[s42blue]

 Mr Mercury, on 25 April 2024 - 10:03 PM, said:

The country has no confidence in them..it’s time for a change, that’s why they’ll get in, it’s going to become an utter shambles. Thankfully I won’t have voted for them. I’ve more regrets voting for that anti semite party under Corbyn prior to voting for Boris in 2019, something I’ve no regrets for at all!

😂 I was with you to “shambles” but BJ is a lying, self-serving, corrupt narcissist…IMO of course.

[Mr Mercury]

s42blue, on 25 April 2024 - 10:34 PM, said:

😂 I was with you to “shambles” but BJ is a lying, self-serving, corrupt narcissist…IMO of course.

I’d wager he still has more integrity than Starmer though! Certainly more than warmonger Blair!

[fishini]

 Mr Mercury, on 25 April 2024 - 10:38 PM, said:

I’d wager he still has more integrity than Starmer though!

Well in one sentence you've made yourself a laughing stock.

[Mr Mercury]

fishini, on 26 April 2024 - 07:02 AM, said:

Well in one sentence you've made yourself a laughing stock.

Not the first time and I doubt it’ll be the last.
But no big deal.

[Bobby Darling]

isleaiw1, on 16 April 2024 - 07:57 PM, said:

Bizarrely the tax matter isnt the real issue being investigated, its whether she lied on the electoral register.

I'll be very surprised if she didnt make an innocent mistake (yeah, righT) over her CGT and decided that they could avoid paying as they had two houses when they got married...

No it’s not. The police aren’t investigating the electoral register. They understand the law on what constitutes a criminal offence in providing false information for the electoral register and the time in which any transgression can be a criminal offence. Raynor might be embarrassed but she cannot be prosecuted with regards to the electoral register. If you like to be considered objective, which on any issue pertaining to the Labour Party you aren’t, at least get your ducks in a row.

[dim view]

Bobby Darling, on 26 April 2024 - 10:15 PM, said:

No it’s not. The police aren’t investigating the electoral register. They understand the law on what constitutes a criminal offence in providing false information for the electoral register and the time in which any transgression can be a criminal offence. Raynor might be embarrassed but she cannot be prosecuted with regards to the electoral register. If you like to be considered objective, which on any issue pertaining to the Labour Party you aren’t, at least get your ducks in a row.

Can I have a go?
I think the issue is simply whether she's lied about receiving expert advice, a bit like Boris would. Expert advice on CGT isn't ambiguous, so she's either followed it or not. If she did then surely she can sue the lawyer?

[isleaiw1]

Bobby Darling, on 26 April 2024 - 10:15 PM, said:

No it’s not. The police aren’t investigating the electoral register. They understand the law on what constitutes a criminal offence in providing false information for the electoral register and the time in which any transgression can be a criminal offence. Raynor might be embarrassed but she cannot be prosecuted with regards to the electoral register. If you like to be considered objective, which on any issue pertaining to the Labour Party you aren’t, at least get your ducks in a row.

So I think what you are trying to say is, if it is a criminal offence (it is) then it will be time barred due to amount of time since she did it? In which case whet have the police not said they are not investigating it because even if guilty it is now time barred?

Highly objective on this one - especially if she has been underpaying tax (CGT or council) as a result of her declarations.

[isleaiw1]

dim view, on 27 April 2024 - 08:15 AM, said:

Can I have a go?
I think the issue is simply whether she's lied about receiving expert advice, a bit like Boris would. Expert advice on CGT isn't ambiguous, so she's either followed it or not. If she did then surely she can sue the lawyer?

I saw something yesterday that suggested that even if it wasnt her PPR she wouldnt have had tax to pay as she improved the home and that can be set against any gain.If that is the case, then why has she been arguing its her PPR and she lived there (which is irrelevant anyway if married and not in process of separation).