Angela Rayner to face investigation?

[119]

Oh my, over twenty years ago.

You gotta be through the bottom of the barrel by now surely?

[Seasonal Hero]

119 said:

Oh my, over twenty years ago.

You gotta be through the bottom of the barrel by now surely?

Not yet - I guess I'll know when I am as I'll see you there.

[119]

Seasonal Hero said:

119 said:

Oh my, over twenty years ago.

You gotta be through the bottom of the barrel by now surely?

Not yet - I guess I'll know when I am as I'll see you there.

[Amateurish]

Rayner has explicitly said that she supports the right to buy at a reasonable discount, so hard to see where the hypocrisy lies.

Are the Tories really criticising the fact that she exercised right to buy then sold up 7 years later?

[valiant]

Amateurish said:

Are the Tories really criticising the fact that she exercised right to buy then sold up 7 years later?

Nope, the Tories are desperately looking for a squirrel to deflect away from their shambolic and shameful weekend.

[bitchstewie]

They've taken a hell of a kicking this past few days with all that islamophobia anti-Muslim hatred so to be honest I think it's a case of trying to grab anything that looks like a passing branch they can cling onto

[CrgT16]

This may well be dirty politics but that’s the price they pay… public scrutiny.

I don’t mind Rayner but all politicians from all parties should be held to a high standard and any investigation should be thorough and within reasonable time. If she did something wrong she should be penalised, if not then let’s focus on tomorrow’s headlines instead.

[119]

Amateurish said:

Rayner has explicitly said that she supports the right to buy at a reasonable discount, so hard to see where the hypocrisy lies.

Are the Tories really criticising the fact that she exercised right to buy then sold up 7 years later?

She has, so I don’t really know where all this is even going tbh.

[i4got]

Seasonal Hero said:

i4got said:

Do people not even try to disguise ad hominems any more?

Not an ad-hom when it's a fact.

Staines has four alcohol-related convictions [1] In 2002, Staines was banned from driving for 12 months for drink driving.[53] When he was convicted of the same offence six years later, he was asked in court by District Judge Timothy Stone whether he had an alcohol problem and replied: "Possibly." He was banned from driving for three years, as well as being given an 18-month supervision order and wearing an electronic tag for three months.[54][53]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines#Crimina...

HTH.

Think you need to look up ad hominem. It's absolutely nothing to do with whether it factual or not.

[Seasonal Hero]

i4got said:

Think you need to look up ad hominem. It's absolutely nothing to do with whether it factual or not.

Here's another one. Staines is a nasty sack of st. Cope harder.

[i4got]

Seasonal Hero said:

i4got said:

Think you need to look up ad hominem. It's absolutely nothing to do with whether it factual or not.

Here's another one. Staines is a nasty sack of st. Cope harder.

Jeez you pop in to try to stop someone looking silly and this is the attitude you get.

[Seasonal Hero]

i4got said:

Jeez you pop in to try to stop someone looking silly and this is the attitude you get.

If you’re honestly going to bat for Staines you’ll get no joy from me.

[cheesejunkie]

I like reading things I disagree with. I used to read some of Guido's stuff in a know your enemy type way. I don't agree with his politics at all.

But attacking a man who has a problem bothers me. To be fair he attacks plenty and there's a bit of live by the sword die by the sword where I'm not exactly full of sympathy. But I'd not attack him for that when there are so many other reasons disagree with him.

[Seasonal Hero]

cheesejunkie said:

I like reading things I disagree with. I used to read some of Guido's stuff in a know your enemy type way. I don't agree with his politics at all.

But attacking a man who has a problem bothers me. To be fair he attacks plenty and there's a bit of live by the sword die by the sword where I'm not exactly full of sympathy. But I'd not attack him for that when there are so many other reasons disagree with him.

I’d agree. If I thought he gave the slightest st about anyone else. But he doesn’t. He is the epitome of someone who will attack anyone for anything if it serves his purpose.

And I say that as someone who had an alcoholic for a father.

[rscott]

She's posted on Twitter to confirm it was her only home (she lived separately from her husband), so no CGT due.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/176221958111488...

[cheesejunkie]

Seasonal Hero said:

cheesejunkie said:

I like reading things I disagree with. I used to read some of Guido's stuff in a know your enemy type way. I don't agree with his politics at all.

But attacking a man who has a problem bothers me. To be fair he attacks plenty and there's a bit of live by the sword die by the sword where I'm not exactly full of sympathy. But I'd not attack him for that when there are so many other reasons disagree with him.

I’d agree. If I thought he gave the slightest st about anyone else. But he doesn’t. He is the epitome of someone who will attack anyone for anything if it serves his purpose.

And I say that as someone who had an alcoholic for a father.

He's a nasty piece of work but emblematic of a larger problem. Unchallenged and exceptionally biased media.

Like I stated, I read and watch stuff I disagree with because I think it's wrong to live in an echo chamber. I don't read Guido now because he's too far off the scale. But if he's an alcoholic I'll feel sorry for him. I've also had a few in the family. There are plenty of other reasons to disagree with him without dwelling on his drink problem.

[djohnson]

Given her specific stance on CGT, that the allegations are plainly at odds with what she claims her values to be, along with the need for integrity in elected officials (whilst muckraking is generally distasteful) I do think it’s right that this is looked at. Maybe it will go somewhere maybe it won’t.

In my opinion I think the most likely correct fact pattern is fairly clear. However I suspect she’ll tough it out by sticking with the story that it was her primary residence and she lived separately from her husband. Difficult to disprove this after so much time unless ex-hubby doesn’t play ball.

[QuickQuack]

Well, I had been struggling about whether I should vote for Lib Dems or Labour as I'd like to see our Conservative MP out, and Labour probably has the best chance but Lib Dem policies are closer to my way of thinking. This has pretty much nailed it though, definitely Labour.

I actually think Angela Rayner has what it takes to be a Prime Minister. I'm not a traditional Labour voter, I'm much more of a floating voter near the centre and in fact only ever voted Labour once in the past, and I've voted for both Lib Dems and Conservatives at various points. I'd vote for Angela Rayner as PM though, even though I may end up paying more tax.

[djohnson]

gruffalo said:

I also believe that the property was purchased at a discount and then rented out and then sold at a profit. Was that profit declared to HMRC so CGT could be applied, if not that is tax evasion which is illegal. If she moved back into the house before selling it living there for over a year would negate the CGT question.

From memory isn’t it more complicated than moving back in for 12 months? I think I recall you get CGT relief for the years you lived there, plus the last x months of ownership if you don’t live there prior to sale. I admit to being an accountant but I don’t do tax and haven’t looked this up so could be wrong.

[Rusty Old-Banger]

Electro1980 said:

don'tbesilly said:

Nomme de Plum said:

Oakey said:

ICO said:

The law makes it compulsory to provide information to an electoral registration officer for inclusion in the full register

Gov.uk said:

What happens if you do not register
You must register to vote if you’re asked to do so and you meet the conditions for registering, for example you’re 16 or over and you’re British or a national of an EU or Commonwealth country.

If you’re asked to register and do not, you could be fined.

That implies it is the Local Authorities that has to ask first.

I regularly get a letter from my local authority asking whether I'm registered and if the details contained within the letter about me are correct. If they are correct I need take no further action.

I believe it's an £80.00 fine if you don't register.

That is only the case since 2015. Prior to that it was only an offence to provide false information.

So you agree then? Excellent.