I'd say the US Justice System needs to apply its principle of equality before the law to ex-Presidents who are convicted of, or on trial for, civil or criminal offences.
This is the most recent I've noticed. For some reason he does not mention his exploitation of his position as owner / promoter of pageants to wander around the back rooms of pageants filled with half dressed teenage girls.
They've given him far too much preferential treatment already, IMO. Now he's displaying open contempt for court orders on a daily basis.
I am really not seeing how that is not a breach of his gag order. His bail should be revoked.
Tomorrow the court starts jury selection which may well take 2-3 weeks (our juries are usually selected in about 10 minutes). Can we really have this sort of nonsense being espoused for those potential jurors to hear and read? Its truly extraordinary. Once again we see Trump double standards: he can't get a fair trial in Manhattan because New Yorkers are biased against him but he can seek to influence jurors with the most outrageous allegations of judicial bias.
This strikes me as a slightly odd charge, there may be an argument that what we have here is a misdemeanour rather than a felony let alone 30 odd felonies. It's not of itself enormously serious but even Donald Trump does not actually contest he did it. All he contests is the right of anyone to hold him accountable for it. He seriously seems to believe that he is above the law. In fairness, he has got away with so much in his life that he has a lot of evidence to point to to back up that belief. Hopefully, this is about to change.
It is possible the excitement gets dissipated if Trump pleads guilty to a series of downgraded misdemeanour charges and gets a fine. Misdemeanour being less politically toxic than "convicted felon Donald Trump...".
However, uncertain whether that would be offered or accepted. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer/consiglieri, has done jail time for the very felony circumstances at the centre of this case. And Cohen wants vengeance. This is not about "bookkeeping errors". This is about hiding from the voters that Trump bought the silence of those who would otherwise have shared with the voters the true nature of the candidate. You might call it election interference.
You might but that is not the charge. And suggesting that politicians trying to hide a bit of bad or embarrassing news is "election interference" is a somewhat tricky road to go down. Was Blair's lies about Iraq in the 2005 election interference?
I did read a piece indicating that the smart move by Trump's lawyers was to offer pleas to a misdemeanour charge but I am not sure he would let them do it.
The charges ARE all about election interference in that they relate to abuse of campaign finance limits.
As for Australia, I assumed it was an Islamist marauding attack.
You'd have to be pretty dense, and oblivious to previous attacks and Islamist MOs not to consider that as a likely option.
There have been enough attacks - like the recent one in Nottingham - that haven't been Islamist, that there's no way of knowing until the evidence one way or the other emerges.
So, yeah, it's obviously likely, but you'd have to be pretty dense to assume anything about it.
law of averages says you would pick that if you want to get in early, you would generally be correct.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Also on Mr Trump, I see that Aimee Harris, the woman who stole Mr Biden's daughter's private diaries and sold them to a Trump campaign group has been given a month in prison, and various fines and bits and pieces.
She had a number of no-shows at Court, and would not have been up for prison. The prosecution had originally asked for 6 months' house arrest.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
I'd say the US Justice System needs to apply its principle of equality before the law to ex-Presidents who are convicted of, or on trial for, civil or criminal offences.
This is the most recent I've noticed. For some reason he does not mention his exploitation of his position as owner / promoter of pageants to wander around the back rooms of pageants filled with half dressed teenage girls.
Isn’t Trump himself from New York?
Not sure about originally, but it's been his career forever.
This is apparently why he does not understand NY law, and employs lawyers who do not either.
These Tory MPs calling for Angela Rayner to resign over £1,500 actually went out and defended Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi when he owed HMRC £4.8 MILLION QUID.
Excuse me!
Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer Nadim Zehawi when he owed HMRC £4.8 MILLION QUID.
I'd say the US Justice System needs to apply its principle of equality before the law to ex-Presidents who are convicted of, or on trial for, civil or criminal offences.
This is the most recent I've noticed. For some reason he does not mention his exploitation of his position as owner / promoter of pageants to wander around the back rooms of pageants filled with half dressed teenage girls.
They've given him far too much preferential treatment already, IMO. Now he's displaying open contempt for court orders on a daily basis.
I am really not seeing how that is not a breach of his gag order. His bail should be revoked.
Tomorrow the court starts jury selection which may well take 2-3 weeks (our juries are usually selected in about 10 minutes). Can we really have this sort of nonsense being espoused for those potential jurors to hear and read? Its truly extraordinary. Once again we see Trump double standards: he can't get a fair trial in Manhattan because New Yorkers are biased against him but he can seek to influence jurors with the most outrageous allegations of judicial bias.
This strikes me as a slightly odd charge, there may be an argument that what we have here is a misdemeanour rather than a felony let alone 30 odd felonies. It's not of itself enormously serious but even Donald Trump does not actually contest he did it. All he contests is the right of anyone to hold him accountable for it. He seriously seems to believe that he is above the law. In fairness, he has got away with so much in his life that he has a lot of evidence to point to to back up that belief. Hopefully, this is about to change.
It is possible the excitement gets dissipated if Trump pleads guilty to a series of downgraded misdemeanour charges and gets a fine. Misdemeanour being less politically toxic than "convicted felon Donald Trump...".
However, uncertain whether that would be offered or accepted. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer/consiglieri, has done jail time for the very felony circumstances at the centre of this case. And Cohen wants vengeance. This is not about "bookkeeping errors". This is about hiding from the voters that Trump bought the silence of those who would otherwise have shared with the voters the true nature of the candidate. You might call it election interference.
You might but that is not the charge. And suggesting that politicians trying to hide a bit of bad or embarrassing news is "election interference" is a somewhat tricky road to go down. Was Blair's lies about Iraq in the 2005 election interference?
I did read a piece indicating that the smart move by Trump's lawyers was to offer pleas to a misdemeanour charge but I am not sure he would let them do it.
The charges ARE all about election interference in that they relate to abuse of campaign finance limits.
Don't think that is correct. This is the summary from Wiki:
"The indictment charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10. Each count is related to a specific business document, each having a date ranging from February 14 through December 5, 2017:[8]
11 for invoices from Michael Cohen 9 for general ledger entries for Donald J. Trump 3 for general ledger entries for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust 8 for checks from Donald J. Trump 2 for checks from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust The allegedly falsified documents are related to Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels as hush money. The payments were listed in the business records as a legal expense payable to Michael Cohen, whereas the indictment alleges that they were actually to reimburse Cohen for the earlier, allegedly illicit, payment to Daniels.[92][93]
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony under New York state law that requires that the "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". This is in contrast to falsifying business records in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor that does not have that requirement.[8][92][93] In later filings, Bragg listed three such crimes that that Trump allegedly intended to commit: violation of federal campaign finance limits, violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.[94] Trump can move to allow the jury the option to convict on the misdemeanor charges as a lesser included offense, but is not required to do so.[95]"
To demonstrate the latter charges the prosecution will need to show that had these been declared as election expenses the limits would have been exceeded. I think that is extremely unlikely. It is much more likely that the false entry is itself a breach of the reporting requirements. The claiming of non recoverable "election expenses" as taxable deductions may well be an offence but I can't say what category it would fall into.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
Or badly advised.
The advice might have been nothing more than "if you keep quiet about it nobody will notice and you wont pay any tax".
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
Maths education has collapsed in the UK. If a couple live in two homes, and both seek the 25% council tax discount, they pay a total of 150% of the bill they would have if they lived together. THAT’S NOT A SCAM YOU MORONS it means she paid EXTRA to live apart.🤦♀️ #fuckssake
I mean it is an Islamist MO for several people to rampage through a public space. Assuming this was one of those instances and not a disgruntled, misogynist surfer affects the response in terms of actions on. I would prefer the assumption be made and then further responders stood down.
What actions are you expecting people on PB to take?
Serious question: who in Britain has read the Britain-Israel defence treaty, or has had it repeated to them orally if it's oral-only and mustn't be written?
Rishi Sunak? Keir Starmer? Everyone who has served as foreign or defence secretary? Their shadows?
Who has a clue what the British government has agreed with Israel regarding war, in flagrant breach of Article 102 of the UN Charter?
The UN seems to be on its last legs. International law more generally will follow. This may have interesting ramifications for financial assets "owned" by sovereign and other entities. See Bismarck on blood and iron.
It was the first time that Iran directly attacked Israel from its own territory, according to Ahron Bregman, a political scientist and expert in Middle East security issues at King’s College in London, who called it an “historic event.”
Iran has largely used foreign proxies to strike Israeli interests, while targeted assassinations of Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists have been a key part of Israel’s strategy.
I'd say the US Justice System needs to apply its principle of equality before the law to ex-Presidents who are convicted of, or on trial for, civil or criminal offences.
This is the most recent I've noticed. For some reason he does not mention his exploitation of his position as owner / promoter of pageants to wander around the back rooms of pageants filled with half dressed teenage girls.
Isn’t Trump himself from New York?
Not sure about originally, but it's been his career forever.
This is apparently why he does not understand NY law, and employs lawyers who do not either.
In fairness he seems to understand it perfectly. The rich are not to be held to account for their actions and criminal charges are for little people of no importance.
Most of that is staff costs. These organisations work on a negotiated price which is cost + margin
Depends what you count as costs. It all smells rather like Thames Water...
CareTech is owned through a company called Amalfi Midco, which is based in Jersey, to the benefit of international investors. They have loaded the company with debts of £780 million, charging CareTech tens of millions of pounds in interest and financial fees.
Not tackling the children's mental health crisis further upstream proves to be very expensive indeed.
My business partner (we have a small toy company as a joint sideline from our real jobs) was head of child mental health services for one of the big trusts. He now teaches child mental health nursing at University of Lincoln, having formally run the same department at Coventry.
When we were talking a few weeks ago he pointed out that mental health care gets 13% of the NHS budget. Child mental health care gets 6% of that 13%. So about 0.8% of the NHS budget.
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
CCHQ, Laura Kuenssberg and Michael Ashcroft have been on. The Rayner scandal has gone awfully quiet on PB over the last 80 posts. Can we ramp it up a little?
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
Or badly advised.
The advice might have been nothing more than "if you keep quiet about it nobody will notice and you wont pay any tax".
Sure. She may end up having to pay extra tax. Point is, there's nothing to the story right now and there will be nothing to it if she does have to pay the extra tax in that case. HMRC will either claim the extra tax or it won't. It only becomes a story if she has misled the tax authorities.
Excellent. 17.4m people voted to shut down places selling foreign muck and replace them with Pie and Mash shops.
I'm confused - is it impossible for an Italian restaurant to employ someone not from Italy??
Of course. If they do not have the genetic experience of wandering through the pasta fields from an early age or cutting the spaghetti trees how can they possibly cope?
Serious question: who in Britain has read the Britain-Israel defence treaty, or has had it repeated to them orally if it's oral-only and mustn't be written?
Rishi Sunak? Keir Starmer? Everyone who has served as foreign or defence secretary? Their shadows?
Who has a clue what the British government has agreed with Israel regarding war, in flagrant breach of Article 102 of the UN Charter?
The UN seems to be on its last legs. International law more generally will follow. This may have interesting ramifications for financial assets "owned" by sovereign and other entities.
Of course it is not in breach of any UN Charter. It is not a formal treaty as covered by the Vienna Convention. It is just a trade and defence deal such as many countries make between themselves, sometimes in public, sometimes in secret.
Do I think we should know what has been agreed? Yes in a democracy we should be told these things. But the claim that it is in breach of any UN charter that we don't know the detail is just garbage.
@Richard_Tyndall , I note you liked my comment about the next article. I've invited you to the message to discuss the preview copy. Can you have a look please, see what you think. I'm crosschecking the trees (the names of the Acts) and need to somebody to look at the wood, so to speak
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
Maths education has collapsed in the UK. If a couple live in two homes, and both seek the 25% council tax discount, they pay a total of 150% of the bill they would have if they lived together. THAT’S NOT A SCAM YOU MORONS it means she paid EXTRA to live apart.🤦♀️ #fuckssake
Lol! Whoever wrote that loses the alpha mark. It's not if they seek it; it's if they get it. And properties have been known to appreciate in value.
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
Excellent. 17.4m people voted to shut down places selling foreign muck and replace them with Pie and Mash shops.
I'm confused - is it impossible for an Italian restaurant to employ someone not from Italy??
Of course. If they do not have the genetic experience of wandering through the pasta fields from an early age or cutting the spaghetti trees how can they possibly cope?
There are skills such as camping it up with an oversize pepper grinder, and getting the timing right on a theatrical ‘prego’ that only an authentic Italian could ever hope to master.
I'd say the US Justice System needs to apply its principle of equality before the law to ex-Presidents who are convicted of, or on trial for, civil or criminal offences.
This is the most recent I've noticed. For some reason he does not mention his exploitation of his position as owner / promoter of pageants to wander around the back rooms of pageants filled with half dressed teenage girls.
Isn’t Trump himself from New York?
Not sure about originally, but it's been his career forever.
This is apparently why he does not understand NY law, and employs lawyers who do not either.
In fairness he seems to understand it perfectly. The rich are not to be held to account for their actions and criminal charges are for little people of no importance.
Bit like the people at the top of our Post Office, then.
Excellent. 17.4m people voted to shut down places selling foreign muck and replace them with Pie and Mash shops.
I'm confused - is it impossible for an Italian restaurant to employ someone not from Italy??
Of course. If they do not have the genetic experience of wandering through the pasta fields from an early age or cutting the spaghetti trees how can they possibly cope?
There are skills such as camping it up with an oversize pepper grinder, and getting the timing right on a theatrical ‘prego’ that only an authentic Italian could ever hope to master.
If I understand correctly, the latest Raynergate scandal is that she allegedly broke electoral law by registering at the wrong address.
Instead of registering at her true address in Stockport, she instead was registered at her other address in Stockport. Thus falsely getting her a vote in Stockport instead of the constituency she should have voted in which was Stockport.
High crimes and misdemeanours indeed. Thank god the Tories - who are free from sin - are doing the public a favour by going after this one.
It’s time barred by a decade and it’s literally she used address 1 in the constituency rather than address 2 in the same constituency.
It’s about as none story as possible because our current MP didn’t even publish his address when he stood last time round (you can opt just to say if you live I the constituency or not).
Good job too as it tied him to a law firm that had recently gone / went bankrupt.
Serious question- are the Tories bonkers? They have been caught with the fingers in the till. Vast amounts of public money corruptly embezzled Gongs sold for cash. And they think there are votes in going after Rayner? For this?
I think what they are doing makes sense (in terms of winning an election, which they won't), although it is far from moral:
a) Put in people's minds that all politicians are all as bad as one another b) Get this story in the media so as to squeeze out any other stories. All the voters hear about are dodgy Labour and nothing else.
Most voters are neither reading the details nor following politics on social media. It is all background stuff that works.
I'm not sure they are thinking it through to that extent Those with an agenda against Rayner including the Conservative Party and allied media see a target so go in for the attack.
However I am much more interested in the honeytrap story, which is much more widespread and organised than just William Wragg, and which certain parts of the media have very limited interest in investigating for some reason. Maybe it's your point (b).
It would of course be concerning if a foreign security service was successfully sexting lots of MPs, but seemingly this isn't the case. So who is behind this and why? That's perhaps even more worrying.
I agree. The successful blackmailing of an MP is very serious in my mind and in particular the blackmailer(s) weren't actually after money either, but to get private contact details of other MPs, which implies it is more widespread and that the motives were far greater.
There are a few comparisons with Profumo. Although not as senior, it is more widespread (so who knows) and not obviously a foreign government (yet).
The scale of the Rwanda scheme is now very different to the large-scale and systematic removals originally promised by ministers
A civil servant told me efforts are geared towards a single flight as “proof of concept”, calling it an “election vanity scam”
Therefore adding to the long-held belief among ministers that the permanent bureaucracy absolutely hates the idea, and will be doing everything they can get away with to prevent the flights from happening.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
Or badly advised.
The advice might have been nothing more than "if you keep quiet about it nobody will notice and you wont pay any tax".
Sure. She may end up having to pay extra tax. Point is, there's nothing to the story right now and there will be nothing to it if she does have to pay the extra tax in that case. HMRC will either claim the extra tax or it won't. It only becomes a story if she has misled the tax authorities.
The story will rumble on until all the details are public.
If HMRC don't investigate then it will be assumed that its another case of 'one law for the rich'.
Which is why I suggested weeks ago that Rayner paid the £1,500 and said "I am confident I have done nothing wrong but those who aspire to be in government must be seen to have both nothing to hide and to be willing to pay their way." She could then contrast her behaviour with that of numerous Conservative grifters and tax dodgers.
Its a trivial amount of money and it all happened before she became an MP.
Unfortunately I can’t view wee Euan’s tweets because like his goddess Rowling he doesn’t like being challenged. Also unfortunately he doesn’t have several million incels to sick onto his critics so he has to adopt more exclusionary methods.
Ukraine must feel more than a tad bitter this morning. Last night showed what a proper air defence system supported by American tech can do. And yet thousands upon thousands of their people have been killed by similar weapons whilst they are given just enough to keep them in the war but not enough to keep their people safe.
I can’t help thinking that it is not going to do much for their somewhat battered morale.
The Iranian drones are almost always shot down by Ukrainian defences.
The missiles are not. And, of course, Ukraine is not alone. Last night also showed how utterly inept the Russian air defence systems are as infrastructure and defence systems are constantly struck by Ukrainian drones deep inside Russia itself.
I frankly wonder how we would have coped.
I don't think you can really make comparisons like that. Russia is extremely large and they've had to deploy a lot of their air defence stuff on the front line of the war they're fighting, which is also very large.
What does seem to be true is that Russia has tended to be a bit dozy about preparing for predictable threats. They do get their shit together when Ukraine gets a new capability, but not until they've given Ukraine a sporting chance to do some damage with it.
The scale of the Rwanda scheme is now very different to the large-scale and systematic removals originally promised by ministers
A civil servant told me efforts are geared towards a single flight as “proof of concept”, calling it an “election vanity scam”
Therefore adding to the long-held belief among ministers that the permanent bureaucracy absolutely hates the idea, and will be doing everything they can get away with to prevent the flights from happening.
Maybe the permanent bureaucracy have a brain between them.
Why is nobody talking about how the crime Rayner was originally accused of (tax evasion) has quietly been changed to having been registered at the wrong address?
Because the first accusation went nowhere, they've now moved onto another. They can't just pretend they are the same thing when they're not. Lord Ashcroft's credibility is in the loo.
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
I am totally bemused what there is for the Police to even investigate, both crimes are way past the limitation period. Can somebody explain what they are "looking at"?
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
Why is nobody talking about how the crime Rayner was originally accused of (tax evasion) has quietly been changed to having been registered at the wrong address?
Because the first accusation went nowhere, they've now moved onto another. They can't just pretend they are the same thing when they're not. Lord Ashcroft's credibility is in the loo.
The tax issue hasn't been proven one way or another and cannot be until all the details are public.
All we know for certain is that:
1) Rayner refuses to make public the details 2) Other people contradict Rayner's residency claims
Why is nobody talking about how the crime Rayner was originally accused of (tax evasion) has quietly been changed to having been registered at the wrong address?
Because the first accusation went nowhere, they've now moved onto another. They can't just pretend they are the same thing when they're not. Lord Ashcroft's credibility is in the loo.
If you read the piece by Laura Kuenssberg that I posted earlier, they don't like her because she is a fishwife who doesn't know her place. It's quite an astounding piece.
I am totally bemused what there is for the Police to even investigate, both crimes are way past the limitation period. Can somebody explain what they are "looking at"?
Don’t worry @Mexicanpete will be along in a minute to explain it all over again in breathless lurid detail.
2 - And a 65 year old Youtubing friend who cycled 35 miles from Mansfield to Lincoln this week - on his E-Brompton, for a half day out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uZf3E1HT90
Excellent. 17.4m people voted to shut down places selling foreign muck and replace them with Pie and Mash shops.
I'm confused - is it impossible for an Italian restaurant to employ someone not from Italy??
Of course. If they do not have the genetic experience of wandering through the pasta fields from an early age or cutting the spaghetti trees how can they possibly cope?
There a plenty of southern Welsh who would qualify on genetic grounds, being descendants of Italian immigrants to the mines and steelworks over 100 years ago. They are known locally as 'Bracchis' after the most successful (genetically) Italian family.
I am totally bemused what there is for the Police to even investigate, both crimes are way past the limitation period. Can somebody explain what they are "looking at"?
Don’t worry @Mexicanpete will be along in a minute to explain it all over again in breathless lurid detail.
I have already posted loads on Rayner. Where have you been? Sleeping off a session down the golf club.
I am totally bemused what there is for the Police to even investigate, both crimes are way past the limitation period. Can somebody explain what they are "looking at"?
As a leftie surely you should be happy that the key industry of political mudslinging has now been nationalised and given to the police rather than the use of political hacks and private investigators as in the past?
I am totally bemused what there is for the Police to even investigate, both crimes are way past the limitation period. Can somebody explain what they are "looking at"?
Don’t worry @Mexicanpete will be along in a minute to explain it all over again in breathless lurid detail.
I have already posted loads on Rayner. Where have you been? Sleeping off a session down the golf club.
Shame I missed it. I’m sure every word of tedious repetition was a thrill a minute.
I am totally bemused what there is for the Police to even investigate, both crimes are way past the limitation period. Can somebody explain what they are "looking at"?
As a leftie surely you should be happy that the key industry of political mudslinging has now been nationalised and given to the police rather than the use of political hacks and private investigators as in the past?
I think if the Police want to look into Rayner that’s fine and not a bad thing but I just can’t see what they can possibly be investigating.
CCHQ, Laura Kuenssberg and Michael Ashcroft have been on. The Rayner scandal has gone awfully quiet on PB over the last 80 posts. Can we ramp it up a little?
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
I am totally bemused what there is for the Police to even investigate, both crimes are way past the limitation period. Can somebody explain what they are "looking at"?
As a leftie surely you should be happy that the key industry of political mudslinging has now been nationalised and given to the police rather than the use of political hacks and private investigators as in the past?
I think if the Police want to look into Rayner that’s fine and not a bad thing but I just can’t see what they can possibly be investigating.
How long they can keep her in the papers probably.
CCHQ, Laura Kuenssberg and Michael Ashcroft have been on. The Rayner scandal has gone awfully quiet on PB over the last 80 posts. Can we ramp it up a little?
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Why is nobody talking about how the crime Rayner was originally accused of (tax evasion) has quietly been changed to having been registered at the wrong address?
Because the first accusation went nowhere, they've now moved onto another. They can't just pretend they are the same thing when they're not. Lord Ashcroft's credibility is in the loo.
If you read the piece by Laura Kuenssberg that I posted earlier, they don't like her because she is a fishwife who doesn't know her place. It's quite an astounding piece.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
It’s not the quantum.
If she knowingly made a false declaration to HMRC that’s the issue.
I'd say the US Justice System needs to apply its principle of equality before the law to ex-Presidents who are convicted of, or on trial for, civil or criminal offences.
This is the most recent I've noticed. For some reason he does not mention his exploitation of his position as owner / promoter of pageants to wander around the back rooms of pageants filled with half dressed teenage girls.
They've given him far too much preferential treatment already, IMO. Now he's displaying open contempt for court orders on a daily basis.
I am really not seeing how that is not a breach of his gag order. His bail should be revoked.
Tomorrow the court starts jury selection which may well take 2-3 weeks (our juries are usually selected in about 10 minutes). Can we really have this sort of nonsense being espoused for those potential jurors to hear and read? Its truly extraordinary. Once again we see Trump double standards: he can't get a fair trial in Manhattan because New Yorkers are biased against him but he can seek to influence jurors with the most outrageous allegations of judicial bias.
This strikes me as a slightly odd charge, there may be an argument that what we have here is a misdemeanour rather than a felony let alone 30 odd felonies. It's not of itself enormously serious but even Donald Trump does not actually contest he did it. All he contests is the right of anyone to hold him accountable for it. He seriously seems to believe that he is above the law. In fairness, he has got away with so much in his life that he has a lot of evidence to point to to back up that belief. Hopefully, this is about to change.
It is possible the excitement gets dissipated if Trump pleads guilty to a series of downgraded misdemeanour charges and gets a fine. Misdemeanour being less politically toxic than "convicted felon Donald Trump...".
However, uncertain whether that would be offered or accepted. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer/consiglieri, has done jail time for the very felony circumstances at the centre of this case. And Cohen wants vengeance. This is not about "bookkeeping errors". This is about hiding from the voters that Trump bought the silence of those who would otherwise have shared with the voters the true nature of the candidate. You might call it election interference.
You might but that is not the charge. And suggesting that politicians trying to hide a bit of bad or embarrassing news is "election interference" is a somewhat tricky road to go down. Was Blair's lies about Iraq in the 2005 election interference?
I did read a piece indicating that the smart move by Trump's lawyers was to offer pleas to a misdemeanour charge but I am not sure he would let them do it.
The charges ARE all about election interference in that they relate to abuse of campaign finance limits.
Don't think that is correct. This is the summary from Wiki:
"The indictment charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10. Each count is related to a specific business document, each having a date ranging from February 14 through December 5, 2017:[8]
11 for invoices from Michael Cohen 9 for general ledger entries for Donald J. Trump 3 for general ledger entries for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust 8 for checks from Donald J. Trump 2 for checks from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust The allegedly falsified documents are related to Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels as hush money. The payments were listed in the business records as a legal expense payable to Michael Cohen, whereas the indictment alleges that they were actually to reimburse Cohen for the earlier, allegedly illicit, payment to Daniels.[92][93]
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony under New York state law that requires that the "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". This is in contrast to falsifying business records in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor that does not have that requirement.[8][92][93] In later filings, Bragg listed three such crimes that that Trump allegedly intended to commit: violation of federal campaign finance limits, violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.[94] Trump can move to allow the jury the option to convict on the misdemeanor charges as a lesser included offense, but is not required to do so.[95]"
To demonstrate the latter charges the prosecution will need to show that had these been declared as election expenses the limits would have been exceeded. I think that is extremely unlikely. It is much more likely that the false entry is itself a breach of the reporting requirements. The claiming of non recoverable "election expenses" as taxable deductions may well be an offence but I can't say what category it would fall into.
If it is really whether classifying “reimbursement of disbursements by a lawyer” as “legal expenses” is falsifying records that’s pretty marginal.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
Maths education has collapsed in the UK. If a couple live in two homes, and both seek the 25% council tax discount, they pay a total of 150% of the bill they would have if they lived together. THAT’S NOT A SCAM YOU MORONS it means she paid EXTRA to live apart.🤦♀️ #fuckssake
That’s comparing apples and pears
If she rented out her house to her brother he would have been liable for 75% or 100% (depending on whether he is single).
She would have been liable for 100% with her husband
Serious question: who in Britain has read the Britain-Israel defence treaty, or has had it repeated to them orally if it's oral-only and mustn't be written?
Rishi Sunak? Keir Starmer? Everyone who has served as foreign or defence secretary? Their shadows?
Who has a clue what the British government has agreed with Israel regarding war, in flagrant breach of Article 102 of the UN Charter?
The UN seems to be on its last legs. International law more generally will follow. This may have interesting ramifications for financial assets "owned" by sovereign and other entities. See Bismarck on blood and iron.
Putin claiming about breaches of international law is mildly ironic…!
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
It’s not the quantum.
If she knowingly made a false declaration to HMRC that’s the issue.
That was the issue. It might be the issue once more tomorrow but now the issue has changed to possible breaches of electoral law regarding Rayner's address.
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
It’s not the quantum.
If she knowingly made a false declaration to HMRC that’s the issue.
Of course that would be the issue. Wake me up if and when you find the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest she had done so.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
It’s not the quantum.
If she knowingly made a false declaration to HMRC that’s the issue.
That was the issue. It might be the issue once more tomorrow but now the issue has changed to possible breaches of electoral law regarding Rayner's address.
It really hasn't - just shows how desperate the Tories are to avoid revealing any policies..
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
Er I am a, member of the "local population" and I actually worked in a restaurant that served Italian food for four years! Restaurants are risky businesses operating on thin margins, and anything that makes it even harder for them to stay in business is a concern. Now, you may know a lot more about their business than they do, but if they are telling us that they're being forced out of business then I'd take that seriously. The problem for Brexit supporters is that their experiment has visibly worsened our quality of life, while the things that people who voted for it wanted to see - lower immigration and higher real wages - have failed to materialise. It must be sad to have wanted something for so long and then see it fail, both in reality and in the court of public opinion.
I am totally bemused what there is for the Police to even investigate, both crimes are way past the limitation period. Can somebody explain what they are "looking at"?
As a leftie surely you should be happy that the key industry of political mudslinging has now been nationalised and given to the police rather than the use of political hacks and private investigators as in the past?
I think if the Police want to look into Rayner that’s fine and not a bad thing but I just can’t see what they can possibly be investigating.
How long they can keep her in the papers probably.
*Police Scotland have entered the chat and buffed their nails insouciantly*
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
Or badly advised.
The advice might have been nothing more than "if you keep quiet about it nobody will notice and you wont pay any tax".
Sure. She may end up having to pay extra tax. Point is, there's nothing to the story right now and there will be nothing to it if she does have to pay the extra tax in that case. HMRC will either claim the extra tax or it won't. It only becomes a story if she has misled the tax authorities.
The story will rumble on until all the details are public.
If HMRC don't investigate then it will be assumed that its another case of 'one law for the rich'.
Which is why I suggested weeks ago that Rayner paid the £1,500 and said "I am confident I have done nothing wrong but those who aspire to be in government must be seen to have both nothing to hide and to be willing to pay their way." She could then contrast her behaviour with that of numerous Conservative grifters and tax dodgers.
Its a trivial amount of money and it all happened before she became an MP.
You're suggesting Rayner should make a gift of £1500 to HMRC she claims she isn't liable for just to make the story go away.
Apart from the preposterousness of the suggestion I don't think it would even help her look more honest.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I think Brexit was always going to be like that because it is built on the premise that we are not part of Europe so young Europeans have no business coming here.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
Brexit has also stopped young Brits having similar experience in Europe.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
It’s not the quantum.
If she knowingly made a false declaration to HMRC that’s the issue.
Of course that would be the issue. Wake me up if and when you find the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest she had done so.
This is the whole point. She may or may not have made the appropriate declaration about her primary residence. Depending on this there may be a tax liability. But she is not saying which. She is saying don't you worry your pretty little head. It is perfectly legitimate to ask what she did or didn't do.
Although I appreciate that the issue has moved on to one of possible electoral fraud.
I'd say the US Justice System needs to apply its principle of equality before the law to ex-Presidents who are convicted of, or on trial for, civil or criminal offences.
This is the most recent I've noticed. For some reason he does not mention his exploitation of his position as owner / promoter of pageants to wander around the back rooms of pageants filled with half dressed teenage girls.
They've given him far too much preferential treatment already, IMO. Now he's displaying open contempt for court orders on a daily basis.
I am really not seeing how that is not a breach of his gag order. His bail should be revoked.
Tomorrow the court starts jury selection which may well take 2-3 weeks (our juries are usually selected in about 10 minutes). Can we really have this sort of nonsense being espoused for those potential jurors to hear and read? Its truly extraordinary. Once again we see Trump double standards: he can't get a fair trial in Manhattan because New Yorkers are biased against him but he can seek to influence jurors with the most outrageous allegations of judicial bias.
This strikes me as a slightly odd charge, there may be an argument that what we have here is a misdemeanour rather than a felony let alone 30 odd felonies. It's not of itself enormously serious but even Donald Trump does not actually contest he did it. All he contests is the right of anyone to hold him accountable for it. He seriously seems to believe that he is above the law. In fairness, he has got away with so much in his life that he has a lot of evidence to point to to back up that belief. Hopefully, this is about to change.
It is possible the excitement gets dissipated if Trump pleads guilty to a series of downgraded misdemeanour charges and gets a fine. Misdemeanour being less politically toxic than "convicted felon Donald Trump...".
However, uncertain whether that would be offered or accepted. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer/consiglieri, has done jail time for the very felony circumstances at the centre of this case. And Cohen wants vengeance. This is not about "bookkeeping errors". This is about hiding from the voters that Trump bought the silence of those who would otherwise have shared with the voters the true nature of the candidate. You might call it election interference.
You might but that is not the charge. And suggesting that politicians trying to hide a bit of bad or embarrassing news is "election interference" is a somewhat tricky road to go down. Was Blair's lies about Iraq in the 2005 election interference?
I did read a piece indicating that the smart move by Trump's lawyers was to offer pleas to a misdemeanour charge but I am not sure he would let them do it.
The charges ARE all about election interference in that they relate to abuse of campaign finance limits.
Don't think that is correct. This is the summary from Wiki:
"The indictment charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10. Each count is related to a specific business document, each having a date ranging from February 14 through December 5, 2017:[8]
11 for invoices from Michael Cohen 9 for general ledger entries for Donald J. Trump 3 for general ledger entries for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust 8 for checks from Donald J. Trump 2 for checks from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust The allegedly falsified documents are related to Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels as hush money. The payments were listed in the business records as a legal expense payable to Michael Cohen, whereas the indictment alleges that they were actually to reimburse Cohen for the earlier, allegedly illicit, payment to Daniels.[92][93]
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony under New York state law that requires that the "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". This is in contrast to falsifying business records in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor that does not have that requirement.[8][92][93] In later filings, Bragg listed three such crimes that that Trump allegedly intended to commit: violation of federal campaign finance limits, violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.[94] Trump can move to allow the jury the option to convict on the misdemeanor charges as a lesser included offense, but is not required to do so.[95]"
To demonstrate the latter charges the prosecution will need to show that had these been declared as election expenses the limits would have been exceeded. I think that is extremely unlikely. It is much more likely that the false entry is itself a breach of the reporting requirements. The claiming of non recoverable "election expenses" as taxable deductions may well be an offence but I can't say what category it would fall into.
If it is really whether classifying “reimbursement of disbursements by a lawyer” as “legal expenses” is falsifying records that’s pretty marginal.
The allegation isn't just about the way they recorded it, it's also that they cooked up a fraudulent scheme to hide it so that they could record it that way. They doubled the amount the lawyer had paid to cover that income taxes that he wouldn't have had to pay if he'd recorded it honestly, then split the payment into 12 monthly installments so that they could pretend they were payments for a retainer agreement, which didn't in fact exist.
Why is nobody talking about how the crime Rayner was originally accused of (tax evasion) has quietly been changed to having been registered at the wrong address?
Because the first accusation went nowhere, they've now moved onto another. They can't just pretend they are the same thing when they're not. Lord Ashcroft's credibility is in the loo.
I've been saying that now and then ... it'll be forgetting the lettuce for the school stick insect when she was 6 next.
Why is nobody talking about how the crime Rayner was originally accused of (tax evasion) has quietly been changed to having been registered at the wrong address?
Because the first accusation went nowhere, they've now moved onto another. They can't just pretend they are the same thing when they're not. Lord Ashcroft's credibility is in the loo.
I've been saying that now and then ... it'll be forgetting the lettuce for the school stick insect when she was 6 next.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
Noted elsewhere, "Brexit was a popular means to unpopular ends"
There is no part of what actually happened with Brexit that you could persuade people to vote for. They had to vote for Unicorns and Rainbows to get the numbers
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I think Brexit was always going to be like that because it is built on the premise that we are not part of Europe so young Europeans have no business coming here.
Liberal "Love Europe/Hate EU" was and is a genuine sincere thing. For me, it foundered on two problems. The first is that, if the rest of the continent is content with the current setup, there's a limit to how far they should change that for our sake. The other is that Liberal Leave needed Illiberal Leave to get across the line. If they really expected former Remainers to come and save them, that was naïve.
So are plenty of other restaurants. Irrespective of the deranged Brexit takes on it. Hospitality industry is contracting at the moment. So be it. People dine out far less than they used to
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Then they need to rethink the business model.
What you are suggesting is the broader population should accept lower wages so a restaurant owner can make greater profits
Excellent. 17.4m people voted to shut down places selling foreign muck and replace them with Pie and Mash shops.
I'm confused - is it impossible for an Italian restaurant to employ someone not from Italy??
It can be done. I’ve dined in more than one with waiting staff that were non Italian. They stepped up to the plate. They were able to take a plate of carbonara from the pass to the table and crack some black pepper over it and sprinkle some Parmesan. It can be done.
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
It’s not the quantum.
If she knowingly made a false declaration to HMRC that’s the issue.
That was the issue. It might be the issue once more tomorrow but now the issue has changed to possible breaches of electoral law regarding Rayner's address.
The issue hasn’t changed. Even if she has breached electoral law it would t warrant more than a rap across the knuckles.
Excellent. 17.4m people voted to shut down places selling foreign muck and replace them with Pie and Mash shops.
I'm confused - is it impossible for an Italian restaurant to employ someone not from Italy??
It can be done. I’ve dined in more than one with waiting staff that were non Italian. They stepped up to the plate. They were able to take a plate of carbonara from the pass to the table and crack some black pepper over it and sprinkle some Parmesan. It can be done.
Depends on the restaurant. Plenty of places sell Italian food. But an Italian restaurant? The entire schtick is authenticity. So replacing young Giuseppi with Brian from Bow kind of ruins the experience people want.
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
Or badly advised.
The advice might have been nothing more than "if you keep quiet about it nobody will notice and you wont pay any tax".
Sure. She may end up having to pay extra tax. Point is, there's nothing to the story right now and there will be nothing to it if she does have to pay the extra tax in that case. HMRC will either claim the extra tax or it won't. It only becomes a story if she has misled the tax authorities.
The story will rumble on until all the details are public.
If HMRC don't investigate then it will be assumed that its another case of 'one law for the rich'.
Which is why I suggested weeks ago that Rayner paid the £1,500 and said "I am confident I have done nothing wrong but those who aspire to be in government must be seen to have both nothing to hide and to be willing to pay their way." She could then contrast her behaviour with that of numerous Conservative grifters and tax dodgers.
Its a trivial amount of money and it all happened before she became an MP.
So she should pay £1,500 that she doesn’t think she owes? Just like you would, right?
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
It’s not the quantum.
If she knowingly made a false declaration to HMRC that’s the issue.
Of course that would be the issue. Wake me up if and when you find the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest she had done so.
This is the whole point. She may or may not have made the appropriate declaration about her primary residence. Depending on this there may be a tax liability. But she is not saying which. She is saying don't you worry your pretty little head. It is perfectly legitimate to ask what she did or didn't do.
Although I appreciate that the issue has moved on to one of possible electoral fraud.
She is saying she's taken advice, on the basis of which she has nothing to pay. ie Now.
I can think of three possible interpretations.
The advice is correct. She has fully answered everything she needs to.
The advice is reasonable but not ultimately accepted by HMRC. That's OK too. It has to go through the process which will take some time and probably isn't a straightforward yes/no but depends on liabilities across several tax years.
The advice is spurious. In that case Rayner is in trouble but what basis are we asserting that allegation on?
For the nth time it doesn't matter where she was actually living it matters what address she nominated, if any, as her primary residence for tax purposes.
According to Neidle that doesn't matter either. You can nominate whichever property you want or none of them.
Yes that's my point
Which means Rayner ends up with a slightly different tax calculation. So what? She says she's been advised she has nothing to pay.
She may be lying I suppose.
It’s not the quantum.
If she knowingly made a false declaration to HMRC that’s the issue.
Of course that would be the issue. Wake me up if and when you find the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest she had done so.
There’s lots of anecdotal evidence that her house, declared as her PPR, was not where she was living. I doubt we will ever get to a “beyond reasonable doubt” point.
My assumption is that she probably did make a false declaration (I don’t find the concept of her children being registered at her husband’s house while she lived elsewhere plausible).
But as someone else said she should have paid the amount in dispute and taken the high ground. In brazening it out it sets a poor tone on her mindset.
I am totally bemused what there is for the Police to even investigate, both crimes are way past the limitation period. Can somebody explain what they are "looking at"?
Don’t worry @Mexicanpete will be along in a minute to explain it all over again in breathless lurid detail.
I have already posted loads on Rayner. Where have you been? Sleeping off a session down the golf club.
Shame I missed it. I’m sure every word of tedious repetition was a thrill a minute.
“Biden has privately expressed concern that Netanyahu is trying to drag the U.S. more deeply into a broader conflict, according to three people familiar with his comments.” https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1779359648681783430
Thankfully it’s Biden and not that idiot Trump in charge. I don’t think, apart from the Uber hawks around (include the odd one or two here) anyone outside of the Israeli cabinet really wants to see that happen. Effectively the US fights a proxy war for Israel. Cannot see it. Especially in an election year.
So what do we think? Will Israel hit back - will we see direct Israeli attacks on Iran?
Pros
1. Emotionally satisfying 2. Electorally popular 3. Chance to take out Iranian nuclear programme? 4. Deter others 5. America might support it as it stalls Iranian help to Putin
Cons: 1. Might go wrong, miss targets, electorally unpopular 2. Obvious risk of massive escalation with Iran 3. Might provoke Hezbollah into all out attack 4. Could end up killing everyone on earth 5. America will probably try and stop it; bad for Biden in election year
That’s finely balanced. I reckon it’s 52/48 Israel restrains itself. Maybe takes on Iranian proxies
Excellent. 17.4m people voted to shut down places selling foreign muck and replace them with Pie and Mash shops.
I'm confused - is it impossible for an Italian restaurant to employ someone not from Italy??
It can be done. I’ve dined in more than one with waiting staff that were non Italian. They stepped up to the plate. They were able to take a plate of carbonara from the pass to the table and crack some black pepper over it and sprinkle some Parmesan. It can be done.
Depends on the restaurant. Plenty of places sell Italian food. But an Italian restaurant? The entire schtick is authenticity. So replacing young Giuseppi with Brian from Bow kind of ruins the experience people want.
I believe that Pratt’s calls all their staff “George” (or, in a nod to modernity, “Georgina”)
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
Does that second chart not simply suggest that health care is more expensive in the US than Europe?
It says 'adjusted for price differences between countries' along the X axis.
I missed that, but it doesn't say how they've adjusted it . I mean, maybe doctors get paid more per hour in the US. Maybe they spend more time with each patient. Maybe they organise more tests, I don't know
Comments
She had a number of no-shows at Court, and would not have been up for prison. The prosecution had originally asked for 6 months' house arrest.
https://news.sky.com/story/aimee-harris-jailed-for-stealing-daughter-of-joe-bidens-diary-and-selling-it-to-right-wing-group-project-veritas-13112058
She may be lying I suppose.
This is apparently why he does not understand NY law, and employs lawyers who do not either.
Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer Nadim Zehawi when he owed HMRC £4.8 MILLION QUID.
