Angela Rayner to face investigation?

[SunsetZed]

valiant said:

Biggy Stardust said:

Getting knocked up behind the bike sheds is in some places considered to be less salubrious than the more traditional white wedding & subsequent honeymoon shenanigans. YMMV

At least she knows how many kids she has though eh?

Shame she's less sure about where they all lived though

[JNW1]

President Merkin said:

I suppose by extension, the £3k she may or may have not have gained is mere small potatoes to you when set against the other side of the equation, Sunak & Lord Ashcroft, whose families have benefitted from avoiding millions in tax by virtue of their non dom status.

I don't think Sunak and Lord Ashcroft stand accused of having broken any rules or doing anything illegal though do they? In contrast, the suggestion is Rayner - and possibly her brother - deliberately falsified their electoral registration returns (in itself an offence) and the inference is they did so in order to evade either a capital gains tax liability and/or a claw-back of funds received under the right to buy scheme.

Therefore, while the monetary amount involved is no doubt peanuts in the grand scheme of things, it's all created an impression of someone who's been ducking and diving to save a few quid and hasn't been open and honest about it all - and that's not a good look for a senior politician who's always been quick to call out the failings of others in public life.

[Mr Penguin]

And not a good sign if she will soon get the power to take even more.

[shed driver]

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?

SD.

[sugerbear]

JNW1 said:

President Merkin said:

I suppose by extension, the £3k she may or may have not have gained is mere small potatoes to you when set against the other side of the equation, Sunak & Lord Ashcroft, whose families have benefitted from avoiding millions in tax by virtue of their non dom status.

I don't think Sunak and Lord Ashcroft stand accused of having broken any rules or doing anything illegal though do they? In contrast, the suggestion is Rayner - and possibly her brother - deliberately falsified their electoral registration returns (in itself an offence) and the inference is they did so in order to evade either a capital gains tax liability and/or a claw-back of funds received under the right to buy scheme.

Therefore, while the monetary amount involved is no doubt peanuts in the grand scheme of things, it's all created an impression of someone who's been ducking and diving to save a few quid and hasn't been open and honest about it all - and that's not a good look for a senior politician who's always been quick to call out the failings of others in public life.

No, but Sunak has broken the law and he is Prime Minister. He broke the law whilst in Government during lockdown. He was the chancellor and is now PM. Partygate fine. Look it up.

[119]

sugerbear said:

JNW1 said:

President Merkin said:

I suppose by extension, the £3k she may or may have not have gained is mere small potatoes to you when set against the other side of the equation, Sunak & Lord Ashcroft, whose families have benefitted from avoiding millions in tax by virtue of their non dom status.

I don't think Sunak and Lord Ashcroft stand accused of having broken any rules or doing anything illegal though do they? In contrast, the suggestion is Rayner - and possibly her brother - deliberately falsified their electoral registration returns (in itself an offence) and the inference is they did so in order to evade either a capital gains tax liability and/or a claw-back of funds received under the right to buy scheme.

Therefore, while the monetary amount involved is no doubt peanuts in the grand scheme of things, it's all created an impression of someone who's been ducking and diving to save a few quid and hasn't been open and honest about it all - and that's not a good look for a senior politician who's always been quick to call out the failings of others in public life.

No, but Sunak has broken the law and he is Prime Minister. He broke the law whilst in Government during lockdown. He was the chancellor and is now PM. Partygate fine. Look it up.

Almost as bad as a speeding fine.

[S600BSB]

sugerbear said:

No, but Sunak has broken the law and he is Prime Minister. He broke the law whilst in Government during lockdown. He was the chancellor and is now PM. Partygate fine. Look it up.

Always important to remember that. Not a good look for a PM.

[Blue62]

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?

SD.

I guess her detractors would say that she should therefore have been on top of this situation, this massive scandal thickens even more. I saw a clip a James Daly on AWIP, he either couldn’t or wouldn’t say what the nature of his complaint was to GMP after they’d announced there was nothing to investigate, it’s utterly pathetic.

[andymadmak]

S600BSB said:

Always important to remember that. Not a good look for a PM.

Not a good look, agreed. However I will say that having a fixed penalty for partygate on his record would not rank anything close to what would be on AR's record if it turns out she is guilty of either election fraud or tax evasion (or both?)
Anyway, until that point arrives, if it ever does, Sunak is clearly the bigger transgressor.

[bitchstewie]

Wills2 said:

bhstewie said:

No I'm suggesting that when you (not you personally) can't insult a woman without using words like "scrubber" and "mare" it does suggest some issues with women.

Gobby little scrubber was harsh, very harsh and not gentlemanly in fact very common perhaps he's from from same background as Angela but without the rise up the ladder hence his anger.

As for Rayner's mouth I'm in no doubt that she can be very verbally forceful should the mood take her, but the scrubber bit is not on, it's base and rude.

Quite.

But it seems to be the level some people instinctively go to on here.

Interesting too how many people who were so concerned about the word "scum" can't summon up a word to call that kind of filth out either.

[JNW1]

sugerbear said:

JNW1 said:

President Merkin said:

I suppose by extension, the £3k she may or may have not have gained is mere small potatoes to you when set against the other side of the equation, Sunak & Lord Ashcroft, whose families have benefitted from avoiding millions in tax by virtue of their non dom status.

I don't think Sunak and Lord Ashcroft stand accused of having broken any rules or doing anything illegal though do they? In contrast, the suggestion is Rayner - and possibly her brother - deliberately falsified their electoral registration returns (in itself an offence) and the inference is they did so in order to evade either a capital gains tax liability and/or a claw-back of funds received under the right to buy scheme.

Therefore, while the monetary amount involved is no doubt peanuts in the grand scheme of things, it's all created an impression of someone who's been ducking and diving to save a few quid and hasn't been open and honest about it all - and that's not a good look for a senior politician who's always been quick to call out the failings of others in public life.

No, but Sunak has broken the law and he is Prime Minister. He broke the law whilst in Government during lockdown. He was the chancellor and is now PM. Partygate fine. Look it up.

The context of the discussion around Sunak related purely to his non dom status and the effect on his tax bill - but I'm sure you knew that.

The notion his attendance at a lockdown party should be viewed as no different from the deliberate falsification of electoral returns with (possibly) an intention to defraud is however amusing. What next, any MP that's had a ticket for speeding - and therefore broken the law - should be viewed in the same way as someone fiddling the system for personal financial gain?

[Leithen]

What did happen with Ashcroft's non-dom status?

[President Merkin]

JNW1 said:

I don't think Sunak and Lord Ashcroft stand accused of having broken any rules or doing anything illegal though do they? In contrast, the suggestion is Rayner - and possibly her brother - deliberately falsified their electoral registration returns (in itself an offence) and the inference is they did so in order to evade either a capital gains tax liability and/or a claw-back of funds received under the right to buy scheme.

Therefore, while the monetary amount involved is no doubt peanuts in the grand scheme of things, it's all created an impression of someone who's been ducking and diving to save a few quid and hasn't been open and honest about it all - and that's not a good look for a senior politician who's always been quick to call out the failings of others in public life.

Neither does Rayner, outside of James Daly being unable to name the crime he thinks she's committed three times on TV yesterday but enough to go running to GMP, schrodinger's accusation. And you forget she denies wrongdoing. And more than all of that, this thread is full of page after page about Rayner's character. Whose is worse, someone who may or may not have gamed £3k out of the system or someone who definitely gamed millions out of it? You're either in society or you aren't, can't be half in, half out. Like Ahscroft or the Infosys clan.

It makes me laugh when people bang on about honesty & fitness for office, the mental gymnastics to ignore what's staring us in the face would be hilarious if it wasn't actual walking around money.

[Mr Penguin]

Blue62 said:

I guess her detractors would say that she should therefore have been on top of this situation, this massive scandal thickens even more. I saw a clip a James Daly on AWIP, he either couldn’t or wouldn’t say what the nature of his complaint was to GMP after they’d announced there was nothing to investigate, it’s utterly pathetic.

If there is genuinely nothing to investigate and everything is above board then she's done everything she can to turn it into something that looks like she is. Either there is something to cover up or there is another story they want to divert attention from or Labour as a whole have made a big mistake in how they handled it. Which is it?

[Wombat3]

President Merkin said:

JNW1 said:

I don't think Sunak and Lord Ashcroft stand accused of having broken any rules or doing anything illegal though do they? In contrast, the suggestion is Rayner - and possibly her brother - deliberately falsified their electoral registration returns (in itself an offence) and the inference is they did so in order to evade either a capital gains tax liability and/or a claw-back of funds received under the right to buy scheme.

Therefore, while the monetary amount involved is no doubt peanuts in the grand scheme of things, it's all created an impression of someone who's been ducking and diving to save a few quid and hasn't been open and honest about it all - and that's not a good look for a senior politician who's always been quick to call out the failings of others in public life.

Neither does Rayner, outside of James Daly being unable to name the crime he thinks she's committed three times on TV yesterday but enough to go running to GMP, schrodinger's accusation. And you forget she denies wrongdoing. And more than all of that, this thread is full of page after page about Rayner's character. Whose is worse, someone who may or may not have gamed £3k out of the system or someone who definitely gamed millions out of it? You're either in society or you aren't, can't be half in, half out. Like Ahscroft or the Infosys clan.

It makes me laugh when people bang on about honesty & fitness for office, the mental gymnastics to ignore what's staring us in the face would be hilarious if it wasn't actual walking around money.

Ah so you think people should make up their own rules by which they should be taxed if they don't think they are paying enough? (or is it just when you don't think they have paid enough?)

Interesting approach.

The rules are the rules, whether you like what they are or not is irrelevant. If you don't then you are obviously free to campaign to have them changed.

In the meantime, nobody can be legitimately criticised if they have adhered to them.

[Blue62]

President Merkin said:

Neither does Rayner, outside of James Daly being unable to name the crime he thinks she's committed three times on TV yesterday but enough to go running to GMP, schrodinger's accusation. And you forget she denies wrongdoing. And more than all of that, this thread is full of page after page about Rayner's character. Whose is worse, someone who may or may not have gamed £3k out of the system or someone who definitely gamed millions out of it? You're either in society or you aren't, can't be half in, half out. Like Ahscroft or the Infosys clan.

It makes me laugh when people bang on about honesty & fitness for office, the mental gymnastics to ignore what's staring us in the face would be hilarious if it wasn't actual walking around money.

The problem is that those of a certain persuasion have had to endure years of shameful, sleazy and dishonest behaviour from the people they were championing, they've been taken for fools, so any opportunity to turn the tables has to be zealously seized upon. I haven't taken much interest in the details, but after listening to Daly flap around I'm pretty convinced that there's nothing that she can be charged for and he knows it, just needs to keep the story alive. The whole episode has made me warm to her, had little time for her previously but I think this will end up working in her favour.

[President Merkin]

Wombat3 said:

Ah so you think people should make up their own rules by which they should be taxed if they don't think they are paying enough? (or is it just when you don't think they have paid enough?)

Interesting approach.

The rules are the rules, whether you like what they are or not is irrelevant. If you don't then you are obviously free to campaign to have them changed.

In the meantime, nobody can be legitimately criticised if they have adhered to them.

Noooooo, I'm making the suggestion that no one in this sorry little tale is snow white necessarily but one side is straining to ignore their own sins. Which drives something of a coach & horse through both the pecuniary advantage & character arguments, while a bunch of underoccupied pencil necks tie themselves up in knots over rooolz.

[S600BSB]

Blue62 said:

President Merkin said:

Neither does Rayner, outside of James Daly being unable to name the crime he thinks she's committed three times on TV yesterday but enough to go running to GMP, schrodinger's accusation. And you forget she denies wrongdoing. And more than all of that, this thread is full of page after page about Rayner's character. Whose is worse, someone who may or may not have gamed £3k out of the system or someone who definitely gamed millions out of it? You're either in society or you aren't, can't be half in, half out. Like Ahscroft or the Infosys clan.

It makes me laugh when people bang on about honesty & fitness for office, the mental gymnastics to ignore what's staring us in the face would be hilarious if it wasn't actual walking around money.

The problem is that those of a certain persuasion have had to endure years of shameful, sleazy and dishonest behaviour from the people they were championing, they've been taken for fools, so any opportunity to turn the tables has to be zealously seized upon. I haven't taken much interest in the details, but after listening to Daly flap around I'm pretty convinced that there's nothing that she can be charged for and he knows it, just needs to keep the story alive. The whole episode has made me warm to her, had little time for her previously but I think this will end up working in her favour.

Agree.

[BOR]

Blue62 said:

I'm pretty convinced that there's nothing that she can be charged for and he knows it, just needs to keep the story alive.
..but I think this will end up working in her favour.

I also hope the story stays live, because I think the electorate will see through this Tory mud slinging for what it is.

[Blue62]

Mr Penguin said:

If there is genuinely nothing to investigate and everything is above board then she's done everything she can to turn it into something that looks like she is. Either there is something to cover up or there is another story they want to divert attention from or Labour as a whole have made a big mistake in how they handled it. Which is it?

It's non of the above, it's a personal attack based on some muck raking by a multi millionaire non dom Tory donor, you and others need to get some perspective and get a grip. The taxpayer has just forked out almost £40k to meet Michelle Donalon's legal fees after she libelled an academic, Johnson was the beneficiary of an illegal donation (which broke electoral law) of £68k to decorate his flat, the tax payer forked out almost £400k to settle Patel's bullying case with Philip Rutnam, I could go on and on and on.

So let's then consider that what Rayner stands accused of by a Tory peer and donor, is possible electoral fraud and possible underpayment of tax amounting to the princely sum of £1500. After looking into the 'evidence' GMP have stated that the allegations have no substance, but due to a fresh complaint made by the Deputy Chair of the Tory party they're now looking at it again, even though the Deputy Chair won't tell anyone the nature of his complaint.

Look at the facts of the situation and stop playing Sherlock over a petty issue that has been whipped up by the biggest bunch of crooks this country has ever had to endure. Just give it a rest.