Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
Rufus Stone said:
It's not really wrong to make an assumption that 99.9% of newly married couples live in the same home though.
Rayner does have a disabled son though, and her home had apparently been adapted for him, so her claim they lived apart for the first five years of marriage could hold water.
According to The Times, her son was listed as living with the husband (i.e. son's stepfather). https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/angela-rayner-c...Rayner does have a disabled son though, and her home had apparently been adapted for him, so her claim they lived apart for the first five years of marriage could hold water.
Rufus Stone said:
blueg33 said:
Most newly weds isn't all newly weds, I am sure I don't have to remind you what most means. I have worked in housing all my career and one thing its taught me is to never make assumptions about how people live or run their lives, especially when two families are merging and kids are involved. I've even seen people with no gets that both work shifts but shift patterns are offset but overlapping live in different apartments.
You are saying she has been dishonest whilst making sweeping assumptions about how she and her family live. You are not being objective, you are colouring your judgement based solely on potentially flawed assumptions.
Like I say, I am no Rayner fan, but I am a fan of taking an objective view.
Your view sounds like the post office view "the sub postmasters must have their hands in the till, because the alternative doesn't appeal to me"
It's not really wrong to make an assumption that 99.9% of newly married couples live in the same home though.You are saying she has been dishonest whilst making sweeping assumptions about how she and her family live. You are not being objective, you are colouring your judgement based solely on potentially flawed assumptions.
Like I say, I am no Rayner fan, but I am a fan of taking an objective view.
Your view sounds like the post office view "the sub postmasters must have their hands in the till, because the alternative doesn't appeal to me"
Rayner does have a disabled son though, and her home had apparently been adapted for him, so her claim they lived apart for the first five years of marriage could hold water.
Sway said:
Understand where you're coming from regarding assumptions with no evidence, however there's quite a lot from her social media, neighbours, etc., which strongly indicates that she's lying and did live at husband's house.
Also judging by PH Homes and Gardens and Law forums the number of people who don't get on with their neighbours is not insubstantial. blueg33 said:
JNW1 said:
CGT is indeed a potential minefield which is why people who are exposed to it regularly tend to use tax specialists to try to ensure they're not caught out!
But in Rayner's case has she really done something that thousands of others in a similar situation have done? The reason I question that is most newly-weds would (IMO) look to live together as soon as possible, especially if they've got a young family; however, if we are to believe Rayner, she didn't do that and instead opted to continue to live at her own home - and separate from her new husband - for five years after they got married. That strikes me as a very odd thing for a newly married couple to choose to do and indeed the evidence of neighbours suggests she didn't do that at all - in reality she was living with her new husband (as you'd expect) and it was actually her brother living in her house.
So to me she hasn't been caught up in something complicated she didn't understand, she's been caught out as a result of not being honest about something that's very straightforward, namely stating where you live. And that dishonesty was also plain stupid if it was done to try to avoid a CGT liability that was at worst minimal and quite possibly didn't exist at all!
Most newly weds isn't all newly weds, I am sure I don't have to remind you what most means. I have worked in housing all my career and one thing its taught me is to never make assumptions about how people live or run their lives, especially when two families are merging and kids are involved. I've even seen people with no gets that both work shifts but shift patterns are offset but overlapping live in different apartments.But in Rayner's case has she really done something that thousands of others in a similar situation have done? The reason I question that is most newly-weds would (IMO) look to live together as soon as possible, especially if they've got a young family; however, if we are to believe Rayner, she didn't do that and instead opted to continue to live at her own home - and separate from her new husband - for five years after they got married. That strikes me as a very odd thing for a newly married couple to choose to do and indeed the evidence of neighbours suggests she didn't do that at all - in reality she was living with her new husband (as you'd expect) and it was actually her brother living in her house.
So to me she hasn't been caught up in something complicated she didn't understand, she's been caught out as a result of not being honest about something that's very straightforward, namely stating where you live. And that dishonesty was also plain stupid if it was done to try to avoid a CGT liability that was at worst minimal and quite possibly didn't exist at all!
You are saying she has been dishonest whilst making sweeping assumptions about how she and her family live. You are not being objective, you are colouring your judgement based solely on potentially flawed assumptions.
Like I say, I am no Rayner fan, but I am a fan of taking an objective view.
Your view sounds like the post office view "the sub postmasters must have their hands in the till, because the alternative doesn't appeal to me"
And I don't think what I've said is just flawed assumptions on my part either - the evidence from local neighbours seems to support that she was living with her husband in his house and it was her brother who was living in her house. Not seen any locals backing her version of events but happy to stand corrected if that's not the case?
chrispmartha said:
blueg33 said:
Baroque attacks said:
Tbf Blue you miss out the input from the neighbours there.
What did they say? have they got an axe to grind?These neighbours?
I expect JNW1 Was referring to the neighbours, who I expect you understand could be an overlapping group, who said she didn’t live at the house she claimed - same point Finnegan made.
blueg33 said:
Sway said:
Understand where you're coming from regarding assumptions with no evidence, however there's quite a lot from her social media, neighbours, etc., which strongly indicates that she's lying and did live at husband's house.
Also judging by PH Homes and Gardens and Law forums the number of people who don't get on with their neighbours is not insubstantial. Rufus Stone said:
Baroque attacks said:
Tbf Blue you miss out the input from the neighbours there.
Were they peering in the bedroom window each night or something?
they're not religious nutters checking if the marriage has been consummatedI have an idea who my neighbours are, presume most do.
blueg33 said:
Sway said:
Understand where you're coming from regarding assumptions with no evidence, however there's quite a lot from her social media, neighbours, etc., which strongly indicates that she's lying and did live at husband's house.
Also judging by PH Homes and Gardens and Law forums the number of people who don't get on with their neighbours is not insubstantial. There really is nothing corroborating her version of events, and a lot showing the opposite.
Baroque attacks said:
Rufus Stone said:
Baroque attacks said:
Tbf Blue you miss out the input from the neighbours there.
Were they peering in the bedroom window each night or something? they're not religious nutters checking if the marriage has been consummatedI have an idea who my neighbours are, presume most do.
Sway said:
blueg33 said:
Sway said:
Understand where you're coming from regarding assumptions with no evidence, however there's quite a lot from her social media, neighbours, etc., which strongly indicates that she's lying and did live at husband's house.
Also judging by PH Homes and Gardens and Law forums the number of people who don't get on with their neighbours is not insubstantial. There really is nothing corroborating her version of events, and a lot showing the opposite.
The sooner a conclusion is reached the better, its just noise basically.
Rufus Stone said:
JNW1 said:
CGT is indeed a potential minefield which is why people who are exposed to it regularly tend to use tax specialists to try to ensure they're not caught out!
But in Rayner's case has she really done something that thousands of others in a similar situation have done? The reason I question that is most newly-weds would (IMO) look to live together as soon as possible, especially if they've got a young family; however, if we are to believe Rayner, she didn't do that and instead opted to continue to live at her own home - and separate from her new husband - for five years after they got married. That strikes me as a very odd thing for a newly married couple to choose to do and indeed the evidence of neighbours suggests she didn't do that at all - in reality she was living with her new husband (as you'd expect) and it was actually her brother living in her house.
So to me she hasn't been caught up in something complicated she didn't understand, she's been caught out as a result of not being honest about something that's very straightforward, namely stating where you live. And that dishonesty was also plain stupid if it was done to try to avoid a CGT liability that was at worst minimal and quite possibly didn't exist at all!
Likely correct, but don't forget that when responding to the CGT issues she was also trying to cover off her electoral roll address issue. To her mind, and perhaps her advisers too, saying she lived at her house resolved both.But in Rayner's case has she really done something that thousands of others in a similar situation have done? The reason I question that is most newly-weds would (IMO) look to live together as soon as possible, especially if they've got a young family; however, if we are to believe Rayner, she didn't do that and instead opted to continue to live at her own home - and separate from her new husband - for five years after they got married. That strikes me as a very odd thing for a newly married couple to choose to do and indeed the evidence of neighbours suggests she didn't do that at all - in reality she was living with her new husband (as you'd expect) and it was actually her brother living in her house.
So to me she hasn't been caught up in something complicated she didn't understand, she's been caught out as a result of not being honest about something that's very straightforward, namely stating where you live. And that dishonesty was also plain stupid if it was done to try to avoid a CGT liability that was at worst minimal and quite possibly didn't exist at all!
rscott said:
What electoral roll address issue? It's perfectly legal to be listed at two different addresses - https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-...
Close the investigation, case solved by PH. 
Legacywr said:
Having risen to the very top of the legal profession in the UK, you’d think SKS would read AR’s professional advice and put this to bed…
Is he a tax lawyer?I use lawyers all the time. I use a construction lawyer for construction contracts, a planning barrister for planning, a development lawyer for development agreements. I wouldn't use the planning guy to advise me on tax law or the construction guy on employment law etc
NomduJour said:
Zero chance Keith isn’t aware of the various counsel and tax opinions they will have requested.
Noone will have sought Counsel's opinion on something like this. At a tax level it's a straightforward question - one that could almost form part of a question in professional exams (particularly given the fact that a married couple can only have one PPR). Besides which getting Counsel to agree with your side of an argument simply requires you to draft the questions in the right way.
markh1973 said:
will have sought Counsel's opinion on something like this. At a tax level it's a straightforward question - one that could almost form part of a question in professional exams (particularly given the fact that a married couple can only have one PPR).
Besides which getting Counsel to agree with your side of an argument simply requires you to draft the questions in the right way
Do you really think every avenue of advice will have not have been explored? How many opinions were sought to get the right answer for Beergate?Besides which getting Counsel to agree with your side of an argument simply requires you to draft the questions in the right way
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff