Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
Wombat3 said:
More meaningless word salad. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I have said I don't like Rayner & I don't think she is fit for high office. That's a valid opinion (whether you agree with it or not). My views on her have much more to do with the way she treats other people, her socialist views and her evident lack of knowledge, education and understanding of the way the world actually works. If you want to gather that up and call it an assault on her character then go ahead, but its beyond wet.,
Meanwhile you are desperately twisting & spinning to try and cast aspersions over other people's tax affairs where there is currently no evidence to suggest any wrong-doing. Its a feeble attempt at diversion/distraction from the subject matter at hand - blatant whataboutery even (except without any actual content).
You call their activities "questionable" if you wish but none of what they do is "questionable" if its in compliance with the law. If it is then its legitimate.
You are entitled to your opinion about the relevant laws, but that's a different issue.
Oh no, not word salad, that's hurty Meanwhile you are desperately twisting & spinning to try and cast aspersions over other people's tax affairs where there is currently no evidence to suggest any wrong-doing. Its a feeble attempt at diversion/distraction from the subject matter at hand - blatant whataboutery even (except without any actual content).
You call their activities "questionable" if you wish but none of what they do is "questionable" if its in compliance with the law. If it is then its legitimate.
You are entitled to your opinion about the relevant laws, but that's a different issue.
Bit rich of you to suggest Ange, who came from nothing to deputy leader of Labour jniows nothing about how the world works & then to tell me squillionaire non doms have nothing to hide. With respect, that sounds more like you don't know how the world really works.
EddieSteadyGo said:
sugerbear said:
...
What exactly is AR supposed to have done when she registtered at her address? What did she stand to gain? Was she looking to swing an election in her favour by using that vote? No she wasn't ...
We covered that a few days ago. She was probably trying to get the maximum discount on her 'right to buy' property.What exactly is AR supposed to have done when she registtered at her address? What did she stand to gain? Was she looking to swing an election in her favour by using that vote? No she wasn't ...
JNW1 said:
Amateurish said:
JNW1 said:
But if she and/or her brother did falsify their electoral registration returns it begs the question why
When you say "falsify their electoral registration returns" what exactly do you mean?Because that sounds pretty serious.
She said she spent time in both homes.
The electoral commission says if you have two homes, you can register at either (or both).
Amateurish said:
It's a total red herring because if you split your time between two houses, you can register to vote in either or indeed register to vote in both of them.
As long as the properties are in different council areas (as you may vote in both council elections).Usually the decider is about where you spend most of your time (for Parliamentary anyway).
Most of this is a null point though as this has evolved into a did she lie, is she honest debate. It’s also a good lesson in killing something early on!
Amateurish said:
So "falsify their electoral registration returns" was just nonsense then?
She said she spent time in both homes.
The electoral commission says if you have two homes, you can register at either (or both).
She says she lived in her house and not with her husband, so she could only register at one.She said she spent time in both homes.
The electoral commission says if you have two homes, you can register at either (or both).
Amateurish said:
When you say "falsify their electoral registration returns" what exactly do you mean?
Because that sounds pretty serious.
These points have been raised already but;Because that sounds pretty serious.
Angela Rayners brother was registered at her husband's address.
Angela Rayner herself says her brother lived "rent free" with her at her property
So if, by her own admission, he lived in her house then for what purpose was he claiming to live at her husband's address? Did being registered at the husband's address entitle him to benefits he otherwise wouldn't have been entitled to?
There's also the question of whether her brother really did live there "rent free" or if she was charging him rent on the quiet.
Then, if she didn't believe she owed CGT because "it's the only property I own" then it's not unreasonable to think her husband also believed he didn't owe CGT when he sold his house a year later.
I don't think these questions are particularly unfair.
Edited by Oakey on Tuesday 16th April 16:47
President Merkin said:
Wombat3 said:
More meaningless word salad. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I have said I don't like Rayner & I don't think she is fit for high office. That's a valid opinion (whether you agree with it or not). My views on her have much more to do with the way she treats other people, her socialist views and her evident lack of knowledge, education and understanding of the way the world actually works. If you want to gather that up and call it an assault on her character then go ahead, but its beyond wet.,
Meanwhile you are desperately twisting & spinning to try and cast aspersions over other people's tax affairs where there is currently no evidence to suggest any wrong-doing. Its a feeble attempt at diversion/distraction from the subject matter at hand - blatant whataboutery even (except without any actual content).
You call their activities "questionable" if you wish but none of what they do is "questionable" if its in compliance with the law. If it is then its legitimate.
You are entitled to your opinion about the relevant laws, but that's a different issue.
Oh no, not word salad, that's hurty Meanwhile you are desperately twisting & spinning to try and cast aspersions over other people's tax affairs where there is currently no evidence to suggest any wrong-doing. Its a feeble attempt at diversion/distraction from the subject matter at hand - blatant whataboutery even (except without any actual content).
You call their activities "questionable" if you wish but none of what they do is "questionable" if its in compliance with the law. If it is then its legitimate.
You are entitled to your opinion about the relevant laws, but that's a different issue.
Bit rich of you to suggest Ange, who came from nothing to deputy leader of Labour jniows nothing about how the world works & then to tell me squillionaire non doms have nothing to hide. With respect, that sounds more like you don't know how the world really works.
Ange's path to deputy leader is well charted, I'm not going to regurgitate it. However, that she has arrived there does not mean or show that she is the least bit suitable to hold that office or related governmental offices. Indeed most of what's ever come out of her mouth indicates the exact opposite IMO.
Based on what she said herself she claims not to even know how CGT works even to this day ("its the only home I owned").
The green-eyed monster is also at large here methinks: "Don't tell me rich people have nothing to hide "
By implication everyone that is rich is bent are they?
andymadmak said:
No. I'm sorry but that doesn't wash. Breaking the law is breaking the law. If Sunak et al have broken non don tax laws then throw the book at them. Really.
The quantum of the money involved is not really relevant here. If (maximise on the if) Rayner has broken tax or electoral laws then those laws should apply to her. "Some other dude did worse" is not a defence. Even if some time limitation were to apply, thereby allowing her to dodge court if she has done something wrong then that would still make her position untenable in my view.
As it stands, she's innocent until proven guilty. All your (and others) flapping about yeh but Tory X did Y is nonsensical, especially as Tory X doing Y is something that you and others have long complained about!
Let's see what the investigation says (if anything).
Yes of course, let’s wait and see, how characteristically disingenuous. Though it must hurt, the small sample of recent Tory sleaze, malpractice and dishonesty was to help you and others get a little perspective.The quantum of the money involved is not really relevant here. If (maximise on the if) Rayner has broken tax or electoral laws then those laws should apply to her. "Some other dude did worse" is not a defence. Even if some time limitation were to apply, thereby allowing her to dodge court if she has done something wrong then that would still make her position untenable in my view.
As it stands, she's innocent until proven guilty. All your (and others) flapping about yeh but Tory X did Y is nonsensical, especially as Tory X doing Y is something that you and others have long complained about!
Let's see what the investigation says (if anything).
Anyone outside the frothing walls of this forum can see that it’s an attempt to smear Rayner and she’s probably now going to be targeted right up until election day, I actually think this is now working in her favour. Your problem is that you’re in a tribe and work very hard to pretend otherwise, all those years defending Boris have taught you nothing, see it for what it is and stop trying to be Pistonheads answer to Ken Barlow, it won’t wash as they say.
Wombat3 said:
Sorry if that's a bit hurty for you but lets call a spade a spade.
Ange's path to deputy leader is well charted, I'm not going to regurgitate it. However, that she has arrived there does not mean or show that she is the least bit suitable to hold that office or related governmental offices. Indeed most of what's ever come out of her mouth indicates the exact opposite IMO.
Based on what she said herself she claims not to even know how CGT works even to this day ("its the only home I owned").
The green-eyed monster is also at large here methinks: "Don't tell me rich people have nothing to hide "
By implication everyone that is rich is bent are they?
You giving up regurgitation would be novel Ange's path to deputy leader is well charted, I'm not going to regurgitate it. However, that she has arrived there does not mean or show that she is the least bit suitable to hold that office or related governmental offices. Indeed most of what's ever come out of her mouth indicates the exact opposite IMO.
Based on what she said herself she claims not to even know how CGT works even to this day ("its the only home I owned").
The green-eyed monster is also at large here methinks: "Don't tell me rich people have nothing to hide "
By implication everyone that is rich is bent are they?
The thing abouit opinions are they are not equal, there is only one poverty bound workin class woman occupying the deputy leader's office in the Labour party right now, so therefore the whole she's not fit for office is wilfully ignoring the facts of the matter. Your opinion ios not as persuasive as you think it is.As for bent money, I've run my own business for over 20 years. It's puerile b
ks to suggest I'm jealous of anyone, I've paddled my own canoe for decades & done very well out of it thank you very much. But I will tell you I know what I've seen go on in those years & it's funny as if you reckon those boys are all about the straight & narrow, my sweet summer child.Amateurish said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
sugerbear said:
...
What exactly is AR supposed to have done when she registtered at her address? What did she stand to gain? Was she looking to swing an election in her favour by using that vote? No she wasn't ...
We covered that a few days ago. She was probably trying to get the maximum discount on her 'right to buy' property.What exactly is AR supposed to have done when she registtered at her address? What did she stand to gain? Was she looking to swing an election in her favour by using that vote? No she wasn't ...
When she bought her property in 2007 she had to declare it was her "main/only" home. The longer the period she had lived there continuously, the higher the discount. But, in reality, she was probably already living with her future husband well before 2007 at his home. But she really needed to be living at her original address to obtain the £16k discount.
After she bought the property in 2007, there would be no restriction on it being rented out. But I think she was worried about awkward questions being asked i.e. was that really her only/main home at the time she obtained that discount?
So I think her plan (ironically) was to set things up to avoid those questions being asked. Her brother would say he lived as the same address as Mark Rayner. He would pay rent to Mark. Angela would say she continued living at her original home. That explains the electoral register information.
However, when the neighbours said her brother was actually living at her home, she said he was living there but "rent free". And it is why she is now having to deny living with her partner (and future husband) even though she probably was.
Again, ironically, if she hadn't bothered trying to be avoid these "loose ends" I don't think she would have had a problem. She might have been getting into potential grey areas of the rules, but from what I can see, what she was doing wasn't illegal or technically against the rules.
As I had said previously, if I was in her situation, I would have done the same.
Blue62 said:
andymadmak said:
No. I'm sorry but that doesn't wash. Breaking the law is breaking the law. If Sunak et al have broken non don tax laws then throw the book at them. Really.
The quantum of the money involved is not really relevant here. If (maximise on the if) Rayner has broken tax or electoral laws then those laws should apply to her. "Some other dude did worse" is not a defence. Even if some time limitation were to apply, thereby allowing her to dodge court if she has done something wrong then that would still make her position untenable in my view.
As it stands, she's innocent until proven guilty. All your (and others) flapping about yeh but Tory X did Y is nonsensical, especially as Tory X doing Y is something that you and others have long complained about!
Let's see what the investigation says (if anything).
Yes of course, let’s wait and see, how characteristically disingenuous. Though it must hurt, the small sample of recent Tory sleaze, malpractice and dishonesty was to help you and others get a little perspective.The quantum of the money involved is not really relevant here. If (maximise on the if) Rayner has broken tax or electoral laws then those laws should apply to her. "Some other dude did worse" is not a defence. Even if some time limitation were to apply, thereby allowing her to dodge court if she has done something wrong then that would still make her position untenable in my view.
As it stands, she's innocent until proven guilty. All your (and others) flapping about yeh but Tory X did Y is nonsensical, especially as Tory X doing Y is something that you and others have long complained about!
Let's see what the investigation says (if anything).
Anyone outside the frothing walls of this forum can see that it’s an attempt to smear Rayner and she’s probably now going to be targeted right up until election day, I actually think this is now working in her favour. Your problem is that you’re in a tribe and work very hard to pretend otherwise, all those years defending Boris have taught you nothing, see it for what it is and stop trying to be Pistonheads answer to Ken Barlow, it won’t wash as they say.
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!
President Merkin said:
You giving up regurgitation would be novel The thing abouit opinions are they are not equal, there is only one poverty bound workin class woman occupying the deputy leader's office in the Labour party right now, so therefore the whole she's not fit for office is wilfully ignoring the facts of the matter. Your opinion ios not as persuasive as you think it is.
As cited, what comes out her mouth suggests otherwise IMO. Besides, I don't really care what anyone's background is, I care about what they say and what they do. The thing abouit opinions are they are not equal, there is only one poverty bound workin class woman occupying the deputy leader's office in the Labour party right now, so therefore the whole she's not fit for office is wilfully ignoring the facts of the matter. Your opinion ios not as persuasive as you think it is.President Merkin said:
As for bent money, I've run my own business for over 20 years. It's puerile bks to suggest I'm jealous of anyone, I've paddled my own canoe for decades & done very well out of it thank you very much. But I will tell you I know what I've seen go on in those years & it's funny as if you reckon those boys are all about the straight & narrow, my sweet summer child.
Well bully for you and I also have run my own business for decades & I've seen plenty. Nobody said everyone was straight but equally not everyone is bent either, so best not to generalise I think.ks to suggest I'm jealous of anyone, I've paddled my own canoe for decades & done very well out of it thank you very much. But I will tell you I know what I've seen go on in those years & it's funny as if you reckon those boys are all about the straight & narrow, my sweet summer child.As to "those boys" (those chips on your shoulders must be getting quite weighty) until something otherwise emerges, your baseless accusations and insinuations are just that.....baseless.
andymadmak said:
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.
She’s not going to be found guilty of anything The most that’s likely to happen imo is that the Police will say (at most) that they believe the evidential threshold has been met and were the offences not time limited then a file would be passed to the CPS for consideration
In other words .. we think she did it, but can’t prosecute her
Now where that leaves her, the Labour Party and her boss is up for debate
What it won’t do is put the matter to bed and it will continue to overshadow her and the run up to the GE
All assuming that no more dirt is dug up on her
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.
Having watched this I find that quite hard to believe.But obviously, she was just some gobby scrubber with an illegitimate child.
Maybe those criticising her achievements may want to list theirs?
SD.
https://youtu.be/SVwyvSSpNvs?si=_PQa_pyRXjj2OQ3e
Amateurish said:
JNW1 said:
Amateurish said:
JNW1 said:
But if she and/or her brother did falsify their electoral registration returns it begs the question why
When you say "falsify their electoral registration returns" what exactly do you mean?Because that sounds pretty serious.
She said she spent time in both homes.
The electoral commission says if you have two homes, you can register at either (or both).
But maybe she was indeed splitting her time between the two homes regularly and often - however, newly married with a young family that doesn't sound especially likely plus of course it seems the neighbours apparently never saw her but saw plenty of her brother. But yeah, could all be just nonsense....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff