EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
It's a very small number of people - for lesser mortals (contractors) accountants suggest to avoid Directors loans because it gives HMRC a reason to go sniffing (and are incredibly easy to screw up).
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
People on Universal Credit and other benefits would be heavily sanctioned/facing criminal charges for failing declare money they are receiving.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Tory MPs are only asking themselves if they can do something within the rules. Not whether they should.
Luckily the supposed rules are so elastic that almost anything short of murder is with in the spirit of the rules.
Cricket’s racism scandal deepens today as a player claims he was nicknamed Bomber by team-mates the day after the 9/11 attacks.
Muslim Zoheb Sharif alleges he was also called “curry muncher” while playing for Essex.
His allegations emerge following racism revelations by ex-Yorkshire player Azeem Rafiq that led to the club losing sponsors and the right to host Tests.
On Friday Essex chair John Faragher resigned after an allegation he used racist language at a board meeting in 2017, which he strongly denies.
Zoheb, 38, said he was speaking out because he could see “many parallels” between the Rafiq case at Yorkshire and what he had been through. He said: “Azim has shone a light on what’s been going on.
'Curry muncher' has to be at lower end of the racial abuse scale, surely. Would it be wrong to call a person from Yorkshire a 'pudding eater'? And it's made clear on an Essex followers board what the chair is alleged to have said and while it's not a phrase I've heard this century In wouldn't be at all surprised if many here have heard it, and possibly used it, in the past.
It's all about context, much in the same way you don't call a black person a monkey.
A nursery nurse I heard of referred to a BAME child as a 'little monkey' and all hell broke loose. The child had been mildly misbehaving and AIUI the nurse remarked to the mother when she came to collect him that 'he's been a little monkey today'. A phrase which I've often heard about a misbehaving child. Indeed there are several nurseries locally called "Cheeky Monkeys".
Using the tests I suggested below:
Would a white child be called a little monkey? Is the phrase ever used in the positive?
I think here there is a massive difference between curry muncher and little monkey, as yes, a white child might be called a little monkey and it is mostly used affectionately.
Yes.
"Little monkey" is routine, and fine. Might avoid if I was with an obsessive person who habitually flies off the handle. "Curry muncher" - imo that is stereotyping and insulting, in the same sort of category as "raghead" for Middle Easterners.
I wouldn't use either of the last two myself. And I'd be upset if either were used about my half-Thai grandchildren.
Cricket’s racism scandal deepens today as a player claims he was nicknamed Bomber by team-mates the day after the 9/11 attacks.
Muslim Zoheb Sharif alleges he was also called “curry muncher” while playing for Essex.
His allegations emerge following racism revelations by ex-Yorkshire player Azeem Rafiq that led to the club losing sponsors and the right to host Tests.
On Friday Essex chair John Faragher resigned after an allegation he used racist language at a board meeting in 2017, which he strongly denies.
Zoheb, 38, said he was speaking out because he could see “many parallels” between the Rafiq case at Yorkshire and what he had been through. He said: “Azim has shone a light on what’s been going on.
'Curry muncher' has to be at lower end of the racial abuse scale, surely. Would it be wrong to call a person from Yorkshire a 'pudding eater'? And it's made clear on an Essex followers board what the chair is alleged to have said and while it's not a phrase I've heard this century In wouldn't be at all surprised if many here have heard it, and possibly used it, in the past.
It's all about context, much in the same way you don't call a black person a monkey.
A nursery nurse I heard of referred to a BAME child as a 'little monkey' and all hell broke loose. The child had been mildly misbehaving and AIUI the nurse remarked to the mother when she came to collect him that 'he's been a little monkey today'. A phrase which I've often heard about a misbehaving child. Indeed there are several nurseries locally called "Cheeky Monkeys".
I'll bet you wouldn't find a nursery called 'Cheeky Monkeys' in, for example, Brixton.
Dear oh dear. I went and looked. Nearest I could find was Lewisham, but I'm not familiar with London post-codes. There are several with that name in N London, though!
You would need to be sick in the head to find anything wrong with that name.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Everything is technical, within the rules etc for you silver spoon Eton halfwits. A few brain cells would allow you lot to see the public just see you lot as lying cheating baddies.
Two points:
My post was clear: “the optics… look horrible”. I think it’s quite clear that I appreciate the issue with public perception.
Secondly, resorting to insults is unwarranted. I was a scholar at Eton and my father ran a modest sized business.
Disagree. A bad back can happen on its own without there being anything else wrong and can, as I can attest, render you utterly incapable.
There may be something else going on or it may be an excuse. She is 95 after all. But it doesn't automatically follow as he is assuming.
Any other event and I would agree with you but this the armed forces she is missing, something she holds dear, I think the only ones she has missed during her reign was when she was heavily pregnant with Andrew or Edward.
If your back goes into spasm, you literally cannot move no matter how much you may want to. I know - believe me.
I hope she is not suffering like that because it is awful. But when backs go, your wishes are immaterial, Queen or no.
HM The Queen will not attend the Remembrance Service today because of a 'back problem'.
She’s dead, isn’t she. Fake photo of her driving, sudden cancellations. London Bridge is down, but they are handling the presentation...
They reckon The Queen's funeral and mourning period will be a super spreader event so they'll announce it during the summer.
Or she hates our armed forces by shamefully disrespecting them like this.
Regardless of your views on the monarchy this is someone’s mother and grandmother you are talking about.
People should remember that when they slag off Meghan Markle.
You can criticise someone for their actions (even the Queen).
But snide comments speculating on someone’s death are distasteful
Well, some of us are into black comedy and find it actually helps with distressing subjects.
Quite, and to be honest when the end comes, the nation is going to have a very tough time. Some will be very sad, and want to wallow in it. Some will accept that a loved elderly lady has died and then move on, some will be outraged by the endless media furore and the cancellation of Eastenders. The black humour helps. I suspect the trenches of WW1 and the bomb shelters of WW2 were full of black humour. It’s a coping mechanism.
If she does cross Bifrost soon it's going make republicanism a very hot issue in the imminent Australian election.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
How Tory . If you believed Douglas4Moray's utter lying drivel about his forgetting to declare £30K of earnings because he just forgot, then if anyon can eplain why he remembered to claim 84p for utilities but “forgot” 30 grand then I will be amazed.
Probably his office manager claims and this is just a reporting breakout from a bigger claim.
Yet his office manager missed £30K, pull the other one it plays bells. If you are meticulous and greedy enough to reclaim 84P then there is no chance you could forget £30K. How can you try to justify such crookedness.
Andrew Marr set about Rayner over Starmer's second job earnings and inappropriate use of his office and he was relentless
Apparently she wants to ban lawyers second jobs and all internal domestic flights by politicians
Interesting
That wasn't quite what I heard her say.
In what way
See Mr Eek's post upthread; she pointed out that plane was cheaper than train and made a brief case for a rethink on train and plane prices.
She did prevaricate a bit about Starmer's once upon a time second job, though.
Train Glasgow to London is £15 quid nowadays , centre to centre so much cheaper than plane, however as these greedy gits will not do anything less than charge us first class, limo's etc you may be correct, all in those great rules of course.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
These people are so ingrained at such things they actually think it is normal and the plebs should think themselves lucky.
Andrew Marr set about Rayner over Starmer's second job earnings and inappropriate use of his office and he was relentless
Apparently she wants to ban lawyers second jobs and all internal domestic flights by politicians
Interesting
That wasn't quite what I heard her say.
In what way
See Mr Eek's post upthread; she pointed out that plane was cheaper than train and made a brief case for a rethink on train and plane prices.
She did prevaricate a bit about Starmer's once upon a time second job, though.
Train Glasgow to London is £15 quid nowadays , centre to centre so much cheaper than plane, however as these greedy gits will not do anything less than charge us first class, limo's etc you may be correct, all in those great rules of course.
West Coast Mainline is Soooo much cheaper than East Coast Mainline you wouldn't believe it.
I booked tickets to London back in early October for mid December. Cost £250 all in for 2 adults.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
It’s worth remembering that she had back problems in 2006-07. It prevented her from officially opening the best football stadium in the world. So instead she had Arsenal round for tea...
FFS , there will be few 95 year olds without back problems. Did no-one see her last outings , she is nearly bent double such that a blind man could tell her back and likely many other bits are knackered.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Only if the people can work extra hours - and few single parents on UC can..
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Yes but it allows the Cayman Islands to be mentioned which may quicklly move on to why is someone in the UK using a location famous for tax avoidance.
It sounds like it is just a property holding company though so I’d assume that JRM is paying the enveloped dwelling tax
I wonder whether the transfer of assets abroad anti-avoidance tax provisions are applicable to this structure?
It sounds like it receives his share of Somerset Capital’s distributions.
So he is accruing money offshore on a gross basis and only reporting for UK tax when money is distributed to him. Which is entirely legal. The directors loan is a cute way to get around the tax on distributions which is why the government introduced both the minimum interest rate and the “loan” that you have to make to the government until the director's loan is repaid
The issue with all of this is the narrative. Another Tory toff earning vast sums offshore. No wonder the red wall Tory MPs are going up the wall.
If the anti avoidance rules apply, the distributions up to the cayman island company would be directly taxable on JRM even if they are retained within that company.
It’s the other way round?
Somerset Capital (caymans) manages money - presumably for US clients as it’s usually the US that uses Cayman island structures
JRM Co (Cayman)* owns his interest in Somerset Capital (Cayman). Distributions taxed at the Cayman rate
JRM Co (UK) owns JRM Co (Cayman). Dividends are taxed as income to the UK company.
JRM Co (UK) lends money to JRM (person). Minimum interest rate plus requirement to make an interest free loan to the UK government of 25% of the outstanding balance of it is outstanding for more than 1 year.
Andrew Marr set about Rayner over Starmer's second job earnings and inappropriate use of his office and he was relentless
Apparently she wants to ban lawyers second jobs and all internal domestic flights by politicians
Interesting
That wasn't quite what I heard her say.
In what way
See Mr Eek's post upthread; she pointed out that plane was cheaper than train and made a brief case for a rethink on train and plane prices.
She did prevaricate a bit about Starmer's once upon a time second job, though.
Marr asked if she would ban lawyers and she did say yes
I agree about her comments about making train travel cheaper
So if lawyers cannot maintain their qualifications and experience who is going to fill the roles of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General in a future Labour government?
Did he ask her that?
He struggled to get a word in at times but the idea is nonsense
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Yes but it allows the Cayman Islands to be mentioned which may quicklly move on to why is someone in the UK using a location famous for tax avoidance.
It sounds like it is just a property holding company though so I’d assume that JRM is paying the enveloped dwelling tax
I wonder if he is paying the enveloped dwelling tax though. Haven't seen it confirmed.
It wouldn’t be reported though. My suggestion was based on a line in the mail saying the company owned “property and other investments” as well as his partnership interest in Somerset Capital.
But it looks more like it’s a general investment company. Takes his income from Somerset Capital, invests on a gross basis and remits to the UK when needed. Company owned by a Uk company.
Assuming it’s structured like that it’s totally legal.
Something can be 100% Legal while looking incredibly dubious and smelly to the general public.
Of course. Throw in £6m, house in Kensington and Cayman Islands and you have a nice Daily Mail attack story
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Only if the people can work extra hours - and few single parents on UC can..
Well no, for anyone who's working full time the reduced taper rate means they get more than the £20 uplift gave. Quite appropriately too.
For anyone who's not working full time, then the option of doing so is available - and childcare support is available for those on UC so that they can.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice
If you think directors loans and dividend payments are common, may I respectfully suggest you are spectacularly, mind bogglingly out of touch. Most people never go anywhere near this sort of thing.
You replied before I edited… clearly you have faster fingers than I do!
HM The Queen will not attend the Remembrance Service today because of a 'back problem'.
She’s dead, isn’t she. Fake photo of her driving, sudden cancellations. London Bridge is down, but they are handling the presentation...
They reckon The Queen's funeral and mourning period will be a super spreader event so they'll announce it during the summer.
Or she hates our armed forces by shamefully disrespecting them like this.
Regardless of your views on the monarchy this is someone’s mother and grandmother you are talking about.
People should remember that when they slag off Meghan Markle.
You can criticise someone for their actions (even the Queen).
But snide comments speculating on someone’s death are distasteful
Well, some of us are into black comedy and find it actually helps with distressing subjects.
Quite, and to be honest when the end comes, the nation is going to have a very tough time. Some will be very sad, and want to wallow in it. Some will accept that a loved elderly lady has died and then move on, some will be outraged by the endless media furore and the cancellation of Eastenders. The black humour helps. I suspect the trenches of WW1 and the bomb shelters of WW2 were full of black humour. It’s a coping mechanism.
If she does cross Bifrost soon it's going make republicanism a very hot issue in the imminent Australian election.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
It’s like playing a game of football, except one side uses its wealth and connections to make the rules in their favour and control the ref.
They claim it’s all legal and above board, despite creating strict rules and harsh penalties for others.
Ironically, despite their advantages, they can’t even stick to the rules they themselves created. Such is their entitlement.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Wow.
£20 less a week is a cut. A massive cut for many. Though I would love to hear a Tory activist on the doorstep explaining to someone on the doorstep that actually the £20 cut wasn't a cut actually and anyway they have actually changed the taper rate.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again, on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry for herself, as she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
It also looks as if there are rumblings about the internal investigation which Barclays did when all this first surfaced and its thoroughness.
What I find odd is this statement -
"Barclays has made it clear that the investigation by the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority did not find that Staley “saw or was aware of any of Mr Epstein’s alleged crimes”.
How can they say this with a straight face. Staley, it is reported, visited Epstein in prison after he had been convicted in 2009 for procuring a child for prostitution.
"alleged crimes"? "Not aware"?
That claim might be plausible before conviction. But afterwards?
There is also some history between the FCA and Barclays re Staley. The FCA really failed to deal adequately with Staley's misbehaviour over a bank whistleblower, in part because Barclays had already done an internal investigation. It looked as if the FCA were bounced into accepting that investigation and not taking tougher action. A mistake.
I know nothing about the case, but it's an interesting question how far you remain friends with someone who does something terrible. On the whole, I think yes, because we all recognise that we're complex creatures, and the reason you're friends probably has nothing to do with the act that horrifies you. Obviously there are limits and it deepends on the level of friendship, as well as on the degree of remorse, but on the whole it's the moment they need your friendship most.
So actually I don't think a bank appointment should hinge on whether the applicant has a friend who's done something nasty.
It appears he didn’t disclose the extent of his relationship to the regulators. They take a very dim view of that
, you mean one of his club chums will tell him he is a naughty boy
No. I mean that he didn’t disclose material relevant information to his regulator. That leads to a break down in trust and questions about whether he is a fit and proper person to be the CEO of a major UK bank
I think its safe to say London Bridge hasn't fallen because when that does happen it will dominate the news agenda and push off whatever is currently on the agenda . . . which right now is surely in the government's best interest so why engage in a cover-up?
I don't think a cover-up of more than hours is seriously on the cards.
It would be almost impossible to cover it up for any length of time. There’s hundreds of people working with the family, who would know something was up.
Plus the massive risk, that the first public announcement comes from Harry.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Wow.
£20 less a week is a cut. A massive cut for many. Though I would love to hear a Tory activist on the doorstep explaining to someone on the doorstep that actually the £20 cut wasn't a cut actually and anyway they have actually changed the taper rate.
Anyone working FT gets more from their wages via the taper reduction, than the £20 uplift gave, even if they're only working for minimum wage.
It is appropriate that people working full time are better off, is it not?
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
It’s like playing a game of football, except one side uses its wealth and connections to make the rules in their favour and control the ref.
They claim it’s all legal and above board, despite creating strict rules and harsh penalties for others.
Ironically, despite their advantages, they can’t even stick to the rules they themselves created. Such is their entitlement.
That is pretty much how the Old Etonians et al codified the laws of football!
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
People on Universal Credit and other benefits would be heavily sanctioned/facing criminal charges for failing declare money they are receiving.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
Cricket’s racism scandal deepens today as a player claims he was nicknamed Bomber by team-mates the day after the 9/11 attacks.
Muslim Zoheb Sharif alleges he was also called “curry muncher” while playing for Essex.
His allegations emerge following racism revelations by ex-Yorkshire player Azeem Rafiq that led to the club losing sponsors and the right to host Tests.
On Friday Essex chair John Faragher resigned after an allegation he used racist language at a board meeting in 2017, which he strongly denies.
Zoheb, 38, said he was speaking out because he could see “many parallels” between the Rafiq case at Yorkshire and what he had been through. He said: “Azim has shone a light on what’s been going on.
'Curry muncher' has to be at lower end of the racial abuse scale, surely. Would it be wrong to call a person from Yorkshire a 'pudding eater'? And it's made clear on an Essex followers board what the chair is alleged to have said and while it's not a phrase I've heard this century In wouldn't be at all surprised if many here have heard it, and possibly used it, in the past.
It's all about context, much in the same way you don't call a black person a monkey.
Would a white person who eats curries be called a curry muncher? Would it matter whether the Asian person getting called a curry muncher actually eats curries? Is the phrase ever used in the positive?
I think the answers to the above make it very likely the intent is abusive and othering.
More than likely for sure but they could just as easily have been good buddies at the time and just slagged each other off and now we are in woke land people suddenly see everything , ie 200 year old statues , as racist. Regardless dragging things like this up from the past says just as much if not more than the person who said it, far too many losers looking for attention nowadays. Lots of jumping on bandwagons nowadays , bit like all these z listers who go on "I am a celebrity get me out of here".
There's a 100% chance that Sturgeon will push hard for a Sindy2 in this parliament. There's also a 100% chance that Johnson will push back against it. There's a 30% chance that Sturgeon will prevail and the vote will be granted and held. If it is there's a 30% of Yes winning.
And if it's another No, the header is right, that kills Sindy for the foreseeable. The notion the SNP will be back in no time demanding another vote is a nonsense. One needs to suspend all powers of reason and political logic to believe this.
So, running the numbers, there's just shy of a 10% chance of Sindy happening in this parliament under this Tory government and granting the vote has a 70% chance of securing the union.
And not granting the vote? IMO this is probably only delaying matters. There's still an 80% chance of it happening before 2030 and there's then a 50% chance of Yes winning. Therefore there's a 40% chance of Sindy happening by 2030 if the vote is denied now,
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Andrew Marr set about Rayner over Starmer's second job earnings and inappropriate use of his office and he was relentless
Apparently she wants to ban lawyers second jobs and all internal domestic flights by politicians
Interesting
That wasn't quite what I heard her say.
In what way
See Mr Eek's post upthread; she pointed out that plane was cheaper than train and made a brief case for a rethink on train and plane prices.
She did prevaricate a bit Starmer's once upon a time second job, though.
Round here - all the MPs now fly from Teesside to Heathrow because it's cheaper and takes about the same time (you have to remember you can do entrance to plane in 20 minutes without much hassle).
When LNER were trying to reduce the number of trains stopping at Darlington, the thing that stopped them was when the MPs started to discuss getting Lumo (the new cheap First Group service from Edinburgh / Newcastle to London) to fill in the gaps created,
Takes a long time from Heathrow to Central London, though.
Yes and Heathrow train is more expensive than the flight and you have the 20 quid minimum a day parking at airports.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Cricket’s racism scandal deepens today as a player claims he was nicknamed Bomber by team-mates the day after the 9/11 attacks.
Muslim Zoheb Sharif alleges he was also called “curry muncher” while playing for Essex.
His allegations emerge following racism revelations by ex-Yorkshire player Azeem Rafiq that led to the club losing sponsors and the right to host Tests.
On Friday Essex chair John Faragher resigned after an allegation he used racist language at a board meeting in 2017, which he strongly denies.
Zoheb, 38, said he was speaking out because he could see “many parallels” between the Rafiq case at Yorkshire and what he had been through. He said: “Azim has shone a light on what’s been going on.
'Curry muncher' has to be at lower end of the racial abuse scale, surely. Would it be wrong to call a person from Yorkshire a 'pudding eater'? And it's made clear on an Essex followers board what the chair is alleged to have said and while it's not a phrase I've heard this century In wouldn't be at all surprised if many here have heard it, and possibly used it, in the past.
It's all about context, much in the same way you don't call a black person a monkey.
A nursery nurse I heard of referred to a BAME child as a 'little monkey' and all hell broke loose. The child had been mildly misbehaving and AIUI the nurse remarked to the mother when she came to collect him that 'he's been a little monkey today'. A phrase which I've often heard about a misbehaving child. Indeed there are several nurseries locally called "Cheeky Monkeys".
Using the tests I suggested below:
Would a white child be called a little monkey? Is the phrase ever used in the positive?
I think here there is a massive difference between curry muncher and little monkey, as yes, a white child might be called a little monkey and it is mostly used affectionately.
Yes.
"Little monkey" is routine, and fine. Might avoid if I was with an obsessive person who habitually flies off the handle. "Curry muncher" - imo that is stereotyping and insulting, in the same sort of category as "raghead" for Middle Easterners.
Exactly , there is no way little Monkey can be construed as racist, the other one is almost certain to be.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Actually, that's not true. Community mental health services in primary care have hugely increased. (What has happened in secondary care I'm not sure)
And on another point, the UC personal allowance is uprated with respect to inflation every April.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice
If you think directors loans and dividend payments are common, may I respectfully suggest you are spectacularly, mind bogglingly out of touch. Most people never go anywhere near this sort of thing.
Andrew Marr set about Rayner over Starmer's second job earnings and inappropriate use of his office and he was relentless
Apparently she wants to ban lawyers second jobs and all internal domestic flights by politicians
Interesting
That wasn't quite what I heard her say.
In what way
See Mr Eek's post upthread; she pointed out that plane was cheaper than train and made a brief case for a rethink on train and plane prices.
She did prevaricate a bit about Starmer's once upon a time second job, though.
Train Glasgow to London is £15 quid nowadays , centre to centre so much cheaper than plane, however as these greedy gits will not do anything less than charge us first class, limo's etc you may be correct, all in those great rules of course.
No, it's £79 upwards, one way, depending on the time of day (I'm checking the National Rail site, several weeks ahead).
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
The research says rather different, in fact ; people doing a job that is rewarding is very good for their physical and mental health, people doing a job that they hate leads to physical and mental illness and early death.
HM The Queen will not attend the Remembrance Service today because of a 'back problem'.
She’s dead, isn’t she. Fake photo of her driving, sudden cancellations. London Bridge is down, but they are handling the presentation...
Johnson twenty point polling lead and a snap election when London Bridge falls?
So let us hope London Bridge does not fall. I can't imagine HMQs horror that a Chuckle Brother will oversee her mourning, especially as she has known for decades another will become King.
HM The Queen will not attend the Remembrance Service today because of a 'back problem'.
She’s dead, isn’t she. Fake photo of her driving, sudden cancellations. London Bridge is down, but they are handling the presentation...
They reckon The Queen's funeral and mourning period will be a super spreader event so they'll announce it during the summer.
Or she hates our armed forces by shamefully disrespecting them like this.
Personally I hope London Bridge hasn't fallen, and won't for a while. What comes next doesn't bear thinking about!
Nonetheless, it is story that were it true would stop the Conservatives sleaze narrative dead in its tracks. This is why I doubt such a revelation is being withheld.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
The research says rather different, in fact ; people doing a job that is rewarding is very good for their mental health, people doing a job that they hate leads to illness and early death.
Of course getting a fulfilling job is ideal, but please show me any research at all showing that unemployment is better for people's mental health than working.
I don't believe you. If you're comparing bad jobs with good jobs then of course bad jobs are worse, but if you're saying never working is better than doing so then I don't believe that.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Everything is technical, within the rules etc for you silver spoon Eton halfwits. A few brain cells would allow you lot to see the public just see you lot as lying cheating baddies.
Two points:
My post was clear: “the optics… look horrible”. I think it’s quite clear that I appreciate the issue with public perception.
Secondly, resorting to insults is unwarranted. I was a scholar at Eton and my father ran a modest sized business.
Charles, you qualified it as just business as usual , with a flippant "the optics look bad". To any normal person who did not go to Eton , is not awash with cash and can just snap a finger and get multiple millions out of the ether at a moment's notice it does not sound as if you think it is in any way strange. This from a man who voted to take £20 a week from the poorest in the land. I am afraid "optics not looking good" does not cut it.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Actually, that's not true. Community mental health services in primary care have hugely increased. (What has happened in secondary care I'm not sure)
And on another point, the UC personal allowance is uprated with respect to inflation every April.
Community mental health is in an extremely bad way in London, having just seen a relative's experience. Catastrophically under-resourced and under-staffed, I would describe it as. The police are often doing the job instead, badly.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
“Bad politics” is not the same as “wrong”
“Wrong” is either a legal or a moral judgement
We know - from the information available - that it is not a legal question. We also have the high court judgement that no tax payer has to structure their affairs to maximise the tax paid.
So it must be an ethical issue for you. Please expand.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
There's a whole heap of mental disorders which are made markedly worse by most kinds of job, including most kinds of anxiety.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Hope you end up on UC and we will see what you think then when you are on here whining about it
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
It’s like playing a game of football, except one side uses its wealth and connections to make the rules in their favour and control the ref.
They claim it’s all legal and above board, despite creating strict rules and harsh penalties for others.
Ironically, despite their advantages, they can’t even stick to the rules they themselves created. Such is their entitlement.
That is pretty much how the Old Etonians et al codified the laws of football!
I agree with this Analogy, for any other party to win an election, apart from the tories, is like Liverpool v Southend, southend are down to 9, and then they find out the referee has been bought, apart from the Blairs years when they had the referee in their pocket.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
That's a very middle-class point of view. Many jobs are not satisfying in themselves but are tolerable and provide status, income, human interaction etc. Many people do not want progression, and in fact if you think about it, most organisations are a pyramid structure so most people can't have it.
I, for example, have taken the view that my people skills are ill-suited to management and, at 56, I don't want the shit.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice
If you think directors loans and dividend payments are common, may I respectfully suggest you are spectacularly, mind bogglingly out of touch. Most people never go anywhere near this sort of thing.
you under play how out of touch he is.
The problem is we’re governed by people who have always had the bank of mum and dad sitting behind them.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
The mental health benefits of work are commonly overdone. Everyone's experience is different, of course, but most jobs aren't a vocation and a great many, perhaps most, are hard, boring, shitty chores that people only endure because they have no choice: the number of lottery jackpot winners of working age who don't have "hand in my notice" at or very close to the top of their to-do list is vanishingly small.
As the old saying goes, nobody on their deathbed wishes that they'd spent more time at work.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Hope you end up on UC and we will see what you think then when you are on here whining about it
Well if I do end up on UC then I'd rather see the taper relief cut so that I can work and earn more, than be sat at home not doing anything. Which would you prefer in that situation?
I've always deplored the fact that we tax those on UC too much trapping people in poverty. Ending the poverty trap is more important than giving a few quid more.
How Tory . If you believed Douglas4Moray's utter lying drivel about his forgetting to declare £30K of earnings because he just forgot, then if anyon can eplain why he remembered to claim 84p for utilities but “forgot” 30 grand then I will be amazed.
Probably his office manager claims and this is just a reporting breakout from a bigger claim.
Yet his office manager missed £30K, pull the other one it plays bells. If you are meticulous and greedy enough to reclaim 84P then there is no chance you could forget £30K. How can you try to justify such crookedness.
I’d imagine his office manager handled the office bills not his salary.
This is clearly a screw up by Ross. He’s not trying to steal money or do anything dodgy (the referee earnings don’t impact on his job & I understand he gives away the MSP salary).
It is all out in the open and publicly known as well. He’s not trying to hide anything.
He made a mistake. He should be criticised and made to correct it. But I don’t think he’s being “crooked” if there is no personal benefit.
It also looks as if there are rumblings about the internal investigation which Barclays did when all this first surfaced and its thoroughness.
What I find odd is this statement -
"Barclays has made it clear that the investigation by the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority did not find that Staley “saw or was aware of any of Mr Epstein’s alleged crimes”.
How can they say this with a straight face. Staley, it is reported, visited Epstein in prison after he had been convicted in 2009 for procuring a child for prostitution.
"alleged crimes"? "Not aware"?
That claim might be plausible before conviction. But afterwards?
There is also some history between the FCA and Barclays re Staley. The FCA really failed to deal adequately with Staley's misbehaviour over a bank whistleblower, in part because Barclays had already done an internal investigation. It looked as if the FCA were bounced into accepting that investigation and not taking tougher action. A mistake.
I know nothing about the case, but it's an interesting question how far you remain friends with someone who does something terrible. On the whole, I think yes, because we all recognise that we're complex creatures, and the reason you're friends probably has nothing to do with the act that horrifies you. Obviously there are limits and it deepends on the level of friendship, as well as on the degree of remorse, but on the whole it's the moment they need your friendship most.
So actually I don't think a bank appointment should hinge on whether the applicant has a friend who's done something nasty.
It appears he didn’t disclose the extent of his relationship to the regulators. They take a very dim view of that
, you mean one of his club chums will tell him he is a naughty boy
No. I mean that he didn’t disclose material relevant information to his regulator. That leads to a break down in trust and questions about whether he is a fit and proper person to be the CEO of a major UK bank
Nothing will happen , that is a certainty. He will stay be braying like a donkey in Westminster. Sure it will be within the rules or technically correct.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
That's a very middle-class point of view. Many jobs are not satisfying in themselves but are tolerable and provide status, income, human interaction etc. Many people do not want progression, and in fact if you think about it, most organisations are a pyramid structure so most people can't have it.
I, for example, have taken the view that my people skills are ill-suited to management and, at 56, I don't want the shit.
It's definitely about satisfaction and fulfilment but not always about progression too, I wouldn't say. Some people might find working as a farmhand or somewhere else with animals, more fulfilling than working in a supermarket or a factory, for instance.
HM The Queen will not attend the Remembrance Service today because of a 'back problem'.
She’s dead, isn’t she. Fake photo of her driving, sudden cancellations. London Bridge is down, but they are handling the presentation...
They reckon The Queen's funeral and mourning period will be a super spreader event so they'll announce it during the summer.
Or she hates our armed forces by shamefully disrespecting them like this.
Regardless of your views on the monarchy this is someone’s mother and grandmother you are talking about.
People should remember that when they slag off Meghan Markle.
You can criticise someone for their actions (even the Queen).
But snide comments speculating on someone’s death are distasteful
Well, some of us are into black comedy and find it actually helps with distressing subjects.
Quite, and to be honest when the end comes, the nation is going to have a very tough time. Some will be very sad, and want to wallow in it. Some will accept that a loved elderly lady has died and then move on, some will be outraged by the endless media furore and the cancellation of Eastenders. The black humour helps. I suspect the trenches of WW1 and the bomb shelters of WW2 were full of black humour. It’s a coping mechanism.
If she does cross Bifrost soon it's going make republicanism a very hot issue in the imminent Australian election.
Not what it is already, Albanese has said he will hold another referendum on the monarchy, Morrison is a monarchist and won't.
In any case the divide in Australia is largely along party lines, Labor voters for a republic, Coalition voters for a monarchy, I suspect Morrison will get at least 1 more term anyway as he leads still as preferred PM
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
“Bad politics” is not the same as “wrong”
“Wrong” is either a legal or a moral judgement
We know - from the information available - that it is not a legal question. We also have the high court judgement that no tax payer has to structure their affairs to maximise the tax paid.
So it must be an ethical issue for you. Please expand.
How so? If I say it is wrong to draw to an inside straight, that's not a legal or moral judgment. In this case the answer is, politically wrong.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
There is a problem with public transport though. Round my way, many bus services haven't recovered from (already poor) pre-pandemic levels. Increasing the practical difficulties in getting to work.
Having said that, get a job, put up with the shit for a bit, move on to something more suitable (or mitigate it by eg learning to drive) doesn't seem to strike many people as a suitable strategy.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
Andrew Marr set about Rayner over Starmer's second job earnings and inappropriate use of his office and he was relentless
Apparently she wants to ban lawyers second jobs and all internal domestic flights by politicians
Interesting
That wasn't quite what I heard her say.
In what way
See Mr Eek's post upthread; she pointed out that plane was cheaper than train and made a brief case for a rethink on train and plane prices.
She did prevaricate a bit about Starmer's once upon a time second job, though.
Marr asked if she would ban lawyers and she did say yes
I agree about her comments about making train travel cheaper
So if lawyers cannot maintain their qualifications and experience who is going to fill the roles of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General in a future Labour government?
Did he ask her that?
He struggled to get a word in at times but the idea is nonsense
How about lawyers being expected to provide their services in house to the Gov't as part of the deal being an MP ?
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
The research says rather different, in fact ; people doing a job that is rewarding is very good for their mental health, people doing a job that they hate leads to illness and early death.
Of course getting a fulfilling job is ideal, but please show me any research at all showing that unemployment is better for people's mental health than working.
I don't believe you. If you're comparing bad jobs with good jobs then of course bad jobs are worse, but if you're saying never working is better than doing so then I don't believe that.
... says someone who posts almost 24/7 on PoliticalBetting.com. Or do you consider that work?
Either way, your choice, but you do see the irony of your last few statements on UC don't you?
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
That's a very middle-class point of view. Many jobs are not satisfying in themselves but are tolerable and provide status, income, human interaction etc. Many people do not want progression, and in fact if you think about it, most organisations are a pyramid structure so most people can't have it.
I, for example, have taken the view that my people skills are ill-suited to management and, at 56, I don't want the shit.
That wasn't my point at all. It was. Having a job, of any kind, is better for your mental health than not, is a statement often made, but has no evidence. The research behind it was based on fulfilling work. Not on work. There isn't any class about it. Of course plenty folk are happy doing what they do. But the simple fact of being employed is not a magic cure for mental ill health. No matter how many times it is repeated.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.
Popped to the shops and checked out the front pages while I was in the queue - apart from The Observer’s Acura story, didn’t seem to be much Sleaze on show. Maybe the secondary story in The Times?
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
And a massive disconnect between where the vacancies are and where people live, with what the vacancies pay and the expenses the unemployed would occur (travel / childcare) etc etc.
Bollocks, that's an excuse.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
There is a problem with public transport though. Round my way, many bus services haven't recovered from (already poor) pre-pandemic levels. Increasing the practical difficulties in getting to work.
Having said that, get a job, put up with the shit for a bit, move on to something more suitable (or mitigate it by eg learning to drive) doesn't seem to strike many people as a suitable strategy.
It is the golden rule of job seeking that it is always easier to get a (new) job if you already have a job, so being prepared to be flexible in securing an initial job will serve someone well.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
That's a very middle-class point of view. Many jobs are not satisfying in themselves but are tolerable and provide status, income, human interaction etc. Many people do not want progression, and in fact if you think about it, most organisations are a pyramid structure so most people can't have it.
I, for example, have taken the view that my people skills are ill-suited to management and, at 56, I don't want the shit.
That wasn't my point at all. It was. Having a job, of any kind, is better for your mental health than not, is a statement often made, but has no evidence. The research behind it was based on fulfilling work. Not on work. There isn't any class about it. Of course plenty folk are happy doing what they do. But the simple fact of being employed is not a magic cure for mental ill health. No matter how many times it is repeated.
Indeed. What this idea is in fact rooted in is the moralising of the New Right in the late 1970's, amid their worry over post-1960s culture. There was no concept of it being anything to do with mental health then, or any job whatsoever, regardles of type, being good for that ; this has essentially been bolted on in the decades since as a more 'politically correct' , in the terminology of the right, context.
Andrew Marr set about Rayner over Starmer's second job earnings and inappropriate use of his office and he was relentless
Apparently she wants to ban lawyers second jobs and all internal domestic flights by politicians
Interesting
That wasn't quite what I heard her say.
In what way
See Mr Eek's post upthread; she pointed out that plane was cheaper than train and made a brief case for a rethink on train and plane prices.
She did prevaricate a bit about Starmer's once upon a time second job, though.
Train Glasgow to London is £15 quid nowadays , centre to centre so much cheaper than plane, however as these greedy gits will not do anything less than charge us first class, limo's etc you may be correct, all in those great rules of course.
No, it's £79 upwards, one way, depending on the time of day (I'm checking the National Rail site, several weeks ahead).
Well they advertise that it costs from £15 and if I look it says from £27 so there are cheap tickets there for sure. I bet taking cheapest train would always be lower than car parking , plane and train into London. Of course they are used to first class all the way at public expense so that may make a difference.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Yes but it allows the Cayman Islands to be mentioned which may quicklly move on to why is someone in the UK using a location famous for tax avoidance.
It sounds like it is just a property holding company though so I’d assume that JRM is paying the enveloped dwelling tax
I wonder whether the transfer of assets abroad anti-avoidance tax provisions are applicable to this structure?
It sounds like it receives his share of Somerset Capital’s distributions.
So he is accruing money offshore on a gross basis and only reporting for UK tax when money is distributed to him. Which is entirely legal. The directors loan is a cute way to get around the tax on distributions which is why the government introduced both the minimum interest rate and the “loan” that you have to make to the government until the director's loan is repaid
The issue with all of this is the narrative. Another Tory toff earning vast sums offshore. No wonder the red wall Tory MPs are going up the wall.
If the anti avoidance rules apply, the distributions up to the cayman island company would be directly taxable on JRM even if they are retained within that company.
It’s the other way round?
Somerset Capital (caymans) manages money - presumably for US clients as it’s usually the US that uses Cayman island structures
JRM Co (Cayman)* owns his interest in Somerset Capital (Cayman). Distributions taxed at the Cayman rate
JRM Co (UK) owns JRM Co (Cayman). Dividends are taxed as income to the UK company.
JRM Co (UK) lends money to JRM (person). Minimum interest rate plus requirement to make an interest free loan to the UK government of 25% of the outstanding balance of it is outstanding for more than 1 year.
I don’t think anti-avoidance applies here?
* don’t know the actual name but this will do
Thanks Charles.
You appear to know much more about the structure than I do.
If it is a UK resident company at the top, then the transfer of assets abroad anti avoidance tax legislation is unlikely to apply.
As you say the dividends from Cayman to Uk Co would be subject to corporation tax, as the dividend exemption is unlikely to apply.
However the loans to participators rules could apply to the loans to JRM so that the UK resident company would have to pay a temporary tax to HMRC of 32.5% of the loan made. This could be repayable if the loan was repayed.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
The research says rather different, in fact ; people doing a job that is rewarding is very good for their mental health, people doing a job that they hate leads to illness and early death.
Of course getting a fulfilling job is ideal, but please show me any research at all showing that unemployment is better for people's mental health than working.
I don't believe you. If you're comparing bad jobs with good jobs then of course bad jobs are worse, but if you're saying never working is better than doing so then I don't believe that.
... says someone who posts almost 24/7 on PoliticalBetting.com. Or do you consider that work?
Either way, your choice, but you do see the irony of your last few statements on UC don't you?
That's an exaggeration by far, I probably spend less time on PB.com than smokers spend going outside for smoke breaks.
No irony no, I think trapping people who are on UC in poverty by having a very high real tax rate on them is absolutely disgusting. Under Brown people on Tax Credits could face a real 100% tax rate, under UC it used to be a real 75% tax rate. Today its now 70% after the taper cut - that's a start but its still disgustingly high.
We shouldn't have anyone facing a real tax rate over 50% let alone the poorest in society. Ending that situation is more important than giving a few pounds more to people who can't be bothered to work.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
There's a whole heap of mental disorders which are made markedly worse by most kinds of job, including most kinds of anxiety.
Indeed. But healthcare professionals don't seem to understand that we live in a world where you support yourself by going out to work.
I once wanted to ask a psychiatrist consultant how he would cope with having to live the rest of his life on benefits... of course he will never have to.
How Tory . If you believed Douglas4Moray's utter lying drivel about his forgetting to declare £30K of earnings because he just forgot, then if anyon can eplain why he remembered to claim 84p for utilities but “forgot” 30 grand then I will be amazed.
Probably his office manager claims and this is just a reporting breakout from a bigger claim.
Yet his office manager missed £30K, pull the other one it plays bells. If you are meticulous and greedy enough to reclaim 84P then there is no chance you could forget £30K. How can you try to justify such crookedness.
I’d imagine his office manager handled the office bills not his salary.
This is clearly a screw up by Ross. He’s not trying to steal money or do anything dodgy (the referee earnings don’t impact on his job & I understand he gives away the MSP salary).
It is all out in the open and publicly known as well. He’s not trying to hide anything.
He made a mistake. He should be criticised and made to correct it. But I don’t think he’s being “crooked” if there is no personal benefit.
Once again you are talking like an Eton boy, ordinary people do not forget £30K , they don't earn that in a year. You are talking about how over privileged Tories see things. Impossible I know but imagine your wallet did not have £30K in it but only a £5. If someone had given you £30K would you forget it. One assumes he had remembered to put it in his tax return.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
The mental health benefits of work are commonly overdone. Everyone's experience is different, of course, but most jobs aren't a vocation and a great many, perhaps most, are hard, boring, shitty chores that people only endure because they have no choice: the number of lottery jackpot winners of working age who don't have "hand in my notice" at or very close to the top of their to-do list is vanishingly small.
As the old saying goes, nobody on their deathbed wishes that they'd spent more time at work.
In my limited experience there are clearly some people who benefit from the structure and organisation work gives to their lives but there are many others for whom work is simply depressing drudgery where they get ordered around and bullied by some half wit with a promoted post. Personally, I am a boring old fart who would really struggle to know what to do with his time without work but many people seem to fill their time without it all too easily. Some people get some self respect paying their way and making a contribution, some don't. I don't think generalisations that work is either good or bad for you are particularly useful.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
There's a whole heap of mental disorders which are made markedly worse by most kinds of job, including most kinds of anxiety.
Indeed. But healthcare professionals don't seem to understand that we live in a world where you support yourself by going out to work.
I once wanted to ask a psychiatrist consultant how he would cope with having to live the rest of his life on benefits... of course he will never have to.
But they live in a world where they write you a ticket and you no longer support yourself by going out to work.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
It's very hard to find free childcare willing to provide it at evenings and weekends.
Childcare support is available via UC too, for evenings and weekends too.
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Hope you end up on UC and we will see what you think then when you are on here whining about it
Well if I do end up on UC then I'd rather see the taper relief cut so that I can work and earn more, than be sat at home not doing anything. Which would you prefer in that situation?
I've always deplored the fact that we tax those on UC too much trapping people in poverty. Ending the poverty trap is more important than giving a few quid more.
I only know very few people on UC and none of the three could do an hour's work never mind extra hours. They have too many medical and mental health issues to be capable of working.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Getting and holding a job is good for people's mental health.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
An oft quoted factoid. Totally unsupported by any research. A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
That's a very middle-class point of view. Many jobs are not satisfying in themselves but are tolerable and provide status, income, human interaction etc. Many people do not want progression, and in fact if you think about it, most organisations are a pyramid structure so most people can't have it.
I, for example, have taken the view that my people skills are ill-suited to management and, at 56, I don't want the shit.
It's definitely about satisfaction and fulfilment but not always about progression too, I wouldn't say. Some people might find working as a farmhand or somewhere else with animals, more fulfilling than working in a supermarket or a factory, for instance.
If you are in a job which suits you, is satisfying, where you like the people you work with and that pays you enough to live comfortably - as is the case with me, I'm glad to say - then you're very lucky. And even I would jack it all in tomorrow if presented with a couple of million quid.
I do agree with the point about progression though. We were discussing this on here the other week - the fact that being utterly disinterested in having a career is a common taboo that isn't confronted enough. One of the things that does aggravate me about my current role is the annual performance reviews in which everyone, even those who are very near to retirement, is invariably lumbered with several new "objectives" that they have to complete each year. Why those of us who don't aspire to moving departments or becoming managers can't just have one objective, i.e. to do our current job well, Christ alone knows.
EXCL: Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes first Cabinet minister dragged into outside interests row - after not declaring £6m in cheap loans from his Cayman Islands-linked company
Again it’s a really technical breach so I can’t see it deserves anything but a reprimand from the standards commissioner at most.
But the optics, like Cox, look horrible
Get a grip Charles! For some people six million quid is a lot of money particularly for home decoration. And how many Hartlipudlians can call on a little sideline in the Caymen Islands to provide the cash?
That’s what I meant by “optics”.
Objectively he’s obeyed all the rules (possibly a technical breach but a loan from a company he owns to himself can’t be more than that).
But it’s a big number and it mentions the Cayman Islands. So I’m sure people who dislike him will attack him energetically
It is possible to be wrong and still be within the law. The ultra rich bending the rules and manipulating a system they created is not ok. It’s doubly not ok when they impose strict regimes on people on the breadline.
It’s more than optics.
Please, do set out what is wrong about it?
Directors loans vs. dividend payments is a common choice in this situation (which obviously only relates to a comparatively small number of people)
"What is wrong with it?" Really? There are a significant number of first time Tory voters who literally gave the government its majority. Largely these are people who work very hard and don't think they get just rewards - life is a struggle and they have been offered a solution.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
UC wasn't cut though. It was temporarily increased to reflect the increased difficulty finding work during a pandemic. And the reduction in the taper rate will improve the lot of those who are working.
Living costs and inflation have increased hugely since it was announced, meaning that people not in work have taken a real terms cut. The two people I know working for Trussell have already reported things getting worse again on foodbank demand. Increased homelessness rates will follow too, as with every other real terms cut. I expect Therese Coffey doesn't need to worry, she can take another dubious sum from the Jockey Club.
If the people not in work have taken a real terms cut then maybe they should work.
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
A number of the long-term unemployed have long-term mental health issues, for which support has been absolutely eviscerated in the community over the last 10 years. They'll just slide deeper into isolation and destitution, and more children will be under-nourished.
Actually, that's not true. Community mental health services in primary care have hugely increased. (What has happened in secondary care I'm not sure)
And on another point, the UC personal allowance is uprated with respect to inflation every April.
Community mental health is in an extremely bad way in London, having just seen a relative's experience. Catastrophically under-resourced and under-staffed, I would describe it as. The police are often doing the job instead, badly.
It is same in Scotland , only way you can get any treatment is to call police and have them arrested as dangerous, they then get taken out in cuffs and committed till authorities decide to let them out. Lots of fine words about care teams etc etc but in practice you have no chance.
Comments
That's what is wrong about it.
My post was clear: “the optics… look horrible”. I think it’s quite clear that I appreciate the issue with public perception.
Secondly, resorting to insults is unwarranted. I was a scholar at Eton and my father ran a modest sized business.
I hope she is not suffering like that because it is awful. But when backs go, your wishes are immaterial, Queen or no.
The issue for the Tories is simple. They have repeatedly and consistently voted to make life harder - not easier - for these voters. A lot of people work much harder than we do and still need UC to just about struggle along. Which your lot have cut. And the people lucky enough not to have to use UC are facing big tax rises and enjoying big fuel price rises.
If you can't see how Tory toffs being able to loan themselves £2m to buy another property causes a problem, you really are disconnected from politics.
I booked tickets to London back in early October for mid December. Cost £250 all in for 2 adults.
Somerset Capital (caymans) manages money - presumably for US clients as it’s usually the US that uses Cayman island structures
JRM Co (Cayman)* owns his interest in Somerset Capital (Cayman). Distributions taxed at the Cayman rate
JRM Co (UK) owns JRM Co (Cayman). Dividends are taxed as income to the UK company.
JRM Co (UK) lends money to JRM (person). Minimum interest rate plus requirement to make an interest free loan to the UK government of 25% of the outstanding balance of it is outstanding for more than 1 year.
I don’t think anti-avoidance applies here?
* don’t know the actual name but this will do
For anyone who's not working full time, then the option of doing so is available - and childcare support is available for those on UC so that they can.
They claim it’s all legal and above board, despite creating strict rules and harsh penalties for others.
Ironically, despite their advantages, they can’t even stick to the rules they themselves created. Such is their entitlement.
£20 less a week is a cut. A massive cut for many. Though I would love to hear a Tory activist on the doorstep explaining to someone on the doorstep that actually the £20 cut wasn't a cut actually and anyway they have actually changed the taper rate.
Plus the massive risk, that the first public announcement comes from Harry.
It is appropriate that people working full time are better off, is it not?
We have millions of job vacancies in this country.
Regardless dragging things like this up from the past says just as much if not more than the person who said it, far too many losers looking for attention nowadays. Lots of jumping on bandwagons nowadays , bit like all these z listers who go on "I am a celebrity get me out of here".
For me -
There's a 100% chance that Sturgeon will push hard for a Sindy2 in this parliament.
There's also a 100% chance that Johnson will push back against it.
There's a 30% chance that Sturgeon will prevail and the vote will be granted and held.
If it is there's a 30% of Yes winning.
And if it's another No, the header is right, that kills Sindy for the foreseeable. The notion the SNP will be back in no time demanding another vote is a nonsense. One needs to suspend all powers of reason and political logic to believe this.
So, running the numbers, there's just shy of a 10% chance of Sindy happening in this parliament under this Tory government and granting the vote has a 70% chance of securing the union.
And not granting the vote? IMO this is probably only delaying matters. There's still an 80% chance of it happening before 2030 and there's then a 50% chance of Yes winning. Therefore there's a 40% chance of Sindy happening by 2030 if the vote is denied now,
Jobs are available if people want to work, if they don't, then that's their choice.
Paying people to stay at home is not.
Surely?
Edward is depping for her at the General Synod later this week, though.
(Now voting for GS- there's a complex, opaque bit of politics to bet on...)
And on another point, the UC personal allowance is uprated with respect to inflation every April.
Name a town in this country where there are zero vacancies. That's bullshit.
If people want to find a job, they can. That's what full employment means, and you keep banging on about how we need to import people from Eastern Europe and yet you think that there's no vacancies? Bullshit, just bullshit.
So let us hope London Bridge does not fall. I can't imagine HMQs horror that a Chuckle Brother will oversee her mourning, especially as she has known for decades another will become King. Personally I hope London Bridge hasn't fallen, and won't for a while. What comes next doesn't bear thinking about!
Nonetheless, it is story that were it true would stop the Conservatives sleaze narrative dead in its tracks. This is why I doubt such a revelation is being withheld.
Totally unsupported by any research.
A job which is satisfying and provides the prospect of clear progression is.
Edit. I see @WhisperingOracle has picked up this ball.
I don't believe you. If you're comparing bad jobs with good jobs then of course bad jobs are worse, but if you're saying never working is better than doing so then I don't believe that.
I am afraid "optics not looking good" does not cut it.
“Wrong” is either a legal or a moral judgement
We know - from the information available - that it is not a legal question. We also have the high court judgement that no tax payer has to structure their affairs to maximise the tax paid.
So it must be an ethical issue for you. Please expand.
I, for example, have taken the view that my people skills are ill-suited to management and, at 56, I don't want the shit.
As the old saying goes, nobody on their deathbed wishes that they'd spent more time at work.
I've always deplored the fact that we tax those on UC too much trapping people in poverty. Ending the poverty trap is more important than giving a few quid more.
This is clearly a screw up by Ross. He’s not trying to steal money or do anything dodgy (the referee earnings don’t impact on his job & I understand he gives away the MSP salary).
It is all out in the open and publicly known as well. He’s not trying to hide anything.
He made a mistake. He should be criticised and made to correct it. But I don’t think he’s being “crooked” if there is no personal benefit.
In any case the divide in Australia is largely along party lines, Labor voters for a republic, Coalition voters for a monarchy, I suspect Morrison will get at least 1 more term anyway as he leads still as preferred PM
Having said that, get a job, put up with the shit for a bit, move on to something more suitable (or mitigate it by eg learning to drive) doesn't seem to strike many people as a suitable strategy.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
Either way, your choice, but you do see the irony of your last few statements on UC don't you?
The research behind it was based on fulfilling work.
Not on work. There isn't any class about it.
Of course plenty folk are happy doing what they do.
But the simple fact of being employed is not a magic cure for mental ill health. No matter how many times it is repeated.
Of course they are used to first class all the way at public expense so that may make a difference.
You appear to know much more about the structure than I do.
If it is a UK resident company at the top, then the transfer of assets abroad anti avoidance tax legislation is unlikely to apply.
As you say the dividends from Cayman to Uk Co would be subject to corporation tax, as the dividend exemption is unlikely to apply.
However the loans to participators rules could apply to the loans to JRM so that the UK resident company would have to pay a temporary tax to HMRC of 32.5% of the loan made. This could be repayable if the loan was repayed.
No irony no, I think trapping people who are on UC in poverty by having a very high real tax rate on them is absolutely disgusting. Under Brown people on Tax Credits could face a real 100% tax rate, under UC it used to be a real 75% tax rate. Today its now 70% after the taper cut - that's a start but its still disgustingly high.
We shouldn't have anyone facing a real tax rate over 50% let alone the poorest in society. Ending that situation is more important than giving a few pounds more to people who can't be bothered to work.
*True Scotsmen.
I once wanted to ask a psychiatrist consultant how he would cope with having to live the rest of his life on benefits... of course he will never have to.
I do agree with the point about progression though. We were discussing this on here the other week - the fact that being utterly disinterested in having a career is a common taboo that isn't confronted enough. One of the things that does aggravate me about my current role is the annual performance reviews in which everyone, even those who are very near to retirement, is invariably lumbered with several new "objectives" that they have to complete each year. Why those of us who don't aspire to moving departments or becoming managers can't just have one objective, i.e. to do our current job well, Christ alone knows.