British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
but she didn't gain from political office, she just under paid stamp duty because of a technicality.why is she accused of doing that as a politician? do you think she would have paid full stamp duty if she wasn't a politician?it's actually pretty obvious that if she hadn't been a politician her case very probably would have been missed and she woul shave walked with the 40k or
The stamp duty rules are very clear in the UK, and there are dozens of online calculators to help you get to the right figure.
She sold her house to her child just before buying a new property - this was clearly a deliberate strategy to try and dodge the higher rate that is payable when you own more than one property.
Only an idiot would think that it would be legal to dodge stamp duty by putting excess properties in your children's names, hence why she had to go.
it isn't like she outright attempted to dodge an obvious payment, nor as if she cjncoted some gray scheme to try to pay less that due.
I wouldn't be so sure.
but a country where you have to leave government because of the above technicality is just dumb
You have to resign if you are caught doing something that you have previously told opposing politicians that they had to resign for.
There were 890 people arrested at a demonstration against the ban on the group Palestine Action in London on Saturday, the Metropolitan Police say.
The majority of the arrests were for supporting a proscribed group under the Terrorism Act, while police said 17 were also arrested for assaults on police officers "after the protest turned violent".
[Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood explained why we must never vote for this changed labour disgrace ever again] - I paraphrase
The Met said most were taken to custody as they refused to provide their details or were found to have been on bail.
The stamp duty rules are very clear in the UK, and there are dozens of online calculators to help you get to the right figure. She sold her house to her child just before buying a new property - this was clearly a deliberate strategy to try and dodge the higher rate that is payable when you own more than one property.Only an idiot would think that it would be legal to dodge sta
the child has special disability needs and if the child had been an adult the mechanism would have worked so no it's far from obvious. It's not just shifting around the property under children names, it's securing it to the child *given a disability and a divorce*
She was trying to rely on the 'following advice' defense. Turns out the advice she got was to seek more expert advice on her specific situation which she didn't do.
That's very hard to defend now but it wont stop her coming back.
the child has special disability needs and if the child had been an adult the mechanism would have worked so no it's far from obvious.
If you're a parent who has sold a share in a property to a trust for your under-18 child, you've already taken advice and you know perfectly well what the legal position is (you remain the owner), especially when you are still registered for council tax at that address, making it your main residence.
net 0 is so smart
She was trying to rely on the 'following advice' defense. Turns out the advice she got was to seek more expert advice on her specific situation which she didn't do.
That's very hard to defend now but it wont stop her coming back.
bold was an attempt to avoid the surcharge of 20-30% for carelessness, the 40k were due regardless.
Btw if it was so hard that not even normal-level experts can answer you, then that at least disproofs claims that it was obvious she had to pay it
It was her political defense. The last refuge after the 'I paid everything correctly' defense was doomed.
bold was an attempt to avoid the surcharge of 20-30% for carelessness, the 40k were due regardless.
Btw if it was so hard that not even normal-level experts can answer you, then that at least disproofs claims that it was obvious she had to pay it
The experts could perfectly well have answered her, and they almost certainly did. The focus on the conveyancing firm who declined to give tax advice is misdirection.
Keir Starmer is facing fresh pressure from Labour insiders, days after a sweeping government reshuffle, as party figures from the left and centre mobilise through a network, backed by Andy Burnham, designed to change Labour’s direction.
The network, called Mainstream, will inevitably influence Labour’s looming deputy leadership contest, with Burnham already throwing his weight behind former cabinet minister Louise Haigh as well as Lucy Powell, the former Commons leader.
Mainstream has been steered by Compass a centre-left thinktank, and Open Labour and is backed by Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor who when asked did not rule out the possibility of running in a future leadership contest with the network’s support.
But supporters include figures right across the party from Labour’s left to the centre, including Labour peers Alf Dubs and Anna Healy, Labour MPs Clive Lewis, Dawn Butler, Alex Sobel, Clive Efford, chair of the Tribune group of MPs, the former Blairite minister John Denham, and the founder of Momentum, Jon Lansman.
the child has special disability needs and if the child had been an adult the mechanism would have worked so no it's far from obvious. It's not just shifting around the property under children names, it's securing it to the child *given a disability and a divorce*
and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bike.
The whole thing is contingent on the fact that children can't own property. As such, Rayner was the trustee. She happily wielded this position to sell her house to the trust fund and bank the cash.
IF children could own property, everyone with more than one house would put each one in their children's name as a tax dodge. That's why you can't do it.
Louise Haigh is another crisis waiting to happen - if she is the answer, what question are they asking?
So Bansky depicted how the justice system is violently censoring people in the UK and the UK gvmnt response was to censor Bansky
Yes that was extremely bad. I doubt anyone near the top of this government has given a moment's thought to what happens when you start censoring art like this because they're only trying to please their sponsors.
Unless Starmer is proposing to read him the Riot Act (spin doctors have suggested the PM will affirm recognition of Palestine absent a ceasefire and a return to the 'two-state solution', but this is not wildly convincing given the PM's beige and mushy political persona), it seems a bloody strange time to be welcoming this individual, whose published statements indicate a fanatical bent for collective punishment. Which is a war crime.
you mean general pop? or racists?
Best way to troll them is to have more children than them and education those whom spawned.
Is mandleson going for the 'having to resign because of a scandal' record. (assuming he doesn't already hold it)
