Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
Deesee said:
Let us see where she was registered for council tax... as that is a requirement.... As a married person, or at her home as a single person.
That will depend how many homes she has. The property owner is ultimately liable for council tax in accordance with the hierarchy of liabilities.Nomme de Plum said:
Deesee said:
In this day and age, I can go on to any bank account/utility bill and produce documents as to where my residence was, electoral roll will show this too.
The article refers to a referral to the police, as I state if she has done it correctly there is nothing to hide/fear.
Not relevant for Rayner but one does not have to be on an electoral roll or have a bank account and many will not have utility accounts. The article refers to a referral to the police, as I state if she has done it correctly there is nothing to hide/fear.
Super Sonic said:
Is she actually being investigated, or is it just some people are calling for her to be investigated?
From how I'm reading it it's the latter.Like how Starmer is being referred to the Standards Committee over last week but when you look beyond the Express headlines all that's happened is an MP has written a letter to Harman.
If there's any sign of wrongdoing they should investigate and take the appropriate action.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Super Sonic said:
Is she actually being investigated, or is it just some people are calling for her to be investigated?
From how I'm reading it it's the latter.Like how Starmer is being referred to the Standards Committee over last week but when you look beyond the Express headlines all that's happened is an MP has written a letter to Harman.
If there's any sign of wrongdoing they should investigate and take the appropriate action.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rayner-facing-...
Rivenink said:
Sounds like you're jumping to conclusions about such a review would suggest.
Right to buy could be a very effective route to homeowership for the millions of people under 40 who are forced to rent at extortionate rates because they can't save up a deposit to buy faster than house prices rise.
Of course, it requires that councils build homes with the funds they get from selling through Right to Buy.
Nothing wrong with the idea of Right to Buy. Their review would seek to reduce discountsRight to buy could be a very effective route to homeowership for the millions of people under 40 who are forced to rent at extortionate rates because they can't save up a deposit to buy faster than house prices rise.
Of course, it requires that councils build homes with the funds they get from selling through Right to Buy.
Deesee said:
Electro1980 said:
Deesee said:
2007 Purchased Property.
2010 Married, registered children to husbands address, stayed on electoral roll at own address, her brother moved to her address (reg on roll).
2015 Sold property.
So we are expecting to see here, permission from mortgage company for consent to let, rental from brother declared on tax returns, CGT declared in relevant tax year and relevant discount paid back to the council as she had not been living there.
Sold property in the year she was elected also, perhaps this was all pointed out to her by a gov official.
If's she's done the above should be no issue.....
Given that it is over 7 years ago it would be down to someone to prove those were not done, as there would be no reason for her to retain the evidence.2010 Married, registered children to husbands address, stayed on electoral roll at own address, her brother moved to her address (reg on roll).
2015 Sold property.
So we are expecting to see here, permission from mortgage company for consent to let, rental from brother declared on tax returns, CGT declared in relevant tax year and relevant discount paid back to the council as she had not been living there.
Sold property in the year she was elected also, perhaps this was all pointed out to her by a gov official.
If's she's done the above should be no issue.....
This seems to be a case of trying to make political capital out of those who are ready to believe anything that confirms their views.
There’s no allegation of not paying tax, and the “rules” people are claiming she has broken don’t appear to even exist…
The article refers to a referral to the police, as I state if she has done it correctly there is nothing to hide/fear.
Regardless, no, you can’t. Many won’t hold records longer than 7 years.
Biggy Stardust said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It'll either go somewhere or it won't.
This is one of the few instances where we agree. I only ask that the investigation be prompt, unbiased & thorough.What is it about Rayner that gets some Tories so frothy?
I struggle to give a s
t about some headlines. The mail one included. But I'm all for scrutiny of our politicians. Not for trial by media.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff