Angela Rayner to face investigation?

She says she lived there with her brother.

That was a different poster

The evidence that she lived there is:

1. It was a house she owned
2. She lived there before her marriage
3. She says she continued to live there after her marriage.

The evidence that she didn't live there is an article in the Daily Mail quoting a hatchet job by Lord Ashcroft quoting an unnamed neighbour.

I can see where the confusion came from tbh, they quoted that block like they were involved.

It's a very good question about what constitues living at a property. If two people own two houses (each individually) and they live between the two would you expect them to

1. Pay council tax on property A and B with a 25% reduction for each because of the single person allowancea single person
OR
2. Pay full council tax on Property A and 75% on property B.
OR
3. Pay full council tax on both because they happen to use / sleep at both houses.

It's a quesion I would like to know as well because there doesn't seem to be any guidence on what consitutes living at a property, say you only pop in for an hour every day but still regard the property as your property (and consider it an opiton in case the marriage doesn't work), does that work? What constitues living at a property? Do you have to sleep over more than 50% of the time?

What's more likely?

A) Angela Rayner got married and then spent the next five years living in a separate house to her husband?

B) Angela Rayner moved in with her husband, kept her name on the electoral register for her own house, possibly rented it out to her brother and then sold up avoiding CGT in the process?

Is she in prison yet?

Which the conveyancing lawyer would have advised her on at the time of the sale.

Well wrongdoing isn't decided on what is more likely.

Interesting how some have decided it is a non-story despite the lack of evidence either way and what is the more likely scenario though.

Well worth further investigation by the media to try and determine the truth. Or is that an unacceptable "hatchet job" merely because the target of investigation is a Labour politician?.

Well it is a non story at the moment. Saying there is a “lack of evidence either way” is weasel words. You can’t prove a negative, and you are someone very happy to jump up and down on the “innocent until proven guilty” bandwagon when there is evidence but no legal verdict, yet here you are expecting made up scenarios happy to accept they might be true.

If the media find something then it should all come out and be dealt with. At the moment, however, we have people making up stuff and then demanding proof.

It’s pathetic really. What’s best? Demanding MPs prove they have paid their income tax correctly? Has anyone checked Starmars car is taxed and MOTed? After all, he would be breaking the law if he hasn’t. How can we trust someone to be PM if they don’t pay their car tax! It’s all the most pathetic levels of mud slinging.