sharing principle' of dividing the family fortune. Mrs Standish was said to have insisted the £80million was 'matrimonial' money to be divided equally, despite bringing 'no significant wealth' of her own into the marriage. Last year the Court of Appeal cut her payout, ruling that the 'fair outcome' of the case would leave Mrs Standish with £25million rather than £45million. She has since taken the case to the Supreme Court in a bid to get the ruling overturned and reclaim the extra £20million. But today five of England and Wales' most senior judges upheld the earlier verdict, saying that the £80million had not been turned into 'matrimonial assets' simply because it was put in her name to avoid tax. The court ruling stated: 'Tax planning schemes to save tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace. 'The problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife.' Tim Bishop KC, for Mr Standish, had said during the Court of Appeal hearing that the husband had 'a very successful career in banking'. He told the judges that in June 2004 his client was worth £57.3million, while Mrs Standish had 'no significant pre-marital wealth'. Mr Standish is British but moved to Australia in 1976 before moving back to England with his family in 2010. That potentially left him open to a huge inheritance tax hit when prospective changes were announced in 2016 - affecting anyone with a British domicile of origin returning to the UK from a country they had made their new permanent home. In the face of this, he 'commenced a process to shield his property from IHT' by 'transferring his assets to the wife to hold for a period and for the wife then to settle the transferred assets into a trust', the court was told. Mr Bishop said: 'The husband made the transfers in March 2017, but the wife failed to transfer the assets into trust by the time the marriage ran into problems in 2019 and then broke down finally in 2020.' Mr Standish's barrister criticised the divorce judge's eventual division of the assets last December as 'unfair'. Mr Bishop argued it had been wrong for the £80million to have been regarded as 'matrimonialised' property, rather than the personal property of the husband and not to go into the pot for division. The Court of Appeal went on to rule that 25 per cent of the £80million should be shared, as that money had been made by the husband during a time when he was being supported by his 'homemaker' but that the rest should not - cutting her divorce payout by £20million. For Mrs Standish, Richard Todd KC said the £80million was her property and everything else apart from the sheep farm ought to be equally split - leaving the former spouses with £56.3million apiece. But delivering the Supreme Court ruling, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens, with whom Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simler agreed, said the Appeal Court had got it right. They said: 'Here, the source of the pre-marital assets within the 2017 assets was exclusively the husband. 'Those assets have been transferred to the wife. But the problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife but should be used by her to set up trusts for the children, thereby negating inheritance tax. 'In short, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because, first, the transfer was to save tax and, secondly, it was for the benefit of the children not the wife. 'The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them. 'In relation to a scheme designed to save tax, under which one spouse transfers an asset to the other spouse, the parties' dealings with the asset, irrespective of the time period involved, do not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between them. Rather, the intention is simply to save tax. 'Transfers of capital assets with the intention of saving tax do not, without some further compelling evidence, establish that the parties are treating the capital asset as shared between them. 'The 2017 assets comprise, first, the husband's pre-marital assets and, secondly, earnings that the husband made in the years 2004-2007 to which the wife contributed by being the home-maker and childcarer during those years. 'It is not in dispute that the latter constitutes matrimonial property. That should be shared on an equal basis. 'The Court of Appeal assessed the latter, i.e. the matrimonial property, as comprising 25% of the £80million.' The judges said that meant that 25 per cent 'was to be shared equally, and the former, i.e. the pre-marital assets/non-matrimonial property, as comprising 75 per cent of the £80million'. They added: 'We see no reason to interfere with that assessment. The decision and orders of the Court of Appeal should therefore be upheld. For all these reasons, we would dismiss the appeal.' Legal experts have responded by describing the judgment as a 'landmark ruling' - and suggesting it offered a cautionary note to many other couples. Aasha Choudhary, family law partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said: 'Merely transferring assets into joint names or to a spouse does not automatically transform them into matrimonial property, unless there is clear and documented intention to share an asset. 'While it may not be the most romantic topic before a wedding, this decision is a timely reminder of the value of prenuptial agreements. 'Divorces can be emotionally fraught, and decisions made during a separation don't always reflect long-term intentions. 'A well-drafted prenup allows both parties to set expectations early and protect their respective interests with transparency and fairness, saving the financial and emotional cost of litigation. 'Most crucially, this ruling makes it clear that if couples want a non-matrimonial asset to become shared property, it must be recorded clearly. 'Without that, the default position may now lean toward such assets remaining non-matrimonial, a major shift in the legal landscape.'
