Indeed. But, there are still two possible ways that she may not have done anything wrong as regards CGT. One is that a nomination was made that her house was the main home (unlikely, by the sounds of it, as she claims she had no knowledge of CGT rules). The other is that, as a matter of fact, her house was the main home for her and her husband. The evidence so far doesn't seem to support that. But we may not have all the relevant facts.
Angela Rayner
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Indeed. But, there are still two possible ways that she may not have done anything wrong as regards CGT. One is that a nomination was made that her house was the main home (unlikely, by the sounds of it, as she claims she had no knowledge of CGT rules). The other is that, as a matter of fact, her house was the main home for her and her husband. The evidence so far doesn't seem to support that. But we may not have all the relevant facts.
Sponsored Links
I;m not so sure as I do know couples that each owned a house before being married. Are they supposed to sell one on the wedding day? Not mentioned much
In March 2015, Rayner sold her home for £127,500, making a profit of £48,500. At this point, she was registered at this address on the electoral roll, until her husband sold his home in 2016.
LOL
In September 2021, Rayner strongly criticised senior members of the Conservative Party, stating: "We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute pile... of banana republic... Etonian... piece of scum".[31] Some Labour MPs, while saying it was not the language that they would have used, defended her comments,
Sums up Boris and his acolytes beautifully.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
- Reaction score
- 603
- Country
Looks https://www.theguardian.com/politic...gate-angela-rayner-over-residency-declaration
like she broke the law. Only one main property.
She has some rather weak excuses, but they shouldn't count - everyone has excuses.
Then the additional question is whether she broke Electoral Law in her declarations about where she lived. That looks murky to say the least.
She claims to have sought guidance - so she has to prove that. If she does, on all points, then she's clear.
like she broke the law. Only one main property.
She has some rather weak excuses, but they shouldn't count - everyone has excuses.
Then the additional question is whether she broke Electoral Law in her declarations about where she lived. That looks murky to say the least.
She claims to have sought guidance - so she has to prove that. If she does, on all points, then she's clear.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 9,056
- Reaction score
- 684
- Country
I don't think you have to prove your innocence.
She needs to be proven guilty, and then punished accordingly.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
- Reaction score
- 603
- Country
If she has prima facie broken the law by her proven actions, then I believe she would. Perhaps mbk can elucidate.
“Murky”
Absolute rubbish
Electoral law: it’s to stop voting more than once….so the biggest fraud she could’ve achieved is 2 votes. Big deal
Students routinely swap from one place to another.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 9,056
- Reaction score
- 684
- Country
You have more faith in his legal knowledge than I do.
Quite sure you are innocent until proven guilty
Electoral fraud is time limited to 24 months (I need to verify that is the case)
So the question is why are the police investigating a potential crime that they can’t be prosecuted
A = political pressure from the Conservative party
So the question is why are the police investigating a potential crime that they can’t be prosecuted
A = political pressure from the Conservative party
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
- Reaction score
- 603
- Country
But there isn't doubt about the action she took, is there. She claimed the money and got it.
If she was guided ncorrectly then she can just pay it back, end of.
They're investigating all around the thing, it's not for you or anyone else to decide what the crimes might have been.
This shows you want to prejudge the matter rather than being objective.
As usual.
A quick google showed there's more than one time limit. Theres not much, though there's something behind FT's paywall.
Fraud per se has no time limit.
Yes, politcians get held to account for minor or trumped up things. It doesn't mean those things should be wiped away by her statement that "people should be allowed to get on with their lives" regardless.
That statement shows she's an incompetent tw@t not fit for office.
Starmer however was right - he has confidence in her but wants it investigated. That's right and proper.
If it amounts to bugger all or just a repayment, get it sorted and move on.
It's right imho that politicians, police etc are held to a higher standard of correctness.
The police are only investigating potential electoral offences. It does seem that the time limit on electoral offences is a maximum of 24 months after the offence was committed. See s176 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Is it unusual for the police to investigate offences which cannot actually be prosecuted? It's not something I have ever heard of before.
@Notch7 Thank for the info. How did you come across it? I wonder whether any media source is commenting on this.
Last edited:
But by stating she'll step down if found to have committed an offence, she is f*****g over every Tory MP if they make a mistake. She knows she's not going to be done (I suspect), so every Tory chancer who 'was unaware' he or she had transgressed will be pilloried. Not educated, but very smart. How many Tories have played the main residence game...?
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 9,056
- Reaction score
- 684
- Country
I will wait for the outcome
Sponsored Links
