The Labour Government

i'm not trying to defend her, i'm pointing out the massive double standards.

We know the things the Tories did because guess what the news reported them as well. So its just a look over there which gets pretty tedious after about the thousandth time. It's just like the expenses thing, filling your pockets isn't a party thing, or a politician thing.
But you cannot be calling out others for doing it and expect to get away with it yourself.

You may not see it but your posts were defending her, and using the words double standards is quite ironic as it appears that may be her downfall.

Anyhow looks like we shall find out soon, I'm sure I heard the firm she dealt with have.now said they gave her no tax advice.
 
We know the things the Tories did because guess what the news reported them as well. So its just a look over there which gets pretty tedious after about the thousandth time. It's just like the expenses thing, filling your pockets isn't a party thing, or a politician thing.
But you cannot be calling out others for doing it and expect to get away with it yourself.

You may not see it but your posts were defending her, and using the words double standards is quite ironic as it appears that may be her downfall.

Anyhow looks like we shall find out soon, I'm sure I heard the firm she dealt with have.now said they gave her no tax advice.
No, that's how you've interpreted my posts. I've even made it clear I don't particularly like her, she comes across like a knob, but the hysteria over her, not just over this, but over anything about her in general, speaks of snobbery towards a northern woman in a position of power. Same with Rachel Reeves. And if she did do this deliberately then she should go, simple as. But considering what others have done, this whole thing is pretty depressing.
 
Angela's claim that her legal advice on paying stamp duty was flawed has been challenged by the conveyancing firm that provided it. Looks like she's in danger of becoming Keir's ex working class heroine.


 
Last edited:
Even with my rather low opinion on politicians I'd like to think this was a genuine mistake.

If it's found out that it's not a genuine mistake then my opinion of them drops into the gutter. To the point I'm not sure it's even worth taking part in the democratic process of this country any longer.
 
Even with my rather low opinion on politicians I'd like to think this was a genuine mistake.

If it's found out that it's not a genuine mistake then my opinion of them drops into the gutter. To the point I'm not sure it's even worth taking part in the democratic process of this country any longer.
She's a fake, shed no tears.
 
Rayner defenders: "It was all the fault of her advisors!"

Rayner's advisors:
bollocks-eiddie.gif
 
conveyancing expert offers expert advice on conveyancing
Tax expert advises on tax.

Anyone taking advice on car servicing from their dentist may well find their engine seized - will have a nice smile though.
 
Rayner defenders: "It was all the fault of her advisors!"

Rayner's advisors:
bollocks-eiddie.gif

Maybe the conveyancer firm staff are male upper class southern snobs who wanted to put Ange in her place, that or they are blues who were brainwashed by the incessant posting of right wing twitter posts by bots pretending to be a bluemoon Labour supporter.
Hard to know really.

Maybe we should give tte benefit of the doubt as its pretty rate for a politician to feather their own nest.

Plus it's Labour innit.
 
Not a witch hunt on my part as my previous posts show, you say if she has done wrong she should be sacked then say but if an expert advised her then is it her fault ? So we are back to where I came in.

How do you know which one it was? Was it the expert who turns out not to be an expert at all or Angela getting advice on what she may get away with.

Are we letting off everyone who claims an expert suddenly didn't know what they'were talking about, in private, with no proof, yeah that bloke said it was fine.

BTW it's called a 2nd opinion not a 20th opinion.

But hey let's be gullible and believe neither the housing minister or an 'expert' did their homework which just happened to make her 40k better off.
So you knew about the bit that says

Settlements and bare trusts
10 (1) Sub-paragraph (3) applies in relation to a land transaction if—(a) the main subject-matter of the transaction consists of a major interest in one or more dwellings,(b) the purchaser (or one of them) is acting as trustee of a settlement, and(c) under the terms of the settlement a beneficiary will be entitled to—(i) occupy the dwelling or dwellings for life, or(ii) income earned in respect of the dwelling or dwellings.
(2) Sub-paragraph (3) also applies in relation to a land transaction if—(a) the main subject-matter of the transaction consists of a term of years absolute in a dwelling, and(b) the purchaser (or one of them) is acting as a trustee of a bare trust.
(3) Where this sub-paragraph applies in relation to a land transaction the beneficiary of the settlement or bare trust (rather than the trustee) is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as the purchaser (or as one of them).
(4) Paragraphs 3(3) and 4 of Schedule 16 (trustees to be treated as the purchaser) have effect subject to sub-paragraph (3).

11 (1) Sub-paragraph (3) applies where—(a) a person is a beneficiary under a settlement,(b) a major interest in a dwelling forms part of the trust property, and(c) under the terms of the settlement, the beneficiary is entitled to—(i) occupy the dwelling for life, or(ii) income earned in respect of the dwelling.
(2) Sub-paragraph (3) also applies where—(a) a person is a beneficiary under a bare trust, and(b) a term of years absolute in a dwelling forms part of the trust property.
(3) Where this sub-paragraph applies—(a) the beneficiary is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as holding the interest in the dwelling, and(b) if the trustee of the settlement or bare trust disposes of the interest, the beneficiary is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as having disposed of it.

12 (1) This paragraph applies where, by reason of paragraph 10 or 11 or paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 16, the child of a person (“P”) would (but for this paragraph) be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as—(a) being the purchaser in relation to a land transaction,(b) holding an interest in a dwelling, or(c) having disposed of an interest in a dwelling.
(2) Where this paragraph applies—(a) P and any spouse or civil partner of P are to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as being the purchaser, holding the interest or (as the case may be) having disposed of the interest, and(b) the child is not to be so treated.
(3) But sub-paragraph (2)(a) does not apply in relation to a spouse orcivil partner of P if the two of them are not living together.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 9 applies for the purposes of thisparagraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.
(5) “Child” means a person under the age of 18.

13 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a land transaction if—(a) the main subject-matter of the transaction consists of a major interest in one or more dwellings,(b) the purchaser (or one of them) is acting as trustee of a settlement, (c) that purchaser is an individual, and(d) under the terms of the settlement a beneficiary is not entitled to—(i) occupy the dwelling or dwellings for life, or(ii) income earned in respect of the dwelling or dwellings.
(2) In determining whether the transaction falls within paragraph 4 or paragraph 7—(a) if the purchaser mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is the only purchaser, ignore paragraph (a) of those paragraphs, and(b) if that purchaser is not the only purchaser, ignore paragraph(a) of those paragraphs when having regard to that purchaser.


[2003 Finance Act, Schedule 4ZA, as amended by the Finance Act 2016 and subsequently]
 
Parliamentary committee 2012:

"This privilege places a significant responsibility on parliamentarians to exercise it in the public interest. The presumption should be that court orders are respected in Parliament."
Well done, bravo.
 


Maybe there is a tweet you could read that explains the difference between avoidance and evasion, it's been explained on here many many times so I can only presume you're a new poster.
It even mentions it in the comments of the tweet you posted, have a look you must have missed it.

Good luck in all you future balanced endeavours.
 
Last edited:

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top