Is Angela Raynor a liar or is it all anti Labour media bias?

[CormorantStrikesBack]

I’m well aware how anti Labour a lot of the main stream media seem to be so I wasn’t paying much attention previously to all the stuff about how she should have paid capital gains tax on her house, etc. she was adamant that she didn’t need to.

So it seems like she said it was her main residence so not liable for capital gains tax. But her husband and kids lived in a house a short distance away apparently for the first five years of their marriage which is unusual. A neighbour who lived next to her “husband’s” house said it was the main family home and Angela definitely lived there.

I’ll be sad if she has lied. Always thought she was on the side of the ordinary person. I guess the police/tax man might have a hard time proving anything though regardless of the neighbour’s statement. If all bills, etc were in the individual names there’s no evidence.

Well my prediction that this line would bite the Tory Party on the bum is confirmed by the Times. Which is both detailed and specific, though the criminality is inferred at present.

Yes

Can you summarise the article?

Here you go, with share token

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/28f948c4-70b5-4b29-a094-ea5ccfc2a53b?shareToken=5c4a6c70a61b4815ab8dc3e3c926d968

Tory MP takes large sums of money in mysterious circumstances at late hours of the night from donations under apparent threat which he does not specify. Asks repeatedly for money in the order of tens of thousands of pounds with no means to pay himself or clear reason beyond, "they are bad men".

She wanted the Right to Buy council house scheme scrapped, even though she benefitted by buying one herself, and then selling it.

Bad news for the Tories. Nothing to do with Angela Rayner though.

You are right, it doesn't have anything to do with Angela Rayner. It does make the complaints about her looking very silly.

Why? If he’s a wrongdoer he should get what’s coming to him. But he’s a backbench nobody. Rayner’s the prospective Deputy Prime Minister. And Spanish Inquisitor of her opponents.

I am sure he will be publishing his tax affairs very soon

Angela Rayner wasn't any of that when she owned her property, Menzies is in government.

That is a lie. She has never said that. What she has said Is that "council tenants should be able to buy their homes but that the policy should be reviewed to make sure it is good value for the taxpayer and that affordable housing stock is not lost."

https://inews.co.uk/news/labour-consider-changing-right-to-buy-council-houses-policy-stop-social-homes-lost-2753799

Who knows?

The police are investigating a number of lines of enquiry so rather than speculate it would be sensible to await their findings.

There are some facts which I believe are supported by much documentation

AR was a fierce critic of Thatcher's right to buy scheme but used it anyway

AR demanded a Tory MP under scrutiny publish their tax returns but has refused to publish her 'expert' tax advice - which btw Starmer claims not to have read

AR demanded Boris resign just because he was the subject of a police investigation but has not done so herself.

The GMP initially said nothing to see here, but have now changed their minds and are investigating.

Happy for any of the AR supporters on this thread to correct any of these facts.

But if all correct should we just all calm down and await the outcome from the GMP?

Hope that helps.

Indeed @Hurrydash

Is it because she's Labour? A woman? Neither of these make wrongdoing beyond any doubt, but it seems from this thread it is unthinkable she may have been anything less than perfect.

The degree of 'wrongness' may be arguable but wrong is wrong if she is found guilty of anything

At this point the only thing that is unquestionable imo is that if they spent as much time getting on with the job as they do taking up dirt on one another we'd all be better off.

Did Wragg get 36 pages? will Menzies get 36 pages? (which is out right theft) Did Owen Patterson get 36 pages?

no they didn't and wont....why?

Because Labour are held to different standards

As i ve said before, i'm not a Labour supporter, well not this current version & on policy statements given so far.

I just like to see some fairness in our politics, especially in regard to how women in public life are treated.

The media go for a story that resonates

Akshata Murty a good example. Not a politician, nothing illegal but hounded until offered extra tax.

Press to the right happy to get clicks and profit from the story

Clear cut isn’t it? She either lived there or she didn’t and lied to say she did.

Funny that, in the main, these stories "resonate" against Labour MPs, in the right wing media?

The Menzies story, reads straight out from a best selling crime novel, yet i will bet it gets little traction in the Tory supporting media, bit like the record number of migrants crossing the channel isn't being highlighted in the Tory media either.

Nom Dom was changed not because of media pressure but to take away a tax policy that Labour had announced... but even then, it wont affect Murty.

@Roselilly36 Better give your evidence that she lied to GMP or is it just an ill informed opinion?

It’s not the case at all. The media has been dining on clicks from the conservatives no issue. Partygate lasted how long?

It’s all fodder. But Labour supporters will likely get more annoyed at Rayner’s coverage

Just how it is political stories for clicks

Being in opposition for so long has lowered the attention and most will be on governing party

But no Labour are not subject to more, less probably, it may well change if they get in

I haven't got time to rthf but it seems to me that pps are a lot more willing to cut AR slack because she is a woman and she is a Labour politician.
The amount of cash involved is irrelevant, as are the justifications that the Tories are worse.
I cannot stand hypocrisy and I think there is plenty of that going on here. I do wonder if the pps who are minimising this would be defending a Conservative MP in the same situation? Of course they wouldn't.
I also think there is an element of delight in the media thar someone who is constantly harping about others and calling for their resignation is found with her snout in the trough herself. Hypocrisy again. There is no way they were going to let this lie, nor should they.
The next interesting twist is if AR will resign if she is found to have broken the law. I would say she won't.

She offered extra tax? How magnanimous of her. You do make it sound like she gave a gift to the tax coffers rather than finally paying a bit of what she owed.

She didn’t owe it.

She was paying according to tax law - did you think otherwise?

Yes I do @EasternStandard . She was exploiting the non dom loophole. Was she really living in another country while her husband was in government here? Do married people live in two different places with their children? People don't seem to think so when it's Angela Rayner!

The issue is based on two main aspects; one, that she was claiming non-domiciled status and two, because of that status, she was potentially saving millions of pounds on her overseas earnings over a period of years. Ms Murty has since announced that she will pay UK tax on her global earnings.

You say she didn't owe it, she paid it. She only paid it when she came under pressure. She owed it for some time before actually giving in to pressure and paying it.

The next interesting twist is if AR will resign if she is found to have broken the law. I would say she won't

Well, if she is guilty of electoral fraud but doesn't resign, then she will be a laughing stock, imho, she she resign as an MP, not just deputy leader. BUT as far as i'm aware, GMP cannot bring charges as any offence is time limited to 12 months and there she cannot be found guilty, so what are they "investigating"?

So far HMRC aren't interested.

Of course Labour get more heat, look at Starmer and his working class roots, his donkey field, that he is a Sir.... Jimmy Saville, rape prosecutions.... its a never ending series of slurs to see which one will "resonate"

There was no ‘exploitation’, avoidance or evasion

Tax laws exist and we all follow them, mostly. People follow tax laws daily it proves my point though that the media don’t just attack Labour. They attacked a non politician who followed tax laws until extra was offered.

There’s no extra pressure on Labour, they’ve just been in opposition for so long that the media pressure mostly passes them by

This might change, but if there’s one thing the media is good at is running a story over days - or months even, see Johnson, until it destroys whatever

It’s just how media cycles are here