Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
shed driver said:
Is it just me, but there appears to be a bit of bias in the Telegraph pay wall?
The last few articles that are critical of AR appear in full. Ones showing the government in a less than flattering light are often hidden.
SD.
Why would its paywall be any differently biased than the rest of the rag?The last few articles that are critical of AR appear in full. Ones showing the government in a less than flattering light are often hidden.
SD.
Wombat3 said:
chrispmartha said:
Wombat3 said:
Like I said, politicians, can't live with them, can't shoot them!
Bit off that comment considering what’s happened to some politicians over the last few years.I use the same term about estate agents & assorted other professions that contrive to disappoint on a regular basis; but shall refrain from applying it again in this context.
Angela Rayner is a weird one personally.
Often I can see where she is coming from in a debate & enjoy her direct style of delivery and that she makes some decent points in support of her argument.
To get to deputy shadow PM by the age of 42 after being pregnant at 16 & dropping out of school before GCSEs is remarkable.
Fair play, obviously has intelligence, determination and ambition.
At other times I find her arrogant and boorish.
Also hypocritical - recall her demanding Sunak's wife make her tax statements public even though a private individual with no role in government other than being married to Rishi. Recently, Rayner refused to release her own tax returns which smacks of double-standards.
Think she also stated that Boris should resign as a matter of principle when he was under investigation by the police for partygate.
Now she is being investigated herself, seems to have switched that to "I'll resign if found guilty".
Very marmite for me as a politician.
One thing I can say with certainty is that I'd hate to work under her as a trainee/graduate - don't think she'd make life easy.
Often I can see where she is coming from in a debate & enjoy her direct style of delivery and that she makes some decent points in support of her argument.
To get to deputy shadow PM by the age of 42 after being pregnant at 16 & dropping out of school before GCSEs is remarkable.
Fair play, obviously has intelligence, determination and ambition.
At other times I find her arrogant and boorish.
Also hypocritical - recall her demanding Sunak's wife make her tax statements public even though a private individual with no role in government other than being married to Rishi. Recently, Rayner refused to release her own tax returns which smacks of double-standards.
Think she also stated that Boris should resign as a matter of principle when he was under investigation by the police for partygate.
Now she is being investigated herself, seems to have switched that to "I'll resign if found guilty".
Very marmite for me as a politician.
One thing I can say with certainty is that I'd hate to work under her as a trainee/graduate - don't think she'd make life easy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13331907/...
Daily mail still on the case, but not exactly a smoking gun.
Daily mail still on the case, but not exactly a smoking gun.
Rufus Stone said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13331907/...
Daily mail still on the case, but not exactly a smoking gun.
No idea if the accusations have any basis, but it always amazes me how top politicians automatically revert to obfuscation or direct lies when questioned.Daily mail still on the case, but not exactly a smoking gun.
Look at Boris and the No.10 "partygate" thing - when it first made the headlines he could have stood up and said:
There were a few drinks after-work in the garden, we are all in the same office doing ridiculous hours with the Covid issue - it was just blowing off some steam but it was a mistake, we shouldn't have done it and we apologise.
Think a lot of people would have been annoyed but if he held his hands up it would be done & dusted in short order. Instead he tried to bulls**t his way out and it ended badly.
Will reserve judgement but the Rayner thing looks similar.
She's denying it while not providing any financial/legal evidence in support of her argument with quite a few people in the neighbourhood now saying she lived elsewhere.
If she can prove she paid the tax, why not just do it?
If she didn't pay, whether intentional or otherwise, why not just say "Yes, sorry, I made a mistake & I f*cked up, it was years ago but I will rectify it asap"
Some people might tut, but most wouldn't really care.
It will be a lot worse if she is found to be lying about stuff
OzzyR1 said:
Rufus Stone said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13331907/...
Daily mail still on the case, but not exactly a smoking gun.
No idea if the accusations have any basis, but it always amazes me how top politicians automatically revert to obfuscation or direct lies when questioned.Daily mail still on the case, but not exactly a smoking gun.
Look at Boris and the No.10 "partygate" thing - when it first made the headlines he could have stood up and said:
There were a few drinks after-work in the garden, we are all in the same office doing ridiculous hours with the Covid issue - it was just blowing off some steam but it was a mistake, we shouldn't have done it and we apologise.
Think a lot of people would have been annoyed but if he held his hands up it would be done & dusted in short order. Instead he tried to bulls**t his way out and it ended badly.
Will reserve judgement but the Rayner thing looks similar.
She's denying it while not providing any financial/legal evidence in support of her argument with quite a few people in the neighbourhood now saying she lived elsewhere.
If she can prove she paid the tax, why not just do it?
If she didn't pay, whether intentional or otherwise, why not just say "Yes, sorry, I made a mistake & I f*cked up, it was years ago but I will rectify it asap"
Some people might tut, but most wouldn't really care.
It will be a lot worse if she is found to be lying about stuff
markh1973 said:
The witness is saying that they saw you sign the paperwork. When I bought this year my paperwork was witnessed by a work colleague. When I sold last year by a friend who I happened to be staying with at a convenient time.
That is indeed the case and it is common to ask neighbours where you live.........JagLover said:
markh1973 said:
The witness is saying that they saw you sign the paperwork. When I bought this year my paperwork was witnessed by a work colleague. When I sold last year by a friend who I happened to be staying with at a convenient time.
That is indeed the case and it is common to ask neighbours where you live.........It's a fascinating insight into how the media work.
I genuinely don't know the first thing about any of this stuff to have any idea how much of this stuff might meet any criminal threshold v being the sort of thing you could see happening with kids and a partner and extended family milling around as sometimes happens in "three generations all living within half a mile of each other" families.
I have no clue how you draw the line between stuff you could see anyone having done if they're a bit loose with paperwork v someone specifically and deliberately choosing to do things to try to make money or gain a monetary advantage.
But I have to admit the daily drip from the Mail and Telegraph has me wondering.
I genuinely don't know the first thing about any of this stuff to have any idea how much of this stuff might meet any criminal threshold v being the sort of thing you could see happening with kids and a partner and extended family milling around as sometimes happens in "three generations all living within half a mile of each other" families.
I have no clue how you draw the line between stuff you could see anyone having done if they're a bit loose with paperwork v someone specifically and deliberately choosing to do things to try to make money or gain a monetary advantage.
But I have to admit the daily drip from the Mail and Telegraph has me wondering.
JagLover said:
markh1973 said:
The witness is saying that they saw you sign the paperwork. When I bought this year my paperwork was witnessed by a work colleague. When I sold last year by a friend who I happened to be staying with at a convenient time.
That is indeed the case and it is common to ask neighbours where you live.........OzzyR1 said:
No idea if the accusations have any basis, but it always amazes me how top politicians automatically revert to obfuscation or direct lies when questioned.
Look at Boris and the No.10 "partygate" thing - when it first made the headlines he could have stood up and said:
There were a few drinks after-work in the garden, we are all in the same office doing ridiculous hours with the Covid issue - it was just blowing off some steam but it was a mistake, we shouldn't have done it and we apologise.
Think a lot of people would have been annoyed but if he held his hands up it would be done & dusted in short order. Instead he tried to bulls**t his way out and it ended badly.
Will reserve judgement but the Rayner thing looks similar.
She's denying it while not providing any financial/legal evidence in support of her argument with quite a few people in the neighbourhood now saying she lived elsewhere.
If she can prove she paid the tax, why not just do it?
If she didn't pay, whether intentional or otherwise, why not just say "Yes, sorry, I made a mistake & I f*cked up, it was years ago but I will rectify it asap"
Some people might tut, but most wouldn't really care.
It will be a lot worse if she is found to be lying about stuff
Except Partygate wasn't a few drinks after work, it was consistent and persistent law breaking, of laws created by the people who were doing the partying. When Boris supposedly ate a piece of cake the drinks bill was 8 grand.Look at Boris and the No.10 "partygate" thing - when it first made the headlines he could have stood up and said:
There were a few drinks after-work in the garden, we are all in the same office doing ridiculous hours with the Covid issue - it was just blowing off some steam but it was a mistake, we shouldn't have done it and we apologise.
Think a lot of people would have been annoyed but if he held his hands up it would be done & dusted in short order. Instead he tried to bulls**t his way out and it ended badly.
Will reserve judgement but the Rayner thing looks similar.
She's denying it while not providing any financial/legal evidence in support of her argument with quite a few people in the neighbourhood now saying she lived elsewhere.
If she can prove she paid the tax, why not just do it?
If she didn't pay, whether intentional or otherwise, why not just say "Yes, sorry, I made a mistake & I f*cked up, it was years ago but I will rectify it asap"
Some people might tut, but most wouldn't really care.
It will be a lot worse if she is found to be lying about stuff
With Rayner, yes it seems she's guilty of quite a degree of hypocrisy, but I still can't understand why the police are involved.
We all know that as ordinary citizens nowadays in Tory Britain, it can be hard enough just to report a crime, and unless GBH or murder, we would struggle very much to get the police involved in helping us deal with a crime, beyond giving us a crime number.
Who has managed to get the police involved? Who is it who has a direct line or direct access to the police that the rest of us taxpayers will never have?
Does this not all smack of profound corruption? After everything the Tories have been involved in, who or how has the got the police involved in investigating a member of the Opposition party?
As previously said, with Partygate the police were supervising people entering the parties and listening to the music playing within?
A mate of mine has a storage business, he has suffered repeated break ins that do considerable damage, and impact upon his resolve to stay in business. He pays £12k rates annually without being aware of what he actually gets.
In the rural address where he lives, every householder in his lane has been robbed. One had a gun pointed at him in a demand for car keys (he didn't hand them over, either). I also have another mate who was relieved of his RS6 at gunpoint.
The effects of these crimes are insidious, and genuinely have an impact on wellbeing and how we live our lives.
For myself, undoubtedly like many people, there are a number of desirable cars I would and could own, but choose to drive something inferior because I know the car I want would be stolen, including the possibility of attack in broad daylight.
As an ordinary citizen he cannot get the police to take any interest whatsoever, but it seems if you're a person who is well connected enough, you can get the police to actively investigate a person just to see if a crime has been committed - the supposed crimes being £1500 worth of tax being dodged 10 years ago or an address on the electoral roll being roughly a mile out.
This must be part of the profound corruption being spoken about openly nowadays? Can we not insist that the police inform us of why they give different responses depending on the political standing of the person demanding an investigation into whether a crime has been committed?
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: It's a fascinating insight into how the media work.
I genuinely don't know the first thing about any of this stuff to have any idea how much of this stuff might meet any criminal threshold v being the sort of thing you could see happening with kids and a partner and extended family milling around as sometimes happens in "three generations all living within half a mile of each other" families.
I have no clue how you draw the line between stuff you could see anyone having done if they're a bit loose with paperwork v someone specifically and deliberately choosing to do things to try to make money or gain a monetary advantage.
But I have to admit the daily drip from the Mail and Telegraph has me wondering.
The only reason this has become a story is because you've got a politician who's been very vocal about MP's being held to the highest standards apparently failing to follow her own advice. The amount of CGT she may have sought to avoid is peanuts (if any) but the suspicion she might have lied about her living arrangements in order to do so - when she's been so outspoken in her criticism of other MP's breaking the law or bending the rules - is what's attracted the attention of her opponents and the media. I genuinely don't know the first thing about any of this stuff to have any idea how much of this stuff might meet any criminal threshold v being the sort of thing you could see happening with kids and a partner and extended family milling around as sometimes happens in "three generations all living within half a mile of each other" families.
I have no clue how you draw the line between stuff you could see anyone having done if they're a bit loose with paperwork v someone specifically and deliberately choosing to do things to try to make money or gain a monetary advantage.
But I have to admit the daily drip from the Mail and Telegraph has me wondering.
"Don't do as I do, do as I say" is a sentiment which tends to provoke an adverse reaction - and accusations of hypocrisy - and here we are....
JNW1 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's a fascinating insight into how the media work.
I genuinely don't know the first thing about any of this stuff to have any idea how much of this stuff might meet any criminal threshold v being the sort of thing you could see happening with kids and a partner and extended family milling around as sometimes happens in "three generations all living within half a mile of each other" families.
I have no clue how you draw the line between stuff you could see anyone having done if they're a bit loose with paperwork v someone specifically and deliberately choosing to do things to try to make money or gain a monetary advantage.
But I have to admit the daily drip from the Mail and Telegraph has me wondering.
The only reason this has become a story is because you've got a politician who's been very vocal about MP's being held to the highest standards apparently failing to follow her own advice. The amount of CGT she may have sought to avoid is peanuts (if any) but the suspicion she might have lied about her living arrangements in order to do so - when she's been so outspoken in her criticism of other MP's breaking the law or bending the rules - is what's attracted the attention of her opponents and the media. I genuinely don't know the first thing about any of this stuff to have any idea how much of this stuff might meet any criminal threshold v being the sort of thing you could see happening with kids and a partner and extended family milling around as sometimes happens in "three generations all living within half a mile of each other" families.
I have no clue how you draw the line between stuff you could see anyone having done if they're a bit loose with paperwork v someone specifically and deliberately choosing to do things to try to make money or gain a monetary advantage.
But I have to admit the daily drip from the Mail and Telegraph has me wondering.
"Don't do as I do, do as I say" is a sentiment which tends to provoke an adverse reaction - and accusations of hypocrisy - and here we are....
JNW1 said:
The only reason this has become a story is because you've got a politician who's been very vocal about MP's being held to the highest standards apparently failing to follow her own advice. The amount of CGT she may have sought to avoid is peanuts (if any) but the suspicion she might have lied about her living arrangements in order to do so - when she's been so outspoken in her criticism of other MP's breaking the law or bending the rules - is what's attracted the attention of her opponents and the media.
"Don't do as I do, do as I say" is a sentiment which tends to provoke an adverse reaction - and accusations of hypocrisy - and here we are....
I'm with you on the hypocrisy thing."Don't do as I do, do as I say" is a sentiment which tends to provoke an adverse reaction - and accusations of hypocrisy - and here we are....
But I honestly have no idea of the likelihood of the Police saying "yep we've found evidence of criminality" at the end of this v it turning out the Mail and Telegraph were totally over-egging it all along.
119 said:
I seem to remember there was another thread recently where a Tory MP was supposedly lying about some thing and the usual faux outraged members here were calling for them to be sacked or something along those lines.
After 14 years of this government you're gonna have to be a damn more specific than that.I mean, the 'faux outrage' may concern the disappear of millions of pounds through blatant profiteering during a national crisis, over which the police have been conspicuous by their absence and lack of interest.
sugerbear said:
All quiet on the Menzies thread though
He's a backbench MP that most people won't have heard of and who lost the whip as soon as the story became public and who won't be standing in the next election. It also seems to be a more straightforward case than Rayner so less room for discussion. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff