Angela Rayner to face investigation?

[President Merkin]

tangerine_sedge said:

If some of those posters didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all...

This story has been driven along entirely by the Daily Mail and fake outrage, whilst multiple Tory MP failings have come and gone with hardly a comment from our resident blue rosettes.

Still, it's been handy for identifying the crowd who read the Mail with their index finger following the text & desperately hoping Harry Cole makes it cut through to the public. No sign yet.

[bitchstewie]

Legacywr said:

You two...

And that's all you've got really because on that particular issue I'm right.

[Vanden Saab]

tangerine_sedge said:

If some of those posters didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all...

This story has been driven along entirely by the Daily Mail and fake outrage, whilst multiple Tory MP failings have come and gone with hardly a comment from our resident blue rosettes.

I am not sure you understand how this works. When an MP does something bad, the response here is almost entirely driven by their and their parties response.
There are basically 3.
1, the MP resigns. If it is a minor offence it goes away.
2, the party removes the whip while additional investigations continue. This can happen even after no1 or even though the MP claims to be innocent.
3, the MP claims it is all a smear campaign and the party agrees and does nothing.
In cases 1 and 2 it goes away but in 3 the interest continues until either they are found to be guilty or innocent and even then the 'smell' will linger for some, see beergate.
Suggesting it is a moral response is just you trying to shut it down, which is exactly what you seem to be doing here. What is it about this thread you do not like

[blueg33]

Legacywr said:

blueg33 said:

bhstewie said:

And there you have it.

Far more concerned with a word that she shouldn't have used than many of you appear to be with actual behaviours going from what I've seen from most of you.

Tell you what come back when you've got stuck in on the Menzies or Hester thread on how people are alleged to have behaved towards a 78 year old lady or Diane Abbott.

Countless other examples the past few years.

Not a word about the vile language used about Rayner on this thread.

When there's tumbleweed from many of you on that kind of behaviour spare me the "oh my god she said scum how dare she" fake indignation.

Yup. The same people on here who didn’t call out those calling her a prostitute and using other misogynistic terms.

You two...

Wot?

[President Merkin]

Vanden Saab said:

When an MP does something bad, the response here is almost entirely driven by their and their parties response.

Lol.

[Legacywr]

Baroque attacks said:

Rufus Stone said:

This thread is bizarre.

It is indeed.

Are you new here?

[rscott]

Probably ought to correct item 2 here, based on recent Conservative MPs

Vanden Saab said:

tangerine_sedge said:

If some of those posters didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all...

This story has been driven along entirely by the Daily Mail and fake outrage, whilst multiple Tory MP failings have come and gone with hardly a comment from our resident blue rosettes.

I am not sure you understand how this works. When an MP does something bad, the response here is almost entirely driven by their and their parties response.
There are basically 3.
1, the MP resigns. If it is a minor offence it goes away.
2, the party removes the whip while additional investigations continueonce the media picks up on the story, several months after the party started investigating. This can happen even after no1 or even though the MP claims to be innocent.
3, the MP claims it is all a smear campaign and the party agrees and does nothing.
In cases 1 and 2 it goes away but in 3 the interest continues until either they are found to be guilty or innocent and even then the 'smell' will linger for some, see beergate.
Suggesting it is a moral response is just you trying to shut it down, which is exactly what you seem to be doing here. What is it about this thread you do not like

[Pan Pan Pan]

tangerine_sedge said:

bhstewie said:

And there you have it.

Far more concerned with a word that she shouldn't have used than many of you appear to be with actual behaviours going from what I've seen from most of you.

Tell you what come back when you've got stuck in on the Menzies or Hester thread on how people are alleged to have behaved towards a 78 year old lady or Diane Abbott.

Countless other examples the past few years.

Not a word about the vile language used about Rayner on this thread.

When there's tumbleweed from many of you on that kind of behaviour spare me the "oh my god she said scum how dare she" fake indignation.

If some of those posters didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all...

This story has been driven along entirely by the Daily Mail and fake outrage, whilst multiple Tory MP failings have come and gone with hardly a comment from our resident blue rosettes.

Exactly the same with regard to labour, and those with red rosettes. It is just that your red tinted glasses, don't allow you to see that.

[Pan Pan Pan]

President Merkin said:

tangerine_sedge said:

If some of those posters didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all...

This story has been driven along entirely by the Daily Mail and fake outrage, whilst multiple Tory MP failings have come and gone with hardly a comment from our resident blue rosettes.

Still, it's been handy for identifying the crowd who read the Mail with their index finger following the text & desperately hoping Harry Cole makes it cut through to the public. No sign yet.

And exactly the same applies to those brandishing their red rosettes. The only difference is those who use the Guardian for their news don't even follow the text with their fingers, they just look at the pictures.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 19th April 10:44

[Amateurish]

Wombat3 said:

Not confused at all........renovations are only relevant if she didn't live there. So why even mention it if she did?

This is a really simple concept, I'm surprised you can't understand it

She says 1. I lived in the house so no CGT is due 2. even if I didn't live there, no CGT would be due because I have done renovations.

The two propositions are not contradictory.

[Legacywr]

Amateurish said:

This is a really simple concept, I'm surprised you can't understand it

She says 1. I lived in the house so no CGT is due 2. even if I didn't live there, no CGT would be due because I have done renovations.

The two propositions are not contradictory.

They could be lies, though...

[blueg33]

Amateurish said:

Wombat3 said:

Not confused at all........renovations are only relevant if she didn't live there. So why even mention it if she did?

This is a really simple concept, I'm surprised you can't understand it

She says 1. I lived in the house so no CGT is due 2. even if I didn't live there, no CGT would be due because I have done renovations.

The two propositions are not contradictory.

I thought that married couples are considered as living in the same house for CGT purposes? Was she married at the time? I have lost track.

[Rufus Stone]

blueg33 said:

I thought that married couples are considered as living in the same house for CGT purposes? Was she married at the time? I have lost track.

Is there any rule that states it has to be the mans house though?

[blueg33]

Rufus Stone said:

blueg33 said:

I thought that married couples are considered as living in the same house for CGT purposes? Was she married at the time? I have lost track.

Is there any rule that states it has to be the mans house though?

No you nominate one and you can change your nomination as often as you like

[tangerine_sedge]

Vanden Saab said:

tangerine_sedge said:

If some of those posters didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all...

This story has been driven along entirely by the Daily Mail and fake outrage, whilst multiple Tory MP failings have come and gone with hardly a comment from our resident blue rosettes.

I am not sure you understand how this works. When an MP does something bad, the response here is almost entirely driven by their and their parties response.
There are basically 3.
1, the MP resigns. If it is a minor offence it goes away.
2, the party removes the whip while additional investigations continue. This can happen even after no1 or even though the MP claims to be innocent.
3, the MP claims it is all a smear campaign and the party agrees and does nothing.
In cases 1 and 2 it goes away but in 3 the interest continues until either they are found to be guilty or innocent and even then the 'smell' will linger for some, see beergate.
Suggesting it is a moral response is just you trying to shut it down, which is exactly what you seem to be doing here. What is it about this thread you do not like

I know exactly how this works in the court of Daily Mail judgement. In your rush to redefine the argument you appear to have missed out option 4 : The client media continue pushing the story as a front page headline every day for weeks ensuring it remains a story to their already biased readers whilst ignoring other equally damaging stories for the home team.

[Tankrizzo]

FiF said:

95% of the thread could be summed up in 5 postshttps://www.pistonheads.com/rules-of-posting.

1. Your gang smells.
2. Your gang smells worse.
3. No, your gang smells worse because you've never once even acknowledged they're a bit whiffy.
4. Your Mum.
5. No! YOUR MUM!!!!

Footnote: "for the benefit of the tape, that was a joke."

Special guest appearances from:

• banned posters who create more accounts (presumably just to propagate their e-knobhead persona)
• people who post every day about how terrible NP&E is (but continue to post here as if life expectancy depended on post count)
• people who seem to just say the same thing day after day in every political thread

[turbobloke]

tangerine_sedge said:

Vanden Saab said:

tangerine_sedge said:

If some of those posters didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all...

This story has been driven along entirely by the Daily Mail and fake outrage, whilst multiple Tory MP failings have come and gone with hardly a comment from our resident blue rosettes.

I am not sure you understand how this works. When an MP does something bad, the response here is almost entirely driven by their and their parties response.
There are basically 3.
1, the MP resigns. If it is a minor offence it goes away.
2, the party removes the whip while additional investigations continue. This can happen even after no1 or even though the MP claims to be innocent.
3, the MP claims it is all a smear campaign and the party agrees and does nothing.
In cases 1 and 2 it goes away but in 3 the interest continues until either they are found to be guilty or innocent and even then the 'smell' will linger for some, see beergate.
Suggesting it is a moral response is just you trying to shut it down, which is exactly what you seem to be doing here. What is it about this thread you do not like

I know exactly how this works in the court of Daily Mail judgement. In your rush to redefine the argument you appear to have missed out option 4 : The client media continue pushing the story as a front page headline every day for weeks ensuring it remains a story to their already biased readers whilst ignoring other equally damaging stories for the home team.

The transparent and failed diversion attempt continues - it's got nothing to do with the Daily Mail, it's all to do with Angela Rayner.

Apart from that, it's surprising that you read the Daily Mail so often and so closely anyway, to know what it's supposed to be doing (while having a pop in the meantime).

Send in the squirrels. This will only start to go away when the police investigation concludes and the upcoming election is done and dusted.

[Wombat3]

Amateurish said:

Wombat3 said:

Not confused at all........renovations are only relevant if she didn't live there. So why even mention it if she did?

This is a really simple concept, I'm surprised you can't understand it

She says 1. I lived in the house so no CGT is due 2. even if I didn't live there, no CGT would be due because I have done renovations.

The two propositions are not contradictory.

That is correct and in isolation appears even plausible.

What may muddy the waters for her is the electoral roll, and then the concept of spending 5 years living apart from the husband she just married and had a child with. It then leads to inevitable questions about how she managed to afford & pay for said renovations (in her self-proclaimed impoverished state) & then what the CGT position was then on her husband's house if its accepted that she lived where she said she did (because they can't both be right).

Then there is the possible undeclared rental income from the brother seen frequenting the house for some considerable time (whilst claiming to live elsewhere) ....and so it goes around.

She really should have Mea Culpa'd this 2 months ago because lets be honest , even if she is cleared by GMP (likely to be from a lack of evidence) etc, there is always going to be a section of the media and the electorate who will look at it & go, "Yeah, riiiiiiight. " (see "Beergate").

As far as the taxman is concerned, IIRC the burden of proof is always on the taxpayer to prove that tax is not owed. They can slap a demand on you & its then on you to prove its not correct - so pleading that she no longer has the receipts or bank statements won't get her off the hook if they decide that they should do that. The added sting in the tail is that even if you take them to court to fight it & win, you can't win costs against HMRC (or at least you never used to be able to).

Politicians...can't live with them, can't shoot them!

[Wombat3]

blueg33 said:

Rufus Stone said:

blueg33 said:

I thought that married couples are considered as living in the same house for CGT purposes? Was she married at the time? I have lost track.

Is there any rule that states it has to be the mans house though?

No you nominate one and you can change your nomination as often as you like

CGT is then calculated on the percentage of the gain relating to the percentage of the time you owned the place that you didn't live there (with a 9 month allowance).

Moving back into a house just before you sell it and calling it your main residence again does not remove the CGT liability if you did not live in it for the whole time you owned it.

[abzmike]

Wombat3 said:

Amateurish said:

Wombat3 said:

Not confused at all........renovations are only relevant if she didn't live there. So why even mention it if she did?

This is a really simple concept, I'm surprised you can't understand it

She says 1. I lived in the house so no CGT is due 2. even if I didn't live there, no CGT would be due because I have done renovations.

The two propositions are not contradictory.

That is correct and in isolation appears even plausible.

What may muddy the waters for her is the electoral roll, and then the concept of spending 5 years living apart from the husband she just married and had a child with. It then leads to inevitable questions about how she managed to afford & pay for said renovations (in her self-proclaimed impoverished state) & then what the CGT position was then on her husband's house if its accepted that she lived where she said she did (because they can't both be right).

Then there is the possible undeclared rental income from the brother seen frequenting the house for some considerable time (whilst claiming to live elsewhere) ....and so it goes around.

She really should have Mea Culpa'd this 2 months ago because lets be honest , even if she is cleared by GMP (likely to be from a lack of evidence) etc, there is always going to be a section of the media and the electorate who will look at it & go, "Yeah, riiiiiiight. " (see "Beergate").

As far as the taxman is concerned, IIRC the burden of proof is always on the taxpayer to prove that tax is not owed. They can slap a demand on you & its then on you to prove its not correct - so pleading that she no longer has the receipts or bank statements won't get her off the hook if they decide that they should do that. The added sting in the tail is that even if you take them to court to fight it & win, you can't win costs against HMRC (or at least you never used to be able to).

Politicians...can't live with them, can't shoot them!

There will always be a section of the media that will 'Grrr... Raynor' whatever the outcome, even if she is entirely exonerated. She is the new Corbyn.