- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,762
- Reaction score
- 5,332
- Country

A very good question.Where will they recoup the £122m from?
This is why the first rule of litigation is - make sure they can pay.


A very good question.Where will they recoup the £122m from?
thats obviously untrue.
The interview is clear and he is on record.

You claim legal expertise. What in your considered opinion does a lawyer mean by “I immediately gifted the land to my parents for so long as they should live”.In the interview with Laura Kuenssberg he states clearly that there was no trust. That is the only interview I know about. Which interview are you referring to. The only people who claim there was a trust are the Sunday Times. But they have zero evidence.
Thieving Baroness Moan and her greedy husband stole tens of millions from UK taxpayers and all your other deflective waffle is irrelevant.Of course the bigger story is that

of course this is nonsense.Thieving Baroness Moan and her greedy husband stole tens of millions from UK taxpayers and all your other reflective waffle is irrelevant.
Post # 93, you refer to a trust being cgt/IHT neutral on any uplift until 2006
£122 MILLION and counting. It has in fact cost UK taxpayers a lot more than this, however.of course this is nonsense.

did you read the judgement?£122 MILLION and counting. It has in fact cost UK taxpayers a lot more than this, however.
Greedy grasping thieving Tory scum of the lowest order.
You claim legal expertise. What in your considered opinion does a lawyer mean by “I immediately gifted the land to my parents for so long as they should live”.
Chicken boy - fail.I see the chicken biker is working hard to distract attention from the Tory Bra Baroness who used her Tory buddy contacts in government to jump to the front of the queue and loot many millions from the nation for worthless tat.
And then lied that it was nothing to do with her.

other experts disagree.So, this is nothing to do with the interview as you claimed. You therefore agree that, in the only interview he has given, he stated categorically that there was no trust.
As regards that particular statement, it could mean two things. It could either mean a life interest trust was created or it could mean he allowed them the use of the land for their lifetimes whilst retaining ownership. If you remember studying Trusts Law at university, you will know that these sort of verbal pronouncements are open to interpretation and have led to many court cases. Unless he gave further clarification, the comment is ambiguous.
other experts disagree.
Correct.You mean the person who researched the story for the Sunday Times and now has egg all over his face.

go back to the link you posted even "tax lawyers" who support the Labour Party - are clear.You mean the person who researched the story for the Sunday Times and now has egg all over his face.

how come?Correct.
And chicken boy left distraught and on the wrong side of justice. - again.