"The indictment charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10. Each count is related to a specific business document, each having a date ranging from February 14 through December 5, 2017:[8]
11 for invoices from Michael Cohen
9 for general ledger entries for Donald J. Trump
3 for general ledger entries for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust
8 for checks from Donald J. Trump
2 for checks from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust
The allegedly falsified documents are related to Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels as hush money. The payments were listed in the business records as a legal expense payable to Michael Cohen, whereas the indictment alleges that they were actually to reimburse Cohen for the earlier, allegedly illicit, payment to Daniels.[92][93]
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony under New York state law that requires that the "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". This is in contrast to falsifying business records in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor that does not have that requirement.[8][92][93] In later filings, Bragg listed three such crimes that that Trump allegedly intended to commit: violation of federal campaign finance limits, violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.[94] Trump can move to allow the jury the option to convict on the misdemeanor charges as a lesser included offense, but is not required to do so.[95]"
To demonstrate the latter charges the prosecution will need to show that had these been declared as election expenses the limits would have been exceeded. I think that is extremely unlikely. It is much more likely that the false entry is itself a breach of the reporting requirements. The claiming of non recoverable "election expenses" as taxable deductions may well be an offence but I can't say what category it would fall into.
The advice might have been nothing more than "if you keep quiet about it nobody will notice and you wont pay any tax".
Maths education has collapsed in the UK. If a couple live in two homes, and both seek the 25% council tax discount, they pay a total of 150% of the bill they would have if they lived together.
THAT’S NOT A SCAM YOU MORONS it means she paid EXTRA to live apart.🤦♀️ #fuckssake
Rishi Sunak? Keir Starmer? Everyone who has served as foreign or defence secretary? Their shadows?
Who has a clue what the British government has agreed with Israel regarding war, in flagrant breach of Article 102 of the UN Charter?
The UN seems to be on its last legs. International law more generally will follow. This may have interesting ramifications for financial assets "owned" by sovereign and other entities. See Bismarck on blood and iron.
Iran has largely used foreign proxies to strike Israeli interests, while targeted assassinations of Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists have been a key part of Israel’s strategy.
NY Times
When we were talking a few weeks ago he pointed out that mental health care gets 13% of the NHS budget. Child mental health care gets 6% of that 13%. So about 0.8% of the NHS budget.
And that life expectancy is influenced by many other factors.
Do I think we should know what has been agreed? Yes in a democracy we should be told these things. But the claim that it is in breach of any UN charter that we don't know the detail is just garbage.
euan mccolm
@euanmccolm
·
1h
where’s the stop the war march, lads?
https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/1779422479422775592
There are a few comparisons with Profumo. Although not as senior, it is more widespread (so who knows) and not obviously a foreign government (yet).
If HMRC don't investigate then it will be assumed that its another case of 'one law for the rich'.
Which is why I suggested weeks ago that Rayner paid the £1,500 and said "I am confident I have done nothing wrong but those who aspire to be in government must be seen to have both nothing to hide and to be willing to pay their way." She could then contrast her behaviour with that of numerous Conservative grifters and tax dodgers.
Its a trivial amount of money and it all happened before she became an MP.
What does seem to be true is that Russia has tended to be a bit dozy about preparing for predictable threats. They do get their shit together when Ukraine gets a new capability, but not until they've given Ukraine a sporting chance to do some damage with it.
Because the first accusation went nowhere, they've now moved onto another. They can't just pretend they are the same thing when they're not. Lord Ashcroft's credibility is in the loo.
All we know for certain is that:
1) Rayner refuses to make public the details
2) Other people contradict Rayner's residency claims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68805211
A couple of thoroughly off topic items.
1 - The Bishop of Leeds' reflections on the need to become a Swiftie.
https://nickbaines.wordpress.com/2024/03/13/becoming-a-swiftie/
2 - And a 65 year old Youtubing friend who cycled 35 miles from Mansfield to Lincoln this week - on his E-Brompton, for a half day out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uZf3E1HT90
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
If she knowingly made a false declaration to HMRC that’s the issue.
If she rented out her house to her brother he would have been liable for 75% or 100% (depending on whether he is single).
She would have been liable for 100% with her husband
So it is the 150% she paid vs 175%/200%
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
The problem for Brexit supporters is that their experiment has visibly worsened our quality of life, while the things that people who voted for it wanted to see - lower immigration and higher real wages - have failed to materialise. It must be sad to have wanted something for so long and then see it fail, both in reality and in the court of public opinion.
Apart from the preposterousness of the suggestion I don't think it would even help her look more honest.
Although I appreciate that the issue has moved on to one of possible electoral fraud.
See the statement of facts:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000
(Actually, I continue to agree, this is piffle).
There is no part of what actually happened with Brexit that you could persuade people to vote for. They had to vote for Unicorns and Rainbows to get the numbers
America suffers ~100,000 overdose DEATHS a year, plus multiples of that in terms of hideous drug-related health issues. It’s a major killer
What you are suggesting is the broader population should accept lower wages so a restaurant owner can make greater profits
That’s not equitable
Only from the PB Tories.
Only on PB.
I can think of three possible interpretations.
The advice is correct. She has fully answered everything she needs to.
The advice is reasonable but not ultimately accepted by HMRC. That's OK too. It has to go through the process which will take some time and probably isn't a straightforward yes/no but depends on liabilities across several tax years.
The advice is spurious. In that case Rayner is in trouble but what basis are we asserting that allegation on?
Anton Gerashchenko
@Gerashchenko_en
Feng Yujun, one of the China's leading Russianists and a professor at Peking University: Russia is sure to lose in Ukraine – The Economist
Four reasons why Russian Federation will lose to Ukraine, according to Feng Yujun:
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1779217033374089501
My assumption is that she probably did make a false declaration (I don’t find the concept of her children being registered at her husband’s house while she lived elsewhere plausible).
But as someone else said she should have paid the amount in dispute and taken the high ground. In brazening it out it sets a poor tone on her mindset.
Pros
1. Emotionally satisfying
2. Electorally popular
3. Chance to take out Iranian nuclear programme?
4. Deter others
5. America might support it as it stalls Iranian help to Putin
Cons:
1. Might go wrong, miss targets, electorally unpopular
2. Obvious risk of massive escalation with Iran
3. Might provoke Hezbollah into all out attack
4. Could end up killing everyone on earth
5. America will probably try and stop it; bad for Biden in election year
That’s finely balanced. I reckon it’s 52/48 Israel restrains itself. Maybe takes on Iranian proxies
So who not call Brian from Bow “Giuseppe”?