Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
I posted on this when it first made news and was generally contradicted by fellow PH members. The basis of that was logical: ‘well, she could be next Home Secretary’. However, what she may ( or may not deliberately) have done is trivial in the extreme compared with the goings on in the Conservative Party which I used to support. Whatever your views, she has made the best of herself without the benefit of being born with the proverbial silver spoon.
biggbn said:
Wombat3 said:
greygoose said:
You seem pretty full of bile yourself.
Really? I don't think I can hold a candle to Ange on that one!
This thread has been hilarious today with those usually so vociferous about anything to do with govt jumping to Angie's defence.
Nothing more to be said on this till something else comes out on it.
Lester H said:
I posted on this when it first made news and was generally contradicted by fellow PH members. The basis of that was logical: ‘well, she could be next Home Secretary’. However, what she may ( or may not deliberately) have done is trivial in the extreme compared with the goings on in the Conservative Party which I used to support. Whatever your views, she has made the best of herself without the benefit of being born with the proverbial silver spoon.
'Oh well, Hitler grew up in a poor family in Braunau, lets cut him some slack'. Can't keep playing the no-silver-spoons card. 
Wombat3 said:
biggbn said:
Wombat3 said:
greygoose said:
You seem pretty full of bile yourself.
Really? I don't think I can hold a candle to Ange on that one!This thread has been hilarious today with those usually so vociferous about anything to do with govt jumping to Angie's defence.
Nothing more to be said on this till something else comes out on it.
Edited by biggbn on Friday 22 March 22:14
Edited by biggbn on Friday 22 March 23:11
julian987R said:
Lester H said:
I posted on this when it first made news and was generally contradicted by fellow PH members. The basis of that was logical: ‘well, she could be next Home Secretary’. However, what she may ( or may not deliberately) have done is trivial in the extreme compared with the goings on in the Conservative Party which I used to support. Whatever your views, she has made the best of herself without the benefit of being born with the proverbial silver spoon.
'Oh well, Hitler grew up in a poor family in Braunau, lets cut him some slack'. Can't keep playing the no-silver-spoons card. chrispmartha said:
Well, yeah, if they don't look they definitely won't.768 said:
chrispmartha said:
Well, yeah, if they don't look they definitely won't.It says the police found no evidence which suggests they did look, I know it’ seems hard for some on here to take for some reason.
It's not contradictory to say no inquiry and to say no investigation when neither happened. And having three kids in no way do I think saying nothing was found implies any looking occurred!
They had the request less than a week, they spoke to no one who made any claims.
They clearly didn't look (which, it may surprise you, I think is a perfectly reasonable choice) but it's not vindication by a police investigation.
They had the request less than a week, they spoke to no one who made any claims.
They clearly didn't look (which, it may surprise you, I think is a perfectly reasonable choice) but it's not vindication by a police investigation.
djohnson said:
I suspect the truth of the matter is that she bought the house with the discount, then at some point decided to move in with her husband or husband to be. Realising that she was still within the clawback period and she’d have to pay some of the discount back if she sold, she rented it to her brother informally and pocketed the rental income without declaring it for tax (I’ve no idea if moving out and renting the property renders you liable to return some of the discount when you eventually sell). When her brother moved on she was outside of the clawback period and so sold the house pocketing the full profit. The CGT point didn’t occur to her until it was recently brought up in the press and no PPR election was made at the time (and from her comments I don’t think she’s grasped yet that a married couple can generally only have one PPR). That her brother paid zero rent and that she lived in the house throughout are, I suspect, untrue. Just my supposition.
I have no idea where my daughter lives. I keep getting her post, I'm about to decorate her room with the wall paper she choose, and if i change the locks i will be asked to give her a new key, but I've been to the flat she lives in with her boyfriend, and I know she pays half the rent. I think she's on at least 2 electoral roles too.
hstewie said:Evanivitch said:
Clearly didn't as none of them are pushing for penalty or prosecution 
Just speak for yourself, no need to lie and represent others.
Thanks for suggesting I'm lying. You appear a little too invested in this subject. Just speak for yourself, no need to lie and represent others.To clarify, I'm confirming that on the evidence we have, both myself, the accounting profession and HMRC would confirm she fell below the standard expected of her by the law because she did not assess (she has confirmed this) her potential liability to CGT. Again based on the facts available, it is only by good fortune that she is not liable to CGT.
chrispmartha said:
768 said:
chrispmartha said:
Well, yeah, if they don't look they definitely won't.It says the police found no evidence which suggests they did look, I know it’ seems hard for some on here to take for some reason.
A complaint is made to the Police, they are duty bound to look into it but that far from means there will be an investigation/enquiry
Firstly they will look and see if any criminal offences they investigate appear to have been committed and then apply the public interest test to it
As it happens tax fraud is not a police matter it is normally investigated and prosecuted by HMRC, likewise benefit fraud is investigated by the benefits agency
So the Police saying nothing for us/we aren’t interested doesn’t mean there isn’t something there for a different agency
If anyone walked into any police station and said X is fiddling their tax or Y is fiddling their benefits they’d be told it’s nothing to do with the police and go tell the relevant authorities
I see, on the face of it, the Rayner case being no different
Earthdweller said:
chrispmartha said:
768 said:
chrispmartha said:
Well, yeah, if they don't look they definitely won't.It says the police found no evidence which suggests they did look, I know it’ seems hard for some on here to take for some reason.
A complaint is made to the Police, they are duty bound to look into it but that far from means there will be an investigation/enquiry
Firstly they will look and see if any criminal offences they investigate appear to have been committed and then apply the public interest test to it
As it happens tax fraud is not a police matter it is normally investigated and prosecuted by HMRC, likewise benefit fraud is investigated by the benefits agency
So the Police saying nothing for us/we aren’t interested doesn’t mean there isn’t something there for a different agency
If anyone walked into any police station and said X is fiddling their tax or Y is fiddling their benefits they’d be told it’s nothing to do with the police and go tell the relevant authorities
I see, on the face of it, the Rayner case being no different
rscott said:
Earthdweller said:
chrispmartha said:
768 said:
chrispmartha said:
Well, yeah, if they don't look they definitely won't.It says the police found no evidence which suggests they did look, I know it’ seems hard for some on here to take for some reason.
A complaint is made to the Police, they are duty bound to look into it but that far from means there will be an investigation/enquiry
Firstly they will look and see if any criminal offences they investigate appear to have been committed and then apply the public interest test to it
As it happens tax fraud is not a police matter it is normally investigated and prosecuted by HMRC, likewise benefit fraud is investigated by the benefits agency
So the Police saying nothing for us/we aren’t interested doesn’t mean there isn’t something there for a different agency
If anyone walked into any police station and said X is fiddling their tax or Y is fiddling their benefits they’d be told it’s nothing to do with the police and go tell the relevant authorities
I see, on the face of it, the Rayner case being no different
So that would be right .. no offence to investigate
Edit I looked it up
“Section 176 lays down the time-limit for the commencement of proceedings for any offence under any provision contained in or made under RPA 1983. That applies to summary only offences which would normally, by virtue of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, be subject to a 6-month time limit.
Proceedings against a person in respect of any offence to which Section 176 applies must be commenced within one year after the offence was committed. For the purpose of Section 176, the laying of information is deemed to be the commencement of the proceedings. There are circumstances in which the time limit can be extended but an application to a Magistrates’ Court do so must be made within the 12-month time limit”
Edited by Earthdweller on Saturday 23 March 11:11
If she got married, moved into her husbands house and later sold her house I could accept "I thought CGT only applied to people who owned more than one property ". That could be an honest mistake.
What seems dubious is the notion she got married and they then spent five years living in separate properties, especially when they had a child together 2 years prior to getting married. So effectively, we're being asked to believe that between 2008 and 2015 this couple, with a child, lived in different properties?
It's worth noting the husband also bought his property under Right to Buy and later sold, so did he avoid CGT as well?
What seems dubious is the notion she got married and they then spent five years living in separate properties, especially when they had a child together 2 years prior to getting married. So effectively, we're being asked to believe that between 2008 and 2015 this couple, with a child, lived in different properties?
It's worth noting the husband also bought his property under Right to Buy and later sold, so did he avoid CGT as well?
blueg33 said:
Time for some whataboutery
This week. - Esther McVey claims expenses to rent flat while husband lets out nearby home
‘Minister for common sense’ who has criticised Whitehall waste is said to have received £39,000 in two years
Nadhim Zahawi - no further comment needed
etc
I'm not sure listing other people who may also be crooked is quite the win you think it is.This week. - Esther McVey claims expenses to rent flat while husband lets out nearby home
‘Minister for common sense’ who has criticised Whitehall waste is said to have received £39,000 in two years
Nadhim Zahawi - no further comment needed
etc
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff