Thread 41 How many more MPs will Sunak lose?

[BIossomtoes]

New thread. I took the liberty - the old one was at 999!

Now if only this Rwanda farce had been in thr manifesto.

Ah. Shit. I had a bit of hope there.

"First rule of defence law. Your client is telling the truth."

Oh for heavens sakes. Defence solicitors and barristers are employed to present cases, not make judgements.

Even if AR overlooked a technical bit of tax law (which pretty much no lay person knew about until a few weeks ago), bringing a precedent of holding MPs to account for infractions from pre-political times seems like a ploy that will massively backfire on the Tories.
If every MP who's ever had a tax miscalculation or error had to resign immediately, would there be enough left to form a cabinet?

I just want to say saucery and fabio I'm very glad you are on this thread.
Tbh this thread is like a little oasis of sanity.

I haven't seen PMQs but I'll go catch up now. I'm sure Sunak said his normal amount of sense

I know that!

Maybe what I should have said is that he must be certain that she won't be found to have done anything wrong. Otherwise he is going to look a right chump if it all goes pear shaped. He hasn't previously been quite so forthcoming in supporting her, has he?

Their first duty is to the court.

And anyway, it's a profession which relies on facts and records.

Also, generally, a criminal conviction requires intent as well as action. It why we have courts.

And English Common Law (which amusingly some foreigners have taken to mean the law for common people as opposed to our rulers) does rest on a presumption of innocence.

Nadhim Zahawi springs to mind

I wonder if one of Peach Schnapps's previous personas had a few dodgy tax returns...

Peach Schnapps 😭

Sorry, I know it is childish of me.

Not really, given his nominative ambiguity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Shapps#Business_ventures

Has he ever been seen in the same room as Laurence Fox ?

Although previous evidence suggests that Sunak probably actually believes he can just magically remove 46billion in tax.

Quite.

Me too.

But I think we're probably more interested because of the education side!

Have to say I was surprised at the ruling. But slightly more taken aback at the reasons.

But I'm not a fan of the school at all!

Why not. If it works for his family business, no reason it shouldn’t work for the country he is PM of.

😂

How will the armed forces feel when they have to deport Afghans who stood fought with British soldiers to Rwanda.

Aside from breaking international law in the first place ofcourse.

But the truth is that schooling often isn't a decision.

I'd say they only had a 20% uptake through first choices then the rest will be filled by people the la have placed there.

That's any school.

Often when people try and avoid certain schools it doesn't work because they need to offer everyone a school.

I agree with piggy that the fact the suspension wasn't upheld is interesting in this case.

Is it as low as 20% for Michaela @itsgettingweird ? I didn’t know that. My impression of it is that it takes from a wide catchment, from parents who want that particular ethos. Happy to be corrected if that’s not the case. I’m going off certain schools in my wider area that have a wider catchment because their offer is slightly different to other schools. That may be faith based, or stricter behaviour rules etc, but they are always popular or oversubscribed.

I also thought about hospitals and couldn't see why a prayer room for quiet reflection was any different to other rooms they provide for quiet in schools.

Call it what you want but the undertone for me was they were upholding British values and equating allowing Muslim prayer as not being British values.

It doesn't sit right with me.

I would however support that private prayer and reflection being done outside of lesson times.

James Daly won't even say what the allegations are against Angela Rayner

As I understand it, the allegation is that she used to be poor but isn't now and is also a rather effective politican so the Tories don't like her.

I listened to Trott on radio 4 on the way to work.

She basically said the Rwanda bill will get through as government will do what they want and not bend to the will of a bunch of unelected people with their own agendas.

They seem to be advocating for scrapping the lords - but I do not think for one minute that's actually what she meant to imply!

Presumably if there was a senior government minister who was similarly unelected she would call it out?