Angela Rayner to face investigation?

[rscott]

Earthdweller said:

Legacywr said:

Killboy said:

rscott said:

At least 4 other MPs have sold second homes partly funded by the state (in these cases, by their expenses claims) but won't confirm if they paid any CGT on their considerably larger profits. Several were also on the electoral roll at multiple addresses.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/four-tory-m...

Yeah, but it looks like they are rich so it's okay.

These also need investigating.

You don’t have to think the rules/allowances around sitting MP’s constituency homes and London homes are right or ethical, but they are what they are

Being registered at more than one address is quite normal and switching primary addresses quite legal if questionably moral

It’s not just Tory MP’s that have been doing it, numerous MP’s from all parties have made considerable amounts of money doing it

But the Rayner case isn’t about taking advantage of parliamentary rules quite legally though maybe morally dubiously, it’s about her honesty and integrity and fitness to hold high office

So that is suddenly important all of a sudden when it's likely we'll have a Labour government. Doesn't seem to be an issue with the present incumbents - we've got a defence secretary who has apparently used fake identities to promote his own online marketing firm while being an MP.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gen...

[768]

President Merkin said:

768 said:

Declining to comment on private tax affairs is not the same as there being an allegation of wrongdoing.

On one level I admire you. I would dearly love to barrel through life in black & white, no room for doubt or uncertainty. It must be so liberating.

It is binary, there's either an allegation or there isn't.

Plenty of grey for you to find in the gutters of insinuation.

[President Merkin]

Doesn't ever seem to cheer you up though eh? You could of course have read the article & drawn an inference but baby steps for 768, Soon enough you'll make it to 769.

[Al Gorithum]

Seems a few people are getting worked up about an allegation and/or an investigation.

Let's wait to see what an investigation reveals, then what she does about it if found gulity.

Until then, innocent until proven guilty, and if she doesn't resign if found guilty - then she's a wrongun.

[768]

I prefer induction to inference.

[Earthdweller]

rscott said:

So that is suddenly important all of a sudden when it's likely we'll have a Labour government. Doesn't seem to be an issue with the present incumbents - we've got a defence secretary who has apparently used fake identities to promote his own online marketing firm while being an MP.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gen...

Is writing books under a pseudonym illegal?

Is having a 2nd job whilst an MP illegal?

Did he fail to declare it on the register of interests?

Or was it 19 years ago when what you reference allegedly occurred?

If it was then feel free to make a criminal allegation to the local police force about it

For what it’s worth I don’t think any public representative should have secondary employment

[Murph7355]

President Merkin said:

Doesn't ever seem to cheer you up though eh? You could of course have read the article & drawn an inference but baby steps for 768, Soon enough you'll make it to 769.

Maybe articles shouldn't try to get the reader to read between the lines. Maybe they ought to stick to reporting the facts and leaving the reader in no doubt as to what is against the law and what is, in the opinion of the rag doing the writing, morally an issue.

[President Merkin]

Murph7355 said:

Maybe articles shouldn't try to get the reader to read between the lines. Maybe they ought to stick to reporting the facts and leaving the reader in no doubt as to what is against the law and what is, in the opinion of the rag doing the writing, morally an issue.

Yeah, bit tricky that when you name four Tory MP's & they all refuse to comment. So you're left with something you know has happened & follow up actions that should have happened & no confirmation that they did.

95 pages of this witch hunt that has had posters making the point on just about every other page that Ange could clear all this up with a statement, When the shoe is on the other foot however, the instant reflex is to take a swing at a journalist. One rule for me, another for thee.

[chemistry]

If four Tory MP's have issues with their CGT etc. then they too should be investigated.

The issue for Angela Rayner is that she's always been extremely vociferous when it comes to calling for others (Tories) to stand down when accused of things (let alone found 'guilty'). There's nothing wrong with that of course BUT as a result she's painted herself into a corner once the spotlight fell on her.

I think that the relevant authorities, HMRC, Police, whoever, need to do their investigations and report back. If there's no case to answer, then fine.

Alternatively, if she's shown to have broken a rule/law (whether out of time or not) then - especially having denied all wrongdoing - she's got to resign, or forever face accusations of gross hypocrisy.

[chemistry]

For what it's worth, I've so little faith in our MPs that my bet is that Angela and all four Tories have all been on the fiddle in one way or another. There's no smoke without fire and all that.

[andymadmak]

President Merkin said:

Yeah, bit tricky that when you name four Tory MP's & they all refuse to comment. So you're left with something you know has happened & follow up actions that should have happened & no confirmation that they did.

95 pages of this witch hunt that has had posters making the point on just about every other page that Ange could clear all this up with a statement, When the shoe is on the other foot however, the instant reflex is to take a swing at a journalist. One rule for me, another for thee.

I've said earlier in this thread that AR shouldn't have to step down unless she's done something significantly wrong . If it's a minor discrepancy or mistake then I still don't think she should step down. (although she's made a rod for her own back there)
The problem for her is that something clearly has happened, and she's "tweaked" her story a few times, plus other "witnesses" have come forward to say that what she says was the case most certainly was not. So that complicates things a bit, as does SKS bizarre position that he apparently won't review the facts because then he doesn't have to act on them. Seems he's no friend of AR!

But she's absolutely innocent until proven guilty and the Police are there to do their job.

Our media on all sides of the political divide are scurrilous, and this latest LBJ* type stuff from the Mirror is just another example of the kinds of crap that people seem to lap up and then regurgitate with the "nudge nudge wink wink" glee of a 12 year old. They all do it.

• https://washingtonmonthly.com/2006/09/25/did-he-or-didnt-he/

[President Merkin]

chemistry said:

If four Tory MP's have issues with their CGT etc. then they too should be investigated.

The issue for Angela Rayner is that she's always been extremely vociferous when it comes to calling for others (Tories) to stand down when accused of things (let alone found 'guilty'). There's nothing wrong with that of course BUT as a result she's painted herself into a corner once the spotlight fell on her.

I think that the relevant authorities, HMRC, Police, whoever, need to do their investigations and report back. If there's no case to answer, then fine.

Alternatively, if she's shown to have broken a rule/law (whether out of time or not) then - especially having denied all wrongdoing - she's got to resign, or forever face accusations of gross hypocrisy.

No problem with any of that. The interesting part of this morning's discourse is the righty knighty boys trotting up like good little soldiers to pour cold water on the Mirror's piece in various ways. If we're having a problem with hypocrisy, then some people would do well to be a little less hypocritical themselves. Ymmv

[chemistry]

andymadmak said:

I've said earlier in this thread that AR shouldn't have to step down unless she's done something significantly wrong . If it's a minor discrepancy or mistake then I still don't think she should step down. (although she's made a rod for her own back there)

I think that, as you note, the problem is that she's made a rod for her own back. Consequently, if there's any proven wrongdoing, even is she just underpaid her tax by a penny or was a day late in reporting something, she's got to go.

It's stupid, but regrettably this is the atmosphere that our MPs (of all parties) have created, where everything is weaponised and there's no room for common sense, innocent mistakes, etc.

[768]

President Merkin said:

Yeah, bit tricky that when you name four Tory MP's & they all refuse to comment. So you're left with something you know has happened & follow up actions that should have happened & no confirmation that they did.

95 pages of this witch hunt that has had posters making the point on just about every other page that Ange could clear all this up with a statement, When the shoe is on the other foot however, the instant reflex is to take a swing at a journalist. One rule for me, another for thee.

We've also had pages of people saying it was a just a witch hunt against Rayner when there were multiple allegations, statements to the press, evidence and now after weeks of looking into it, seemingly even the police wish to interview her under caution, presumably not just to tell her it all looks fine.

What's this, four MPs sold houses, wink, wink? Genuinely, is there any more to it than that? If there is something, anything at all of any substance, it needs investigating. Otherwise this just seems groundless, false equivalency.

[sugerbear]

chemistry said:

If four Tory MP's have issues with their CGT etc. then they too should be investigated.

The issue for Angela Rayner is that she's always been extremely vociferous when it comes to calling for others (Tories) to stand down when accused of things (let alone found 'guilty'). There's nothing wrong with that of course BUT as a result she's painted herself into a corner once the spotlight fell on her.

I think that the relevant authorities, HMRC, Police, whoever, need to do their investigations and report back. If there's no case to answer, then fine.

Alternatively, if she's shown to have broken a rule/law (whether out of time or not) then - especially having denied all wrongdoing - she's got to resign, or forever face accusations of gross hypocrisy.

The allegations against her are far from clear (and allegedly committed whilst not an MP) where as Zahawi was a cabinet member and chancellor of the exchequer when the allegations were made about him. We had very clear evidence that he was up to something dodgy and he also failed to disclose he was being investigated by HMRC, he is also likely to have lied to his solicitor to close down any allegations made against him (the solicitor in question is now under review).

If were are going down the route of asking people to resign for past sins when they were not MP's then I guess the tories might want to review Elphick and Bucklkand for attemtping to pervert the course of justice and keeping quiet about it, might also want to consider the many identities of Grant Schapps.

There hasn't been any real evidence apart from the shouts from the tories (and the dimwit that is Dan Hodges) that may or not have happened without any real evidence. It almost certainly wouldn't amount to anything if this was a member of the public, but it is a huge waste of time and money that I am paying for via my taxes for, all for the benefit of a tory party that has been shown to be corrupt from top to bottom.

Failing to get tax advice isn't a crime (and subsequently finding out you have zero tax liability).
Letting your brother live in your house (rent free) isn't a crime.
Having two houses isn't a crime.
She didn't vote twice either.

On the other hand there are the many real examples of tory corruption and tax evasion.

[Mr Penguin]

It is best practice to not give people a denial if you don't need to.
If the pressure, allegations, and evidence starts to mount then a no comment response starts to make you look guilty.

With Rayner, there are multiple witnesses who say she lived there, contradictory documents, tweets suggesting she lived there, and the base rate of how many new mothers give full custody to their husband who they are still with so refusing to answer straightforward questions makes her look overly defensive.
What reason is there to think that the Conservatives asked by the Mirror did anything wrong?

[popeyewhite]

chemistry said:

I think that, as you note, the problem is that she's made a rod for her own back. Consequently, if there's any proven wrongdoing, even is she just underpaid her tax by a penny or was a day late in reporting something, she's got to go.

This.

She howls with indignation at the merest sniff of wrongdoing in others, she needs to observe her own principles if she has any.

[rscott]

Earthdweller said:

rscott said:

So that is suddenly important all of a sudden when it's likely we'll have a Labour government. Doesn't seem to be an issue with the present incumbents - we've got a defence secretary who has apparently used fake identities to promote his own online marketing firm while being an MP.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gen...

Is writing books under a pseudonym illegal?

Is having a 2nd job whilst an MP illegal?

Did he fail to declare it on the register of interests?

Or was it 19 years ago when what you reference allegedly occurred?

If it was then feel free to make a criminal allegation to the local police force about it

For what it’s worth I don’t think any public representative should have secondary employment

You were talking about honesty and integrity - Shapps is on record as saying that he stepped back from his other job, until recordings appeared proving he was still part of it.

Not that he committed any offences.

[rscott]

Mr Penguin said:

It is best practice to not give people a denial if you don't need to.
If the pressure, allegations, and evidence starts to mount then a no comment response starts to make you look guilty.

With Rayner, there are multiple witnesses who say she lived there, contradictory documents, tweets suggesting she lived there, and the base rate of how many new mothers give full custody to their husband who they are still with so refusing to answer straightforward questions makes her look overly defensive.
What reason is there to think that the Conservatives asked by the Mirror did anything wrong?

Zahawi found that out the hard way, when both he and his solicitors said he wasn't under investigation by HMRC..
Dan Neidle has openly called him a liar on Twitter over the weekend and pretty much invited him to sue if he disagrees..

We don't know how much Rayner is engaging with the police investigation - she may be refusing to get involved or providing a lot of info. She's probably following legal advice to say as little as possible in public until that has concluded.

[Evanivitch]

Earthdweller said:

But the Rayner case isn’t about taking advantage of parliamentary rules quite legally though maybe morally dubiously, it’s about her honesty and integrity and fitness to hold high office

No, it isn't. It's about trying to smear someone the Tory party think is beneath them. The Torys literally elected a serial adulterer and liar into office. Their PM and and chancellor have been given penalties for breaking their own laws, and the chancellor then became PM!

It's the desperate acts of a desperate party.