Discussion:
Rayner and the police
(too old to reply)
JNugent
2024-04-12 15:29:10 UTC
Permalink
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/12/angela-rayner-tories-targeting-labour-deputy-tax-class-shaming>

The Graun manages to accept that she should be investigated by the
police in respect of her residence and CGT affairs, but really, only as
long as she is exonerated.

The author manages to insinuate that Boris and Rishi were fined (they
weren't) for a Covid breach and also that this is somehow less bad than
tax evasion, which is a big departure for that publication. Normally,
tax evasion, whether real, alleged or even just a mere suggestion, is
next to being a capital offence.

And let's remember, Boris and Rishi were judged by a then-undeclared
prominent acolyte of the Labour Party, whose impartiality and judgement
on those matters is now so discredited as to be totally worthless.

OTOH, when that nice Mr Starman (and Ms Rayner) were accused of exactly
the same things, they were magically deemed not to have broken the rules
- by a police force under the control of a Labour PCC.

Who'd have thought it?

But there's another side to the latest issue. A very common factor in
couples residing at separate and different addresses is the existence of
a social security claim by someone representing themself as a lone
parent (a situation which leads to more or less automatic receipt of
benefit with no more questions asked). Let's hope that the police have
enough gumption to make enquiries of DWP's archived records. After all,
no-one wants Rayner to have that sort of unresolved suspicion hanging
over her, eh?
Pancho
2024-04-13 11:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/12/angela-rayner-tories-targeting-labour-deputy-tax-class-shaming>
The Graun manages to accept that she should be investigated by the
police in respect of her residence and CGT affairs, but really, only as
long as she is exonerated.
The author manages to insinuate that Boris and Rishi were fined (they
weren't) for a Covid breach
They were fined, by the police. Stupid, political, but it is a fact.
Post by JNugent
and also that this is somehow less bad than
tax evasion, which is a big departure for that publication. Normally,
tax evasion, whether real, alleged or even just a mere suggestion, is
next to being a capital offence.
And let's remember, Boris and Rishi were judged by a then-undeclared
prominent acolyte of the Labour Party, whose impartiality and judgement
on those matters is now so discredited as to be totally worthless.
OTOH, when that nice Mr Starman (and Ms Rayner) were accused of exactly
the same things, they were magically deemed not to have broken the rules
- by a police force under the control of a Labour PCC.
Who'd have thought it?
But there's another side to the latest issue. A very common factor in
couples residing at separate and different addresses is the existence of
a social security claim by someone representing themself as a lone
parent (a situation which leads to more or less automatic receipt of
benefit with no more questions asked). Let's hope that the police have
enough gumption to make enquiries of DWP's archived records. After all,
no-one wants Rayner to have that sort of unresolved suspicion hanging
over her, eh?
I suspect the police will gauge Starmer's approval before acting.
Starmer is now presumed next PM, so not politically sensible to piss him
off. In the past, Starmer has wanted to get rid of Rayner, so this might
all be coming from him anyway.
JNugent
2024-04-13 12:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by JNugent
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/12/angela-rayner-tories-targeting-labour-deputy-tax-class-shaming>
The Graun manages to accept that she should be investigated by the
police in respect of her residence and CGT affairs, but really, only
as long as she is exonerated.
The author manages to insinuate that Boris and Rishi were fined (they
weren't) for a Covid breach
They were fined, by the police. Stupid, political, but it is a fact.
It is well understood that a fixed penalty notice is not a fine. Only a
court can impose a fine, and even that following a conviction, which did
not happen.
Post by Pancho
Post by JNugent
and also that this is somehow less bad than tax evasion, which is a
big departure for that publication. Normally, tax evasion, whether
real, alleged or even just a mere suggestion, is next to being a
capital offence.
And let's remember, Boris and Rishi were judged by a then-undeclared
prominent acolyte of the Labour Party, whose impartiality and
judgement on those matters is now so discredited as to be totally
worthless.
OTOH, when that nice Mr Starman (and Ms Rayner) were accused of
exactly the same things, they were magically deemed not to have broken
the rules - by a police force under the control of a Labour PCC.
Who'd have thought it?
But there's another side to the latest issue. A very common factor in
couples residing at separate and different addresses is the existence
of a social security claim by someone representing themself as a lone
parent (a situation which leads to more or less automatic receipt of
benefit with no more questions asked). Let's hope that the police have
enough gumption to make enquiries of DWP's archived records. After
all, no-one wants Rayner to have that sort of unresolved suspicion
hanging over her, eh?
I suspect the police will gauge Starmer's approval before acting.
Starmer is now presumed next PM, so not politically sensible to piss him
off. In the past, Starmer has wanted to get rid of Rayner, so this might
all be coming from him anyway.
All they need is co-operation from the current Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions.

I hope that nice Mr Starman would not stoop so low as to block (by
threats of future "displeasure" or whatever) the investigation of what
would be a criminal offence.
Joe
2024-04-13 12:50:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 13:34:42 +0100
Post by JNugent
Post by Pancho
I suspect the police will gauge Starmer's approval before acting.
Starmer is now presumed next PM, so not politically sensible to
piss him off. In the past, Starmer has wanted to get rid of Rayner,
so this might all be coming from him anyway.
All they need is co-operation from the current Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions.
I hope that nice Mr Starman would not stoop so low as to block (by
threats of future "displeasure" or whatever) the investigation of
what would be a criminal offence.
Exactly so, this isn't the USA.... yet.
--
Joe
Incubus
2024-04-15 13:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/12/angela-rayner-tories-targeting-labour-deputy-tax-class-shaming>
The Graun manages to accept that she should be investigated by the
police in respect of her residence and CGT affairs, but really, only as
long as she is exonerated.
The author manages to insinuate that Boris and Rishi were fined (they
weren't) for a Covid breach and also that this is somehow less bad than
tax evasion, which is a big departure for that publication. Normally,
tax evasion, whether real, alleged or even just a mere suggestion, is
next to being a capital offence.
Isn't it obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, in her case?
JNugent
2024-04-15 14:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by JNugent
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/12/angela-rayner-tories-targeting-labour-deputy-tax-class-shaming>
The Graun manages to accept that she should be investigated by the
police in respect of her residence and CGT affairs, but really, only as
long as she is exonerated.
The author manages to insinuate that Boris and Rishi were fined (they
weren't) for a Covid breach and also that this is somehow less bad than
tax evasion, which is a big departure for that publication. Normally,
tax evasion, whether real, alleged or even just a mere suggestion, is
next to being a capital offence.
Isn't it obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, in her case?
It *could* be, though the Revenue don't usually use that charge (they do
their own charging).

Even more so if it were ever to transpire that she had been claiming
social security at address A whilst living with her husband at address B
(that would be DWP, who also do their own charging via their HQ
solicitors' branch).

But I'm sure she is an honourable woman (so are they all, honourable
Members) and would not do such a thing.

I expect that according to the Graun, there's no social security fraud
among council tenants. It's only chartered accountants and captains of
industry who commit that offence.

Loading...