yattongas
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,055
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Apr 12, 2024 21:59:32 GMT
It’s very important……. My friends France & Super have been banging on about this for weeks ! 😂😂😂 And if it were a Tory you would be banging on about it and you know it. Does it matter how much it is? If she owes it she should pay it. To be honest probably not . I can’t keep up with the Tory scandals and only bother commenting on a few of them . Anything below a Million pounds I just ignore ! 😂🙄
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Apr 12, 2024 22:19:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Apr 12, 2024 22:39:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Apr 13, 2024 3:24:42 GMT
The issue with Rayner is not all about the money and not all about the crime(s) she may have committed - a huge part of it is about the politics...
...did she lie about where she was living to keep money from the council-house right-to-buy scheme? A scheme she is politically against and has vowed to end. That was a £48k profit and (if as alleged) she wasn't living there from 2010 onwards she should *also* have paid back nearly £17k of the discount she got when she bought it.
Then there is the electoral register issue. Whilst being registered at an incorrect address is a crime you can go to prison for, there is no need for that - she didn't benefit by voting in a different ward for example. But that information is also used to calculate council house rates including the single person discount(s). If she and her husband were living together he shouldn't have got a single-person discount. If she was living with her brother she shouldn't have got a single-person discount.
The capital gains tax avoidance is worth a small fine and paying what she owes. If she gained from council tax discounts or avoided tax on rental income, that's a small fine and paying what she owes.
Her biggest problem is the political one - taking advantage of a scheme she hates to make tens of thousands in profit. If it was a Tory she'd be all over the press calling for investigations and resignations. Instead we've had nearly 8 weeks of her avoiding the media completely - and that's why the actual issues with HMRC/the council/the police are less important to her than the political fallout....
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Apr 13, 2024 7:51:48 GMT
The issue with Rayner is not all about the money and not all about the crime(s) she may have committed - a huge part of it is about the politics... ...did she lie about where she was living to keep money from the council-house right-to-buy scheme? A scheme she is politically against and has vowed to end. That was a £48k profit and (if as alleged) she wasn't living there from 2010 onwards she should have paid back nearly £17k of the discount she got when she bought it. Then there is the electoral register issue. Whilst being registered at an incorrect address is a crime you can go to prison for, there is no need for that - she didn't benefit by voting in a different ward for example. But that information is also used to calculate council house rates including the single person discount(s). If she and her husband were living together he shouldn't have got a single-person discount. If she was living with her brother she shouldn't have got a single-person discount. The capital gains tax avoidance is worth a small fine and paying what she owes. If she gained from council tax discounts or avoided tax on rental income, that's a small fine and paying what she owes. Her biggest problem is the political one - taking advantage of a scheme she hates to make tens of thousands in profit. If it was a Tory she'd be all over the press calling for investigations and resignations. Instead we've had nearly 8 weeks of her avoiding the media completely - and that's why the actual issues with HMRC/the council/the police are less important to her than the political fallout.... I find it amazing that the Tory party used public funds of between 30-60k recently to fund a personal liable. Not only do the Tories refuse to pay back taxpayers money but the Wiltshire MP in question refuses to resign. They have two bits of the cherry to readdress things. One to pay the money back Two for the Mp to resign. Luckily all the papers are running stories on it. And everyone is asking is it the money returns or resignation ?. The public want fairness not games. If one goes so should the other. If one pays back the public funds . The other should. Its called ethics!. Click below www.itv.com/news/2024-04-11/uk-taxpayers-paid-34000-to-cover-michelle-donelans-libel-case
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Apr 13, 2024 8:04:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Apr 13, 2024 10:50:02 GMT
I find it amazing that the Tory party used public funds of between 30-60k recently to fund a personal liable. Not only do the Tories refuse to pay back taxpayers money but the Wiltshire MP in question refuses to resign. They have two bits of the cherry to readdress things. One to pay the money back Two for the Mp to resign. Luckily all the papers are running stories on it. And everyone is asking is it the money returns or resignation ?. The public want fairness not games. If one goes so should the other. If one pays back the public funds . The other should. Its called ethics!. Click below www.itv.com/news/2024-04-11/uk-taxpayers-paid-34000-to-cover-michelle-donelans-libel-caseThis was in relation to a letter sent as part of her ministerial duties, which was also published on social media. The libel action addressed the ministerial letter and as such the relevant government department defended it. My personal view is that she should pay the damages (if not necessarily the costs) herself as she misunderstood the original tweet - but then again if it had gone to court against the legal advice of her department she may well have won and had no damages or costs to pay. Completely different to what Rayner is accused of doing, which is lying to various authorities about various things to make huge personal gain that (if it weren't for an autobiography) might never have come into the public domain...
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Apr 13, 2024 12:19:52 GMT
I find it amazing that the Tory party used public funds of between 30-60k recently to fund a personal liable. Not only do the Tories refuse to pay back taxpayers money but the Wiltshire MP in question refuses to resign. They have two bits of the cherry to readdress things. One to pay the money back Two for the Mp to resign. Luckily all the papers are running stories on it. And everyone is asking is it the money returns or resignation ?. The public want fairness not games. If one goes so should the other. If one pays back the public funds . The other should. Its called ethics!. Click below www.itv.com/news/2024-04-11/uk-taxpayers-paid-34000-to-cover-michelle-donelans-libel-caseThis was in relation to a letter sent as part of her ministerial duties, which was also published on social media. The libel action addressed the ministerial letter and as such the relevant government department defended it. My personal view is that she should pay the damages (if not necessarily the costs) herself as she misunderstood the original tweet - but then again if it had gone to court against the legal advice of her department she may well have won and had no damages or costs to pay. Completely different to what Rayner is accused of doing, which is lying to various authorities about various things to make huge personal gain that (if it weren't for an autobiography) might never have come into the public domain... That's open to interpretation and that's uour personal view. The public may see it different. The party denied the ammount and retracted ( isn't that being dishonest ?l). Also taxpayers money being used for personal libel. Its both ethical political and moral which is the same as Rayner . The shaky thing is the Tories have admitted this but failed to take affirmative action. Will see resign ?. Will she pay the taxpayers money back ?. Let's be honest it don't look good and the opposition parties will be using this as double standards. In regards to Rayner she is denying accusations . If she is found guilty not only is her political career over but she could face criminal charges ?. I would of thought the Tories would want to nip this in the bud re : Wilts MP. Like I said it's all over the press and the public will see two sets of hyprocacy by both parties. Rayner denying if found guilty and the Tories blowing taxpayers money . www.tortoisemedia.com/2024/03/08/michelle-donelan-should-taxpayers-foot-the-bill-for-a-ministers-false-claim/Even Tory MPs saying " why have others paid the money back but not her ? " The word is ' Dismay ' !.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Apr 13, 2024 18:23:16 GMT
This was in relation to a letter sent as part of her ministerial duties, which was also published on social media. The libel action addressed the ministerial letter and as such the relevant government department defended it. My personal view is that she should pay the damages (if not necessarily the costs) herself as she misunderstood the original tweet - but then again if it had gone to court against the legal advice of her department she may well have won and had no damages or costs to pay. Completely different to what Rayner is accused of doing, which is lying to various authorities about various things to make huge personal gain that (if it weren't for an autobiography) might never have come into the public domain... That's open to interpretation and that's uour personal view. The public may see it different. The party denied the ammount and retracted ( isn't that being dishonest ?l). Also taxpayers money being used for personal libel. Its both ethical political and moral which is the same as Rayner . The shaky thing is the Tories have admitted this but failed to take affirmative action. Will see resign ?. Will she pay the taxpayers money back ?. Let's be honest it don't look good and the opposition parties will be using this as double standards. In regards to Rayner she is denying accusations . If she is found guilty not only is her political career over but she could face criminal charges ?. I would of thought the Tories would want to nip this in the bud re : Wilts MP. Like I said it's all over the press and the public will see two sets of hyprocacy by both parties. Rayner denying if found guilty and the Tories blowing taxpayers money . www.tortoisemedia.com/2024/03/08/michelle-donelan-should-taxpayers-foot-the-bill-for-a-ministers-false-claim/Even Tory MPs saying " why have others paid the money back but not her ? " The word is ' Dismay ' !. Well it *is* completely different to Rayner. One is the fallout from a government minister doing their job (badly in this case, although we also found out recently that the original libelous letter was checked by her department's legal team before it was published) and the other is Rayner (and/or her husband and/or her brother) getting/keeping money by deliberately misleading HMRC/the council/the Electoral Commission. There is a longstanding precedent that government ministers receive government legal support when things like this happen - a precedent that I have no doubt incoming Labour ministers will also use once they take up their positions later this year. Also, you keep saying 'party' or Tories when what you're referring to was actually the actions of the government/civil service... Politically both sides should have dealt with both these issues better. IMO Donelan should pay the damages herself (not the legal costs) which would draw a line under that. Rayner should do a come-clean interview where she actually states what happened, rather than getting key details wrong as she did with Newsnight a couple of weeks ago. Which is more damaging? Clearly Rayner, because it covers fraud, bad politics, a cover-up and then denials/hiding from the media hoping it will all go away - incidentally she can't deny everything because no matter which of the two addresses she was living at, some of the accusations still stand up because she was not living at the other address. Donelan was just someone making a mistake whilst at work...
|
|
yattongas
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,055
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Apr 13, 2024 18:27:12 GMT
That's open to interpretation and that's uour personal view. The public may see it different. The party denied the ammount and retracted ( isn't that being dishonest ?l). Also taxpayers money being used for personal libel. Its both ethical political and moral which is the same as Rayner . The shaky thing is the Tories have admitted this but failed to take affirmative action. Will see resign ?. Will she pay the taxpayers money back ?. Let's be honest it don't look good and the opposition parties will be using this as double standards. In regards to Rayner she is denying accusations . If she is found guilty not only is her political career over but she could face criminal charges ?. I would of thought the Tories would want to nip this in the bud re : Wilts MP. Like I said it's all over the press and the public will see two sets of hyprocacy by both parties. Rayner denying if found guilty and the Tories blowing taxpayers money . www.tortoisemedia.com/2024/03/08/michelle-donelan-should-taxpayers-foot-the-bill-for-a-ministers-false-claim/Even Tory MPs saying " why have others paid the money back but not her ? " The word is ' Dismay ' !. Well it *is* completely different to Rayner. One is the fallout from a government minister doing their job (badly in this case, although we also found out recently that the original libelous letter was checked by her department's legal team before it was published) and the other is Rayner (and/or her husband and/or her brother) getting/keeping money by deliberately misleading HMRC/the council/the Electoral Commission. There is a longstanding precedent that government ministers receive government legal support when things like this happen - a precedent that I have no doubt incoming Labour ministers will also use once they take up their positions later this year. Also, you keep saying 'party' or Tories when what you're referring to was actually the actions of the government/civil service... Politically both sides should have dealt with both these issues better. Donelan should pay the damages herself (not the legal costs) which would draw a line under that. Rayner should do a come-clean interview where she actually states what happened, rather than getting key details wrong as she did with Newsnight a couple of weeks ago. Which is more damaging? Clearly Rayner, because it covers fraud, bad politics, a cover-up and then denials/hiding from the media hoping it will all go away - incidentally she can't deny everything because if no matter which of the two addresses she was living at, some of the accusations still stand up because she was not living at the other address. Donelan was just someone making a mistake whilst at work... Bless , you still going on about £1500 possibly owed and incurred for capital gains tax before she was even an MP ? 🙄😂
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Apr 13, 2024 18:28:23 GMT
Well it *is* completely different to Rayner. One is the fallout from a government minister doing their job (badly in this case, although we also found out recently that the original libelous letter was checked by her department's legal team before it was published) and the other is Rayner (and/or her husband and/or her brother) getting/keeping money by deliberately misleading HMRC/the council/the Electoral Commission. There is a longstanding precedent that government ministers receive government legal support when things like this happen - a precedent that I have no doubt incoming Labour ministers will also use once they take up their positions later this year. Also, you keep saying 'party' or Tories when what you're referring to was actually the actions of the government/civil service... Politically both sides should have dealt with both these issues better. Donelan should pay the damages herself (not the legal costs) which would draw a line under that. Rayner should do a come-clean interview where she actually states what happened, rather than getting key details wrong as she did with Newsnight a couple of weeks ago. Which is more damaging? Clearly Rayner, because it covers fraud, bad politics, a cover-up and then denials/hiding from the media hoping it will all go away - incidentally she can't deny everything because if no matter which of the two addresses she was living at, some of the accusations still stand up because she was not living at the other address. Donelan was just someone making a mistake whilst at work... Bless , you still going on about £1500 possibly owed and incurred for capital gains tax before she was even an MP ? 🙄😂 Keep up, it's now £17k that she should have paid back under the right-to-buy scheme because she was not living in the house she bought under it...
|
|
yattongas
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,055
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Apr 13, 2024 18:37:26 GMT
Bless , you still going on about £1500 possibly owed and incurred for capital gains tax before she was even an MP ? 🙄😂 Keep up, it's now £17k that she should have paid back under the right-to-buy scheme because she was not living in the house she bought under it... Wanna bet that she doesn’t have to pay back a penny ?
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Apr 13, 2024 18:49:09 GMT
Keep up, it's now £17k that she should have paid back under the right-to-buy scheme because she was not living in the house she bought under it... Wanna bet that she doesn’t have to pay back a penny ? Wanna bet that she is found to have broken at least one rule/law? Different to having to pay back anything...
|
|
yattongas
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,055
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Apr 13, 2024 19:01:46 GMT
Wanna bet that she doesn’t have to pay back a penny ? Wanna bet that she is found to have broken at least one rule/law? Different to having to pay back anything... Which rule / law ?
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Apr 13, 2024 19:07:05 GMT
Wanna bet that she is found to have broken at least one rule/law? Different to having to pay back anything... Which rule / law ? Dunno yet. But she must have broken at least one as they can't all have been upheld at the same time...
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Apr 13, 2024 19:10:51 GMT
Incidentally I suspect she will have to pay something back to someone, either to the council for the right-to-buy discount she shouldn't have got, or for the council tax discount she shouldn't have got, or to HMRC for rental income that wasn't declared or for the Capital Gains Tax either she or her husband were liable for. Don't think she will end up being charged with Electoral Fraud because apparently it only has a 12 month statute of limitation so despite that being the law she broke that enabled all the others, unlikely the CPS can take any action...
|
|
yattongas
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,055
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Apr 13, 2024 19:17:31 GMT
Dunno yet. But she must have broken at least one as they can't all have been upheld at the same time... 😂
|
|
yattongas
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,055
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Apr 13, 2024 19:18:33 GMT
Incidentally I suspect she will have to pay something back to someone, either to the council for the right-to-buy discount she shouldn't have got, or for the council tax discount she shouldn't have got, or to HMRC for rental income that wasn't declared or for the Capital Gains Tax either she or her husband were liable for. Don't think she will end up being charged with Electoral Fraud because apparently it only has a 12 month statute of limitation so despite that being the law she broke that enabled all the others, unlikely the CPS can take any action... £20 to a charity of either choice that she doesn’t have to pay back a single penny. we on Super ?
|
|
|
Post by oldmarket65 on Apr 13, 2024 19:44:00 GMT
Wanna bet that she doesn’t have to pay back a penny ? Wanna bet that she is found to have broken at least one rule/law? Different to having to pay back anything... You already found her guilty. I thought that was the job of the police . The accusations isn't from the tax office or Police but a Tory MP. Why not wait until the Police give their verdict ?. We heard all that under Sir Keir Starmer from the Tories and he was found ' not guity'. Hence the massive lead in the opinion polls. A Tory MP made the accusation. The Police will make a decision. It should rest now!.
|
|
|
Post by DrFaustus on Apr 13, 2024 20:03:45 GMT
Wanna bet that she is found to have broken at least one rule/law? Different to having to pay back anything... Which rule / law ? Oh don't. He/she will drone on and on about how it's so unfair that Tory scum get bad press for being unscrupulous charlatans.
|
|