Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
andymadmak said:
Whats genuinely funny is that folk like you were leaping all over any rumour or tit bit of information about Boris as if it were the gospel. At the time I said to wait and see what the enquirie(s) said and again, folk like you were leaping up and down with indignation at the very thought of due process being followed. I wasn't interested in birthday cake or bottles of wine in the garden or any other of the silly minutiae that seemed to vex so many people at the time.
Now it's AR's turn to face allegations, and guess what? I am being consistent as ever and saying the due process should be followed.
(Although, even AR herself doesn't believe in due process because if she did she wouldn't have said that anyone being investigated by the Police should step down on principal.... a point of principal that ironically she now thinks doesn't apply to her!
)
If she's found guilty of something serious she'll have to consider her position. If it's something minor then I don't think it should be career ending or such like. Just pay the fine (or whatever) and get on with her job.
I've also said for a very long time that we need to improve the calibre of our Politicians. I don't happen to think that AR fulfils that requirement. I think she is a class warrior of the worst kind, who, like some on here, instantly think the worst of someone just cos they have a few bob.
I wonder, at what point does AR become wealthy or influential enough to automatically qualify as someone who she herself would automatically assume was bent? (because let's face it, judging by some of the posters on here that seems to be the logic at play)
Ya'see, that's called being consistent, not being tribal as you claim. Ken Barlow? Hahaha!
We will obviously have to disagree, but you defended Boris to the hilt up to the point when the cupboard was bare and you persist with using 1000 words when 100 will suffice. Anyone with an ounce of wit knew what Boris was before he took office, that you and your ilk chose to ignore it or were ignorant of it, is a matter of record, live with it Ken, he killed the party, one that I supported for a few years. Now it's AR's turn to face allegations, and guess what? I am being consistent as ever and saying the due process should be followed.
(Although, even AR herself doesn't believe in due process because if she did she wouldn't have said that anyone being investigated by the Police should step down on principal.... a point of principal that ironically she now thinks doesn't apply to her!
)If she's found guilty of something serious she'll have to consider her position. If it's something minor then I don't think it should be career ending or such like. Just pay the fine (or whatever) and get on with her job.
I've also said for a very long time that we need to improve the calibre of our Politicians. I don't happen to think that AR fulfils that requirement. I think she is a class warrior of the worst kind, who, like some on here, instantly think the worst of someone just cos they have a few bob.
I wonder, at what point does AR become wealthy or influential enough to automatically qualify as someone who she herself would automatically assume was bent? (because let's face it, judging by some of the posters on here that seems to be the logic at play)
Ya'see, that's called being consistent, not being tribal as you claim. Ken Barlow? Hahaha!
True to form that you only consider two outcomes for poor old Ange, something serious or something minor, leave that with you to balance out.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Amazing how many people who spent years defending Johnson have "said for a very long time that we need to improve the calibre of our Politicians" now that he and Truss have made the Conservative unelectable isn't it 
They’ve been saying it for as long as the polls showed them that the Tories would have no chance at the next GE.Now we need better apparently.
Blue62 said:
andymadmak said:
Whats genuinely funny is that folk like you were leaping all over any rumour or tit bit of information about Boris as if it were the gospel. At the time I said to wait and see what the enquirie(s) said and again, folk like you were leaping up and down with indignation at the very thought of due process being followed. I wasn't interested in birthday cake or bottles of wine in the garden or any other of the silly minutiae that seemed to vex so many people at the time.
Now it's AR's turn to face allegations, and guess what? I am being consistent as ever and saying the due process should be followed.
(Although, even AR herself doesn't believe in due process because if she did she wouldn't have said that anyone being investigated by the Police should step down on principal.... a point of principal that ironically she now thinks doesn't apply to her! )
If she's found guilty of something serious she'll have to consider her position. If it's something minor then I don't think it should be career ending or such like. Just pay the fine (or whatever) and get on with her job.
I've also said for a very long time that we need to improve the calibre of our Politicians. I don't happen to think that AR fulfils that requirement. I think she is a class warrior of the worst kind, who, like some on here, instantly think the worst of someone just cos they have a few bob.
I wonder, at what point does AR become wealthy or influential enough to automatically qualify as someone who she herself would automatically assume was bent? (because let's face it, judging by some of the posters on here that seems to be the logic at play)
Ya'see, that's called being consistent, not being tribal as you claim. Ken Barlow? Hahaha!
We will obviously have to disagree, but you defended Boris to the hilt up to the point when the cupboard was bare and you persist with using 1000 words when 100 will suffice. Anyone with an ounce of wit knew what Boris was before he took office, that you and your ilk chose to ignore it or were ignorant of it, is a matter of record, live with it Ken, he killed the party, one that I supported for a few years. Now it's AR's turn to face allegations, and guess what? I am being consistent as ever and saying the due process should be followed.
(Although, even AR herself doesn't believe in due process because if she did she wouldn't have said that anyone being investigated by the Police should step down on principal.... a point of principal that ironically she now thinks doesn't apply to her!
)If she's found guilty of something serious she'll have to consider her position. If it's something minor then I don't think it should be career ending or such like. Just pay the fine (or whatever) and get on with her job.
I've also said for a very long time that we need to improve the calibre of our Politicians. I don't happen to think that AR fulfils that requirement. I think she is a class warrior of the worst kind, who, like some on here, instantly think the worst of someone just cos they have a few bob.
I wonder, at what point does AR become wealthy or influential enough to automatically qualify as someone who she herself would automatically assume was bent? (because let's face it, judging by some of the posters on here that seems to be the logic at play)
Ya'see, that's called being consistent, not being tribal as you claim. Ken Barlow? Hahaha!
True to form that you only consider two outcomes for poor old Ange, something serious or something minor, leave that with you to balance out.
Sounds like the police are taking this seriously
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/angela-rayner-p...
The police investigation into Angela Rayner is examining multiple allegations and is not limited to potential electoral law offences.
At least a dozen officers at Greater Manchester police are investigating the Labour deputy leader over where she lived in the 2010s and the sale of her former council house in Stockport.
They are examining tax matters and other issues on top of the question of whether Rayner gave false information for the electoral register when she lived between two former council houses in Stockport in the 2010s.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/angela-rayner-p...
The police investigation into Angela Rayner is examining multiple allegations and is not limited to potential electoral law offences.
At least a dozen officers at Greater Manchester police are investigating the Labour deputy leader over where she lived in the 2010s and the sale of her former council house in Stockport.
They are examining tax matters and other issues on top of the question of whether Rayner gave false information for the electoral register when she lived between two former council houses in Stockport in the 2010s.
CoolHands said:
A dozen officers! If true that’s mental. Just get her in for interview and put some straight questions to her. What’s that thing that always gets argued over in SP&L? - a voluntary police interview lol
Probably including senior officers who are only on the investigation to deal with the complexities of investigating a senior politician, but it does seem excessive.Mr Penguin said:
CoolHands said:
A dozen officers! If true that’s mental. Just get her in for interview and put some straight questions to her. What’s that thing that always gets argued over in SP&L? - a voluntary police interview lol
Probably including senior officers who are only on the investigation to deal with the complexities of investigating a senior politician, but it does seem excessive.I hope.
shed driver said:
I read a piece in the media just before she became deputy leader. In it the council leader said he hated going into negotiations with her because she was on top of her brief and knew the policies, procedures and legislation intimately.
But obviously, she was just some gobby scrubber with an illegitimate child.
Maybe those criticising her achievements may want to list theirs?
Where’s that Andrew Neil clip displaying her mastery of CGT when you need it? Everything suggests she is completely out of her depth. But obviously, she was just some gobby scrubber with an illegitimate child.
Maybe those criticising her achievements may want to list theirs?
vaud said:
Mr Penguin said:
CoolHands said:
A dozen officers! If true that’s mental. Just get her in for interview and put some straight questions to her. What’s that thing that always gets argued over in SP&L? - a voluntary police interview lol
Probably including senior officers who are only on the investigation to deal with the complexities of investigating a senior politician, but it does seem excessive.I hope.
The investigation will be being treated as a critical incident, ie one that has a serious reputational risk to the organisation
It will have been allocated to a very experienced SIO with a dedicated team of specialist detectives
It’s most likely a syndicate from FMIT ( Force Major incident team ) that has been allocated the job as a whole
These are dedicated teams that normally investigate the most serious and complex crimes/enquiries
There won’t be any corners cut at all
NomduJour said:
shed driver said:
I read a piece in the media just before she became deputy leader. In it the council leader said he hated going into negotiations with her because she was on top of her brief and knew the policies, procedures and legislation intimately.
But obviously, she was just some gobby scrubber with an illegitimate child.
Maybe those criticising her achievements may want to list theirs?
Where’s that Andrew Neil clip displaying her mastery of CGT when you need it? Everything suggests she is completely out of her depth. But obviously, she was just some gobby scrubber with an illegitimate child.
Maybe those criticising her achievements may want to list theirs?
Edited by Wombat3 on Tuesday 16th April 22:16
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff