Starmer's vision quest

[spen666]

Is she admitting to doing the morally wrong thing, or is she admitting accidentally not paying £40k in tax that was actually due?

If it's the second one, I actually think Rayner is in trouble here and the noise won't stop until she steps down.

The latter, but has the shield she sought and was acting on expert advice. Of course it depends if she told those experts the full facts. If she did, then its not really her fault.

 

[CXRAndy]

Will Starmer have the cojones to sack his successor


View: https://x.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1963189526123225263?t=vDE26aDbHoPo1ahQW4ZaaA&s=19

 

[spen666]

View attachment 9784
Too bloody right you shouldn't. Also drop NCHI recording. Let people say what they want, swear in public, kick all these public order offences

Unless it's a direct accusation against an individual who is not politics then no one can sue.

Same for incitement, it has to be a direct specific threat against a person or property not just heat of the moment off the cuff statement

Surely Mark Rowley as the Commissioner is ultimately responsible for directing what crimes his officers investigate and what the priorities of the police are.

Think this comes across as an attempt to shift the fallout of these arrests from his shoulders

 

[spen666]

Now that does sound like straying into conspiracy territory.

What exactly conspiracy are you inventing.

All I have said is the terms of the injunction appear wider than was strictly necessary.
The fact a court made an order wider than it needed to is not a conspiracy, its merely a criticism of the exercise of the court's discretion

 

[First Aspect]

The latter, but has the shield she sought and was acting on expert advice. Of course it depends if she told those experts the full facts. If she did, then its not really her fault.

It's not much different from the sorta of excuses Boris was generating.

 

[spen666]

It's not much different from the sorta of excuses Boris was generating.

If she did rely on experts, that is reasonable and she is able to rely on them to give the correct advice. However if she did not tell them the full facts, she will be in difficulties.

more information is needed to deliver a reasoned judgement of her position

 

[CXRAndy]

Legally she has done it correctly.

Its the fact she is a political figure, has previously slagged off opponents for tax matters.

She's been found out and is back tracking trying to save herself

 

[bobzmyunkle]

And yet more abuse

Great debating skills on show.

The simple fact is you cannot cope with the fact that Rayner has admitted she did not pay the correct tax, so you have to keep insulting those who do not agree with your views

Keep up @spen. If you can find where I've defended Rayner or where I've claimed a right wing conspiracy against her, I'll apologise.

Can you fill us in on where you think there's a conspiracy?

To be clear, I don't.

 

[BoldonLad]

He was arrested for incitement to violence based on someone's sex/sexuality/race/creed.

Laws brought in by Thatcher and enhanced by Boris Johnson. The same laws that Lucy Connolly was jailed under.

I don't see what your problem is here unless you think incitement to violence based on the above criteria is completely acceptable in which case, the law isn't the problem, your attitude is.

Very strange that we see these free speech warriors complaining about their free speech being curtailed but they never seem to STFU saying things that they complain that they're unable to say.

Is incitement to violence ever acceptable?

 

[CXRAndy]

It's general vernacular, never should it be policed or prosecuted

In the case of Lineham, I'm sure he won't be prosecuted. The government/police use the process of public arrest to suppress speech

 

[First Aspect]

If she did rely on experts, that is reasonable and she is able to rely on them to give the correct advice. However if she did not tell them the full facts, she will be in difficulties.

more information is needed to deliver a reasoned judgement of her position

She's a politician. Reasoned judgement takes a back step in favour of a rush to judgement. That's life.

 

[Stevo 666]

Keep up @spen. If you can find where I've defended Rayner or where I've claimed a right wing conspiracy against her, I'll apologise.


To be clear, I don't.

Not now you don't 😀

 

[Psamathe]

If she did rely on experts, that is reasonable and she is able to rely on them to give the correct advice. However if she did not tell them the full facts, she will be in difficulties.

more information is needed to deliver a reasoned judgement of her position

Maybe distinguish between "experts" and "professionals". Twitter is full of "experts" and if she were relying on them then she'll be going.

In my experience dealing with "professionals" they are invariably protected by complex T&Cs that many don't bother reading and those professionals tend to be able to avoid any liability. Best scenario I have come across is where rules changed (actually retrospectively) but professionals accepted no liability but did setup a dedicated group to help their customers "unwind" what they had advised.

Guessing (so no knowledge of details of Ms Rayner's situation) I could be she had professional advisers who provided advice on setting up a trust but only charged for doing the work setting up the trust (ie advice was not charged for, just the work on the trust).

 

[First Aspect]

The advice could conceivably have been caveated, with the lack of judgement being the difference between what some people get away with and what a high profile politician with political opponents pouring over every detail of one's life can get away with.

Time will tell, but the truth will probably fully come to light some time after the political noise gets unbearable for Starmer.

 

[Psamathe]

The advice could conceivably have been caveated, with the lack of judgement being the difference between what some people get away with and what a high profile politician with political opponents pouring over every detail of one's life can get away with.

Time will tell, but the truth will probably fully come to light some time after the political noise gets unbearable for Starmer.

Might be more complex as multiple transactions eg setting up trust, taking money from trust(?) and purchasing a property and that may have meant multiple professionals.

I'm unsure about what power Starmer has as she was elected deputy party leader by the membership not appointed by Starmer. Does her Labour Partry deputy leader role automatically make her deputy PM of is that a Starmer appointment? So some extent Starmer has already undermined her Government role in his creating a new role of Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister.