The Labour Government

Gaylord du Bois said:
So she was fibbing then.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that’s a sequitur? She clearly didn’t say the full picture and has rightly been found not to be meeting the standard of conduct required.

Personally I still see it more as incompetence, given that’s what the ethics report found.

Either way, she should have resigned a few days ago.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Just mentioning someone who didn’t resign over a massive unpaid tax bill but was a man who spoke proper is compare and contrast not whataboutery.
Click to expand...
Its completely irrelevant though to what rayner has done.
Just cos hes a twat does that mean she can be as well.

What it goes to show is that its YET another example of a politician being in it for what they can get, thats all.

So no point in saying “what about him”!
Hes a cock
Shes a cock.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
Its completely irrelevant though to what rayner has done.
Just cos hes a twat does that mean she can be as well.

What it goes to show is that its YET another example of a politician being in it for what they can get, thats all.

So no point in saying “what about him”!
Hes a cock
Shes a cock.
Click to expand...
The only difference is the Tory ones used their political position to rob the country.

Rayner was just punting at being untouchable, her's is the sort of thing a member of the public would have tried on.

They're all crooks & cocks though.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
The only difference is the Tory ones used their political position to rob the country.

Rayner was just punting at being untouchable, her's is the sort of thing a member of the public would have tried on.

They're all crooks & cocks though.
Click to expand...
Most of us poor cunts can't afford £800K flats in Brighton or a £350k gaff in Ashton .

Jealous? Yeah definitely.

Why has she fucked off from Ashton to Brighton when she is supposed to be representing us poor cunts left here?
 
mancityvstoke said:
Most of us poor cunts can't afford £800K flats in Brighton or a £350k gaff in Ashton .

Jealous? Yeah definitely.

Why has she fucked off from Ashton to Brighton when she is supposed to be representing us poor cunts left here?
Click to expand...
cos her seat's in peril?
 
meltonblue said:
I don’t need to google it. Think about what you’re saying here and what a beneficial interest actually is and entitles the person to. She for very obvious reasons will not be claiming a beneficial interest in the Ashton house, that would be completely nonsensical.
Click to expand...

She doesn't need to claim beneficial interest, she may be deemed to have it. According to tax guidelines anyone with lifelong access to the property is deemed to have a beneficial interest.

Anyway, you said and I quote: "If he was over 18 she categorically would not have been in any trouble."

That statement is absolutely incorrect. "if he was over 18 she MAY NOT have been in any trouble" would be accurate.

It depends upon whether the HMRC determined that you have a beneficial interest in the property, and I suggest that someone declaring that (a) it is her main residence and (b) that she will be living there - even temporarily - to look after her son - would stuggle to get away with it.

SDLTM09815 - SDLT - higher rates for additional dwellings: interests treated as owned by an individual, trusts, children [including children subject to the Mental Health Acts]​

Trusts​

Where a dwelling is owned by another person subject to a trust which gives an individual a right to occupy the dwelling for life or the right to the income earned in respect of the dwelling, that individual is treated as owning the interest.

www.gov.uk

SDLTM09815 - SDLT - higher rates for additional dwellings: interests treated as owned by an individual, trusts, children [including children subject to the Mental Health Acts] - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

But either way, the reality is more nuanced than you seem willing to accept.
 
mancityvstoke said:
Most of us poor cunts can't afford £800K flats in Brighton or a £350k gaff in Ashton .

Jealous? Yeah definitely.

Why has she fucked off from Ashton to Brighton when she is supposed to be representing us poor cunts left here?
Click to expand...
Should have got one in Bridlington or Morecambe and no one would have battered an eyelid.
 
TinFoilHat said:
Should have got one in Bridlington or Morecambe and no one would have battered an eyelid.
Click to expand...
I'm not battering my eyelids.....sounds painful.

One in Greater Manchester.....Brighton? Why that far away from her constituency?

It's all very confusing and doesn't look good for us who voted for her especially now Ashton is going from bad to worse.
 
It still baffles me why politicians do not consider the political implications of their actions, and why someone like Rayner did not invest in her political future by paying the full tax.

That £40k buys you the high moral ground and insulates you from political attack or accusations of personal gain.

It should be a political calculation, not a legal one.

Anywho, it happened, and she’s resigned as pretty much everyone knew yesterday would be the inevitable outcome.
 
meltonblue said:
Not sure how that’s a sequitur? She clearly didn’t say the full picture and has rightly been found not to be meeting the standard of conduct required.

Personally I still see it more as incompetence, given that’s what the ethics report found.

Either way, she should have resigned a few days ago.
Click to expand...
She said she'd followed the advice, which she clearly didn't. Dress it up as you like but she told a fib. A very big 40k's worth of fib.
 
mancityvstoke said:
Most of us poor cunts can't afford £800K flats in Brighton or a £350k gaff in Ashton .

Jealous? Yeah definitely.

Why has she fucked off from Ashton to Brighton when she is supposed to be representing us poor cunts left here?
Click to expand...
That's the joke of the whole thing. She hasn't. She's said her primary residence remains in Ashton, and I imagine she'll be there most weeks! If that isn't enough to convince people she was trying to fiddle her stamp duty, I have no idea what will.
 
Chippy_boy said:
That's the joke of the whole thing. She hasn't. She's said her primary residence remains in Ashton, and I imagine she'll be there most weeks! If that isn't enough to convince people she was trying to fiddle her stamp duty, I have no idea what will.
Click to expand...
Well......it's all too confusing for my titchy brain. I won't be voting for her again though. If she prefers Brighton to here she can represent them.

So there's one Labour vote going to the greens or some other party that has no chance.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Interesting how Sky have just covered the Rayner issue. Straight down the middle, only facts and no conjecture. Not seen too much of this on Sky and looks like they’ve had word not to overplay it.
Click to expand...
mancityvstoke said:
Moving to Brighton but an MP for TrAshton Shameside tells you all you need to know.
Click to expand...
After a late night sitting in Parliament, is there a train back to Ashton?
 
Chippy_boy said:
She doesn't need to claim beneficial interest, she may be deemed to have it. According to tax guidelines anyone with lifelong access to the property is deemed to have a beneficial interest.

Anyway, you said and I quote: "If he was over 18 she categorically would not have been in any trouble."

That statement is absolutely incorrect. "if he was over 18 she MAY NOT have been in any trouble" would be accurate.

It depends upon whether the HMRC determined that you have a beneficial interest in the property, and I suggest that someone declaring that (a) it is her main residence and (b) that she will be living there - even temporarily - to look after her son - would stuggle to get away with it.

SDLTM09815 - SDLT - higher rates for additional dwellings: interests treated as owned by an individual, trusts, children [including children subject to the Mental Health Acts]​

Trusts​

Where a dwelling is owned by another person subject to a trust which gives an individual a right to occupy the dwelling for life or the right to the income earned in respect of the dwelling, that individual is treated as owning the interest.

www.gov.uk

SDLTM09815 - SDLT - higher rates for additional dwellings: interests treated as owned by an individual, trusts, children [including children subject to the Mental Health Acts] - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

But either way, the reality is more nuanced than you seem willing to accept.
Click to expand...

It’s not more nuanced, you’re trying to make it so incorrectly. She no longer has a financial interest in the house, it is now all in trust. How can HMRC determine she has a beneficial interest in the house when she’ll obviously not claim to have one and she’s already shown by putting it in trust she doesn’t want one? It’s her son, in what circumstance do you think she’d need to have a right in place or would request that?

You’re misunderstanding what a beneficial interest actually is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top