
Farmer's nightmare as father ‘took own life over IHT changes'
Charlesworth, 47, was not alarmed. He saw his children playing in the barn and almost called out to ask them to 'find Grandpa'. 'For some reason I didn't — and I'm so glad,' Charlesworth recalled. 'Instead, I walked around back and saw him hanging.'
The day before Rachel Reeves was set to announce changes to inheritance tax for farmers in her autumn statement, John Charlesworth, who went by his middle name of Philip, took his own life. He died aged 78 where he had lived since age 11, on Bank House Farm in Silkstone, near Barnsley. He had inherited the land from his own father, also called John.
The timing, his son had always maintained, 'was no coincidence' — a conclusion also drawn by a coroner last week who found that Charlesworth had killed himself while 'worried about implications of new regulations around inheritance tax '. The media had been briefed in the run-up to the budget that the chancellor was poised to announce a raid on landowners by restricting tax relief on agricultural and business property. However, the full details were only announced on October 30.
'There was so much talk about it, but no information anywhere,' Charlesworth explained. 'We didn't know when it would come in. We didn't know how much it would be. We didn't know what the threshold would be. I think every farmer was worried about it but my dad got really worried. It was all we talked about.
'He must have just wound himself up so much about it that the day before the budget, he took his own life. He had got in his head that if this is implemented, and it's in from tomorrow, we're stuffed. So he decided he was going to beat it.'
Philip, who loved bell-ringing on a Sunday and teaching his grandchildren the tricks of the farming trade, had no known mental health problems, although he had struggled as the full-time carer for his wife, a former English teacher and lecturer, who was suffering from severe dementia and cancer. The father of two had left the family a short suicide note, underneath which he included some calculations related to the farm's finances.
PA
Sitting in the farmhouse kitchen, only metres from where he had found his father, Charlesworth said he spent weeks waiting to wake up from what felt like a nightmare. 'I blamed myself that I didn't see it coming, that I didn't talk him out of it,' he said. 'But he was very much like that, my dad. Once he had made a decision, he'd stick to it.'
In the end, changes to inheritance tax relief were less drastic than the family had feared: farms worth less than £1 million were exempt and the tax rate above that was capped at 20 per cent, rather than the standard 40 per cent. Yet Charlesworth, who reared cattle and sheep on his 75-acre farm, still estimated that under the new rules, his family would be hit with a bill of up to £200,000.
That was not money that Charlesworth, who estimated that he paid himself an hourly wage of about £5, could easily find. The farm had only stayed afloat since they opened a campsite during the pandemic. 'The average farm size will be three to four times ours and they will be hit really hard,' he said.
'Farmers feel persecuted,' Charlesworth added. 'There is an argument for inheritance tax on land because people are using it as a tax dodge but those people aren't farmers. For us, it's our factory floor. Those others will just put that money somewhere else, where it's more tax-efficient.'
Charlesworth fears more suicides next March if the tax changes are not reversed
MARK WAUGH/MANCHESTER PRESS PHOTOGRAPHY
Any property passed on more than seven years before death falls outside the scope of inheritance tax. Charlesworth is calling on the government to 'at the very least' push back the implementation date of the new rules for landowners, to give farming families enough time to transfer their assets. Otherwise, he fears, others could come to the same terrible conclusion as his father.
Darren Millar, leader of the Welsh Conservatives, described the case of one farmer who died after declining cancer treatment as he was 'so concerned about the implications of the inheritance tax changes' that he wanted to ensure he passed on his land before they came into effect next April.
'If you've got farmers in their eighties [or] nineties, or farmers with health problems who aren't sure if they are going to live another five years, they might think they can't risk it,' Charlesworth said. 'If Labour don't push the date back, March next year will be like National Suicide Month.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why Starmer needs a tabloid bruiser on his Downing Street team
Inevitably, out come all the liberal left, anti-tabloid, anti- Sun tropes. David Dinsmore's hiring is a gross act of betrayal, they say. Does the prime minister not have any regard for Leveson, the victims of phone hacking, the people of Liverpool traduced by the paper's coverage of Hillsborough? And what about Dinsmore's 2016 conviction for printing a picture of a teenage victim of sexual assault, which did not conceal her identity? The answer is, of course, that he does. As for the ID'ing of the girl, yes, Dinsmore was found guilty of that. But there is a 'but'. His paper had gone to some lengths to not identify her in an old photograph, including heavily pixellating her face, altering her hair and removing any distinguishing features, changing the clothes she wore and putting in a different background. Dinsmore and his colleagues thought they'd done enough. As the judge said, 'I am satisfied that he took, and the staff on the newspaper took, steps that thought had complied with the law.' They had, though, reckoned without her Facebook page, where that photo was previously her profile picture and it had appeared there for six weeks, so viewers of her page knew who she was. The Sun made a mistake, Dinsmore signed off on the error, and so was found guilty under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act. He was ordered to pay £1,000 compensation to the girl. Although it is no defence, it was a mistake – though try telling that to Hacked Off and the rest who are now hounding Starmer for his appointment. There was another issue, which was whether it was in the public interest to publish the photo at all. She was the victim of an attack by the footballer Adam Johnson. He was a well-known figure in a position of power. It's therefore debatable. Dinsmore deemed it was – and plenty would agree with him. He was not alone among newspaper editors. The Telegraph did the same, its publisher was fined, and charges against the editor were dropped. With Dinsmore, they got the name and address of the publisher wrong, so he carried the can. He's hardly, then, the monster that some would make him out to be. This was the same Dinsmore who oversaw the title's Give Me Shelter campaign that reversed funding cuts and required every local authority to provide accommodation to victims of domestic abuse. He also made an effort to get out of London and tour the nation, going to places to try and gain a better understanding of ordinary people's lives and struggles far away from the media bubble. But here there is another 'but'. As editor of The Sun, he bears the baggage of previous editors – of the brand, so he cannot now deny the newspaper's part in hacking or the telling of despicable lies about the victims of Hillsborough. Nor can he disavow the paper's famous election front page berating the then-Labour leader, Neil Kinnock. It's true that Dinsmore is a hardened red-top bruiser, someone who was kicked out of journalism college in 1987 for failing his shorthand, which he passed at the 25th attempt, and who then worked his way up, first on local papers in Scotland, then as a reporter on the Scottish Sun, before joining as staff in 1994. He's served both Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks with distinction, in their eyes, and disgracefully in the eyes of others. His is a well-trodden path from the newsroom to Cabinet room. Alastair Campbell made the trip, as did Andy Coulson, Craig Oliver and Lee Cain. Amanda Platell and Guto Harri also went from relaying the news to applying political spin. Here comes yet another 'but': Dinsmore stopped being editor of the Sun in 2015, and for the last 10 years he has been a formidable organiser and leading, as COO, News UK's push into digital media. He has been in the background, guiding the group through acquisitions of radio stations and then the launch and development of the increasingly successful Times Radio. He has spent time with Apple, Google and OpenAI, looking at how news operates and how their networks and systems are growing. He has chaired the News Media Association, or NMA, the industry body, and worked with the government at the outbreak of the pandemic to create the All In, All Together campaign. To Starmer, No 10 and the government machine, Dinsmore brings discipline, rigour and leadership – all of which has been noticeably lacking from this administration's PR effort to date. He also adds media understanding and experience. He knows what works and what doesn't. And for when the going gets tough – as it will – he has the scars of daily battle. Starmer's pragmatic head, if not his ideological heart, may prove to have chosen wisely.


The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
A third of vaping teenagers likely to take up smoking cigarettes, study finds
British teenagers who vape today are just as likely to start smoking tobacco as young people growing up in the 1970s, new research has found. A long-term study found that teenagers who vape now are 33 per cent more likely to take up tobacco compared to those who don't, despite decades of falling smoking rates. The study, published in the journal Tobacco Control, showed a decline in teenage smoking prevalence, falling from 33 per cent in 1974 to 25 per cent in 1986, and to 12 per cent in 2018. This is due to tougher tobacco control laws and a greater awareness of smoking's dangers, the researchers said. However, the research also revealed that among today's teens, those who vape remain just as likely to smoke cigarettes as their peers half a century ago. The study, led by the University of Michigan, found that only around 1.5 per cent of non- vaping 17-year-olds reported current smoking, compared with 33 per cent of those who currently vaped. 'This probability is especially concerning given the recent increases in e-cigarette use prevalence among UK youth, despite some initial assurances that e-cigarettes would have little appeal to [them],' the researchers said. In the UK, an estimated 1.1 million young people between the ages of 11 and 17 vape and 100,000 smoke, according to figures from Action on Smoking and Health (Ash). The researchers analysed intergenerational data from three major British cohort studies – the 1958 National Child Development Study, the 1970 British Cohort Study, and the 2001 Millennium Cohort Study. The researchers looked at several risk factors that can influence teen smoking. This includes early alcohol use, parental smoking, mothers' education, and children's engagement with school. They found that some of these factors have changed over time, such as parental smoking rates, which have dropped from more than 70 per cent in the 1970s cohort to 27 per cent among the most recent group. Despite these changes, vaping appears to undermine progress, the researchers said. They found that among current teen vapers, the likelihood of also smoking cigarettes has effectively reversed the declining trend. 'Youth who had never used e-cigarettes had an estimated less than one in 50 chance of reporting weekly cigarette use at age 17, while those who had previously used e-cigarettes had over a one in 10 chance,' the researchers said. 'Youth who reported current e-cigarette use had an almost one in three chance of also reporting current cigarette use.' The study's authors cautioned that the findings do not prove vaping directly causes smoking. However, they warned that efforts to reduce smoking among young people must now also address vaping. 'Among contemporary youth, efforts to reduce cigarette smoking should focus both on those who are currently using e-cigarettes and on the prevention of e-cigarette use among youth, to maintain the promising declines in youth nicotine use in years to come,' they concluded. A ban on disposable vapes came into force in the UK at the beginning of June as the government attempts to crack down on youth nicotine addiction as well as the litter the single-use devices create.


Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Two words were missing from Starmer's speech: terrorism works
Even allowing for its bureaucratic tone, the 'read out' of Sir Keir Starmer's words from yesterday's Cabinet meeting on Gaza is stark: 'He said that because of the increasingly intolerable situation in Gaza and the diminishing prospect of a peace process towards a two-state solution, now was the right time to move this position forward. He said that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine in September, before UNGA, unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution.' But there are two vital words missing from the note: terrorism works. Peaceful negotiations, as tried in Oslo, Camp David and the Annapolis process, have flattered only to deceive. None of them have led to the UK shifting its position on recognition. It has taken, instead, the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. It has taken the impact of 1,200 dead Jews. But it won't just be other terrorist groups which realise that if you want to get the British Government to shift policy, it's time to scale up the scope of your terror. In the context of 'a peace process towards a two-state solution', as the Cabinet note puts it, the Prime Minister has come up with the worst possible way to recognise a Palestinian state, which makes the ceasefire he claims is his priority less rather than more likely than it is now. By announcing that if a ceasefire is agreed then the UK won't go ahead with recognition, Starmer has managed to find a new way to encourage Hamas not to agree to a ceasefire or to release the hostages. The onus in his conditions is placed entirely on Israel ('…the UK will recognise the state of Palestine in September…unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution'). Leave aside the moral outrage of placing the onus entirely on our supposed ally, the victim of an act of barbarity unprecedented in recent history, and focus instead on the practical meaning. Unless the UK Government is calling for Israel simply to surrender to Hamas – which, even for this government, seems unlikely – then it takes both participants to agree to a ceasefire. Israel cannot agree to terms which do not include the release of the hostages, and Sir Keir's conditions do not include that as a pre-requisite, leaving Hamas free to continue holding them (the PM called on Hamas to release the hostages, as he has done many times before, but as a lawyer he will be well aware that that demand was not one of the conditions – nor could it be, since the conditions are placed entirely on Israel). But even if Israel made clear it was ready to agree a deal – as it has already done repeatedly – that would still not be enough to satisfy Starmer's conditions if Hamas rejected a ceasefire, as it has already done repeatedly. Without a ceasefire, UK recognition goes ahead in September. The ball is in Hamas' hands. In other words, Sir Keir Starmer's announcement makes a ceasefire less likely than it was before he spoke yesterday, because it incentivises Hamas to carry on fighting to secure UK recognition of a Palestinian state.