Ms Rayner

[WTFH]

BTW , both HMRC and the police are very interested in the matter.

No evidence you would accept perhaps.
​​​​​​….
But hey, she's not a Tory so can do no wrong.

She’s not a Tory, so you’re happy to claim something with no evidence at all.

You say HMRC and the police are very interested. All we’re asking is for evidence to back up your claim. That you turn it round to say no sane person would accept your evidence, rather than simply providing a link to it, well that would make anyone think you were making it up.

 

[sadkingbilly]

But hey, she's not a Tory so can do no wrong.

awwww, - diddums

 

[jamesbrown]

No evidence you would accept perhaps.

BBC reported 12 days back that Manchester police found no evidence of wrongdoing. That was challenged by an MP and they are re-examining the case. The MoS has solid evidence if her actual position which varies from her stated position and makes the original police decision ill considered shall we say.

But hey, she's not a Tory so can do no wrong.

No evidence of any interest from HMRC, then

You sound very defensive. Politics has nothing to do with it. She’s probably lying. At the very least, she didn’t understand the rules. You might find it easier to engage with the facts if you took off your diehard Tory goggles.

 

[SueEllen]

No evidence of any interest from HMRC, then

I've been listening to accountants, ex-taxmen and one of the journalists Nadhim Zahawi threatened to sue because he was working on exposing his tax affairs explain why HMRC aren't interested.

At most Ms Rayner owes £3,000 for the years 2013-2015 when she got married, because as a married couple you can only have one primary residence.

However like with most people who have houses if she did some improvements then she would more likely owe £1,500.

And because it was nearly a decade ago HMRC have no reason to go after her.

You sound very defensive. Politics has nothing to do with it. She’s probably lying. At the very least, she didn’t understand the rules. You might find it easier to engage with the facts if you took off your diehard Tory goggles.

That's what everyone has concluded.

 

[jamesbrown]

Agree with the above. Did she underpay some tax? Most likely, yes. Did she lie about the situation? Most likely, yes. Did she misunderstand the rules? Definitely, yes.

But there's very little or nothing to see in terms of tax/HMRC. If there's anything to see, it's the lying about it and what that means for her trustworthiness in gov't... but there are a lot of untrustworthy politicians in office

 

[malvolio]

Ho hum...

From today's BBC news

 

[jamesbrown]

Ho hum...

From today's BBC news

Police, yes, prompted by a complaint from a Tory MP. You literally cited this a few posts ago .
On the other hand, the stuff you made up about HMRC

 

[malvolio]

Police, yes, prompted by a complaint from a Tory MP. You literally cited this a few posts ago .
On the other hand, the stuff you made up about HMRC

I don't remember where I read it, but it wasn't made up.

That is, however, not the whole point of the discussion. Do we want a potential deputy PM who thinks they don't have to tell the truth. That is the question...

 

[vetran]

I don't remember where I read it, but it wasn't made up.

That is, however, not the whole point of the discussion. Do we want a potential deputy PM who thinks they don't have to tell the truth. That is the question...

Well we have had a number of PM;s from many parties that wouldn't recognise the truth if it were inserted via their nostrils.

 

[DoctorStrangelove]

Bunter wouldn't recognise truth if it was stuffed up his arse by an elephant.