The husband of former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been re-arrested in connection with the ongoing investigation into the finances of the Scottish National Party. Peter Murrell, 59, was previously arrested as a suspect on 5 April 2023 before being released without charge. He was taken into custody at 09:13 on Thursday and is being questioned by Police Scotland detectives.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
The husband of former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been re-arrested in connection with the ongoing investigation into the finances of the Scottish National Party. Peter Murrell, 59, was previously arrested as a suspect on 5 April 2023 before being released without charge. He was taken into custody at 09:13 on Thursday and is being questioned by Police Scotland detectives.
At this rate I assume they will make a decision on charges sometime in 2025, with a trial in 2026.
If Humza Yousaf really is unlucky then husband and wife get charged during the general election campaign with the trial taking place in the run up to the 2026 Holyrood election.
The final poll (lowest government approval by PM) is interesting. It looks like we get steadily harsher and more unhappy with our governments and PMs as we go along?
Amazing that Eden's lowest point (which presumably is around or just after the Suez debacle?) is a reasonably high 31%!
Wonder what accounts for governments/PMs getting more unpopular over time? Increased news/awareness? 24hr rolling news? Or maybe the quality of the politicians?
HMQ started with Sir Winston Churchill and 70 years later ended with Elizabeth Truss. The decline of a nation right there, perhaps?
Satire, activist journalists and the 'gotcha' moments changed everything. When politicians were 'Mr or Mrs' whatever and news was reported as news and not Love Island there was more light and less heat imo
There are so many people in Manhattan they can find a fair jury even for him, but he may be the hardest person ever to manage that for even above serious violent criminals, due to his assertion that attacking witnesses, judges, and prospective jurors, is political speech, and given he has supporters who do act on this stuff.
It doesn't look like the Rothschild trope in Truss' book is being picked up as a story by anyone. Options: 1. It isn't in the book. Person on Twitter made it up. 2. It is in the book, but Truss is getting a pass for being dim rather than malevolent. 3. Every media outlet has repeated the "quote" at least once, and so has seen their position in relation to glass houses before picking up the stones. 4. Anti-Semitism just isn't important anymore.
On behalf of pb, I've just spent £10 on the Kindle edition of Liz Truss's book and there is no mention of Rothschild. It is possible the publisher has edited the Kindle version so if anyone wants to spend £22 on the hardback edition, be my guest.
It appears in the Google Book search
Nor does my edition contain (per your screenshot) a note that the OBR was set up by George Osborne. This is Liz Truss's Ten Years to Save the West and not one of her earlier co-written books? If so, then it is possible the publisher has already changed the content of the Kindle version.
I hadn't realised this witness was still a senior PO lawyer. Dealing with their victims.
Incredible.
..Former sub-postmaster Lee Castleton has called for Rodric Williams to be "removed" from the process of administering compensation.
Williams is currently a Head of Legal in the Post Office’s Remediation Unit. The remediation unit handles appeals from sub-postmasters, compensation and redress...
As I was saying upthread. It is an appalling conflict of interest and I simply do not understand how the Business Department can possibly permit this.
Well, I do in the sense that they have no sense of integrity at all. But you know what I mean.
This is a level of corruption - not in the sense of taking bribes - but in the sense of corruption of all standards of integrity, honesty and fair dealing that would embarrass Italians or the Chinese.
If, having listened to his public evidence today, they don't suspend him tomorrow, then they're effing insane.
Or complicit.
As with numerous PO witnesses, Williams seems to be playing some sort of passive nullity, with the whole horrible affair somehow just happening around him, without his intervention or knowledge.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68841039 ..Still on the handwritten document, Beer asks Williams why he was discussing if Fujitsu IT employee Gareth Jenkins may be a "tainted witness" with another lawyer, given that he is not a criminal law expert.
"I don't know," Williams initially replies, before saying that he remembers why - that one of the outcomes of the Second Sight report was dealing with Fujitsu and that he had been asked to help with that.
Beer follows up by asking what happened as a result of a discussion over what the Post Office had done to instruct Jenkins?
"I don't think any actions were taken," replies Williams.
Beer presses further, asking whether there was "any introspection" by the Post Office about its responsibility following the revelations about Jenkins.
Williams says he "would think so", adding that he would have asked for advice on what to do next.
Asked next what was done to take the issue forward, he says he is not aware of anything...
Been watching the ‘highlights’ of today’s action. James Beer KC deserves every honour coming to him for his work on this inquiry. He’s been absolutely brilliant in his questioning.
As for Rodric Williams, how the hell is he still in post, and how the hell is he still licenced to practice law?
It doesn't look like the Rothschild trope in Truss' book is being picked up as a story by anyone. Options: 1. It isn't in the book. Person on Twitter made it up. 2. It is in the book, but Truss is getting a pass for being dim rather than malevolent. 3. Every media outlet has repeated the "quote" at least once, and so has seen their position in relation to glass houses before picking up the stones. 4. Anti-Semitism just isn't important anymore.
On behalf of pb, I've just spent £10 on the Kindle edition of Liz Truss's book and there is no mention of Rothschild. It is possible the publisher has edited the Kindle version so if anyone wants to spend £22 on the hardback edition, be my guest.
Skilful trolling if it's not in any version. Trollees include the Jewish Chronicle:
I advise contempt towards any "news" item based on a Twitter/X post (or that cites "experts"). Some journalists want everyone else to become as stupid as they are.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off are.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London. His opponents just naturally assumed he must be, because most people of their status do they expect.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
Snicker. Memory holes are useful but have a voracious appetite.
Difficult to see how such information couldn't be barred from disclosure by the Data Protection Act without Rayner's consent.
Well if it was still extant that choice would no doubt depend on what it said.
Personal information, potentially bearing on criminal activity?
If such information still existed and put an end to the matter it would seem prudent to release it. Ergo it either no longer exists or is not useful in ending the matter would seem right
There isn't any provision in the Data Protection Act allowing organisations to ignore it if they think it would be "prudent", though. That would make it a bit pointless.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
Snicker. Memory holes are useful but have a voracious appetite.
Difficult to see how such information couldn't be barred from disclosure by the Data Protection Act without Rayner's consent.
Well if it was still extant that choice would no doubt depend on what it said.
Personal information, potentially bearing on criminal activity?
If such information still existed and put an end to the matter it would seem prudent to release it. Ergo it either no longer exists or is not useful in ending the matter would seem right
There isn't any provision in the Data Protection Act allowing organisations to ignore it if they think it would be "prudent", though. That would make it a bit pointless.
The final poll (lowest government approval by PM) is interesting. It looks like we get steadily harsher and more unhappy with our governments and PMs as we go along?
Amazing that Eden's lowest point (which presumably is around or just after the Suez debacle?) is a reasonably high 31%!
Wonder what accounts for governments/PMs getting more unpopular over time? Increased news/awareness? 24hr rolling news? Or maybe the quality of the politicians?
HMQ started with Sir Winston Churchill and 70 years later ended with Elizabeth Truss. The decline of a nation right there, perhaps?
Satire, activist journalists and the 'gotcha' moments changed everything. When politicians were 'Mr or Mrs' whatever and news was reported as news and not Love Island there was more light and less heat imo
Another factor might be that for most people, for most of the 20th Century, life was getting better over the medium to long term, notwithstanding two world wars and the great depression "which started in America". You've never had it so good.
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
I would guess there are a lot of people also lying to get out of serving on the jury, not only because they might have better and more important things to do with work or family but the risk of potentially being on the jury that convicted or acquitted Trump as either side will likely give you hell afterwards.
Apparently Rayner is claiming she didn’t have to pay CGT because she spent 20 odd grand on a new kitchen before she sold it - bit much to spend on a house bought for 80k… we are having a new kitchen put in our house & it’s not costing that now… plus her brother, who apparently lived there too, was meant to be a dab hand at DIY
It doesn't look like the Rothschild trope in Truss' book is being picked up as a story by anyone. Options: 1. It isn't in the book. Person on Twitter made it up. 2. It is in the book, but Truss is getting a pass for being dim rather than malevolent. 3. Every media outlet has repeated the "quote" at least once, and so has seen their position in relation to glass houses before picking up the stones. 4. Anti-Semitism just isn't important anymore.
On behalf of pb, I've just spent £10 on the Kindle edition of Liz Truss's book and there is no mention of Rothschild. It is possible the publisher has edited the Kindle version so if anyone wants to spend £22 on the hardback edition, be my guest.
It appears in the Google Book search
Nor does my edition contain (per your screenshot) a note that the OBR was set up by George Osborne. This is Liz Truss's Ten Years to Save the West and not one of her earlier co-written books? If so, then it is possible the publisher has already changed the content of the Kindle version.
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
Not to mention that jury duty is a major PITA and here is a ready-made, 100 per cent credible excuse to get out of it.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
Monday was mostly motions stuff, they took Wednesday off, so they've barely had 2 days really, and apparently that's not unusual - in fact people seemed to think given the person involved they managed a pretty good speed by getting 7 in the first full day of it.
Add in there's a hearing about Trump committing contempt of court (which he surely has, but no judge will dare jail him for it and he knows it) next week on one of the days, and the day off, and maybe they don't get to opening statements until this time next week!
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
Snicker. Memory holes are useful but have a voracious appetite.
Difficult to see how such information couldn't be barred from disclosure by the Data Protection Act without Rayner's consent.
Well if it was still extant that choice would no doubt depend on what it said.
Personal information, potentially bearing on criminal activity?
If such information still existed and put an end to the matter it would seem prudent to release it. Ergo it either no longer exists or is not useful in ending the matter would seem right
There isn't any provision in the Data Protection Act allowing organisations to ignore it if they think it would be "prudent", though. That would make it a bit pointless.
I meant for her to release it
You mean when you disagreed with my statement "Difficult to see how such information couldn't be barred from disclosure by the Data Protection Act without Rayner's consent", you had stopped reading about halfway through?
An asteroid is hurtling towartds the Tories. We could actually witness the death of the Conservative Party. If so: good. This country needs a proper right wing alternative to pallid , high tax, high spend social democracy with extra Wokeness, which is what Starmer and Sunak do and will provide
Millions of people would vote for a party of the centre right which was low tax, low spend, low debt, low borrowing, sane regulation, with added free speech, free trade, personal responsibility, sound defence, sound on the nature and role of the family and other small platoons, Burkean about change and respectful of our history and culture.
What we need urgently (if the Speccie could help here I might start reading it again) is a rigorous and costed programme of how we would get there, what would stay and what would go, the finances thereof and the political route to it.
Secondly this new party could do with a new name. Con, LD, Reform, Respect, Reclaim, UKIP, Brexit, and Change are all tainted by the failure to produce the 5 pages of A4 explaining how it is done in such a way as to both win an election and be successful.
For now the closest to this (though not very close) is called Labour.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
Ken Livingstone had a limited company.
In short if you have multiple income streams you set up a limited company so you can claim back VAT and allowable expenses.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over the allowance Basic rate 8.75% Higher rate 33.75% Additional rate 39.35%
versus income tax rates
Band Taxable income Tax rate Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0% Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20% Higher rate £50,271 to £125,140 40% Additional rate over £125,140 45%
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
There are apparently endless ways for those rich enough to avoid paying tax in a legal way. I can just about believe that some number of loopholes and methods serve a legitimate purpose.
But what benefit is there to the people and the state for it apparently to be so common as to be the expectation for people to avoid taxes? I get ideas of lower taxes of breaks for specific purposes having a benefit, but a million ways for rich people with accountants to avoid?
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
Perhaps she still does have it either. I was once in a similar position to her, and I couldn't have produced evidence that no CGT was due 10 years later
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
Snicker. Memory holes are useful but have a voracious appetite.
Difficult to see how such information couldn't be barred from disclosure by the Data Protection Act without Rayner's consent.
Well if it was still extant that choice would no doubt depend on what it said.
Personal information, potentially bearing on criminal activity?
If such information still existed and put an end to the matter it would seem prudent to release it. Ergo it either no longer exists or is not useful in ending the matter would seem right
There isn't any provision in the Data Protection Act allowing organisations to ignore it if they think it would be "prudent", though. That would make it a bit pointless.
I meant for her to release it
You mean when you disagreed with my statement "Difficult to see how such information couldn't be barred from disclosure by the Data Protection Act without Rayner's consent", you had stopped reading about halfway through?
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
I would recommend, if you sell a property that you lived in, then rented, that you hire someone to do the CGT.
The chap I found did my years taxes (including the CGT) for a couple of hundred quid.
He saved me more than that by doing the allowances for various things right, plus he actually fixed my tax code. Which my employer had got wrong. IIRC he had professional insurance.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
True. I didn't. I read the rules and did the calculations myself. Kept the sheet with my workings with everything else until I had a clear out a few years later
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
As someone who as done both...
As a self employed contractor, structuring yourself as a service company through a ltd means you take on additional bookkeeping responsibilities and liabilities. The alternative when working as a contractor is to go through an "umbrella company" who are a pissant middle man who take a percentage of your day rate for doing sod all, screw up your tax returns, and generally act as a pointless intermediary taking a huge cut of your salary in exchange for a teensy tiny liability risk.
Then IR35 came along and they made structuring yourself as a ltd company no longer as tax efficient. Net result, every contractor I know in my industry stuck their day rate up 25% overnight...
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
Ken Livingstone had a limited company.
In short if you have multiple income streams you set up a limited company so you can claim back VAT and allowable expenses.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over the allowance Basic rate 8.75% Higher rate 33.75% Additional rate 39.35%
versus income tax rates
Band Taxable income Tax rate Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0% Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20% Higher rate £50,271 to £125,140 40% Additional rate over £125,140 45%
Yes but my point is it should not be allowed. I appreciate it is allowed but it shouldn't be.
Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU.
According to the BBC: Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
That's not really ruling it out is it?
They need to understand that time has moved on . It’s not 2016 anymore .
Labour will do a bit of tinkering in terms of our relationship with the EU but that's about it.
All of the Remainers that have been pinning their hopes on Sir Keir reopening Brexit will soon be very disappointed IMO (along with everyone else that for the time being is pinning all their hopes and wishes and disillusionment with the current government on to Labour)
In Opposition, SKS has been able to be absolutely anything anyone wants him to be. That is coming to an end very soon...
There is no chance of a conviction in any of the Trump trials .
You’ll always have the odd jury member that’s part of the Trump Cult .
They've managed unanimous with some civil cases, granted that's not as serious.
This one the case is not as serious or straightforward as the others, but equally maybe that makes a conviction easier because even if convicted he might not get jail time, or would only get like a single year, so even a supporter short of total cultdome may feel able to exercise their duty properly.
Acquittal is of course possible anyway. The DC case which was due to start in March was his biggest worry (with the florida documents case stalled), and the Supreme Court have done him a solid with that one.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
Ken Livingstone had a limited company.
In short if you have multiple income streams you set up a limited company so you can claim back VAT and allowable expenses.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over the allowance Basic rate 8.75% Higher rate 33.75% Additional rate 39.35%
versus income tax rates
Band Taxable income Tax rate Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0% Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20% Higher rate £50,271 to £125,140 40% Additional rate over £125,140 45%
Yes but my point is it should not be allowed. I appreciate it is allowed but it shouldn't be.
Why?
Tax minimisation strategies are good, I mean if you have an ISA then you are helping reduce your tax bill.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
Perhaps she still does have it either. I was once in a similar position to her, and I couldn't have produced evidence that no CGT was due 10 years later
Sorry, I meant 'doesn't'.
Note to self: Must remember to proof read when using my phone.
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
I would guess there are a lot of people also lying to get out of serving on the jury, not only because they might have better and more important things to do with work or family but the risk of potentially being on the jury that convicted or acquitted Trump as either side will likely give you hell afterwards.
Yes, jury duty is a right pain in the proverbial at the best of times, without all the political ramifications of this particular trial. It could also potentially last for a couple of months, which screws with your life considerably. Anyone with any sense won’t want to be near the jury, which means that those who do want to be there are even more likely to be partisan actors.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
Perhaps she still does have it either. I was once in a similar position to her, and I couldn't have produced evidence that no CGT was due 10 years later
Sorry, I meant 'doesn't'.
Note to self: Must remember to proof read when using my phone.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
Every politician and political hack runs a one man band ltd company.
Think contracting. No NI for a start…
So your company is contracted by a paper to write a column, say.
Unlike everyone else, Johnson didn’t do this. But he had such a company previously. But stopped using it a year or 2 *before* the expenses scandal and before he got the big gig at the Telegraph.
The payments people at the Telegraph tried to get him to switch. Because it was inconvenient to have one person doing this.
Then he bought it out of the bag against Livingstone. Who had such a company for his press work.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
As someone who as done both...
As a self employed contractor, structuring yourself as a service company through a ltd means you take on additional bookkeeping responsibilities and liabilities. The alternative when working as a contractor is to go through an "umbrella company" who are a pissant middle man who take a percentage of your day rate for doing sod all, screw up your tax returns, and generally act as a pointless intermediary taking a huge cut of your salary in exchange for a teensy tiny liability risk.
Then IR35 came along and they made structuring yourself as a ltd company no longer as tax efficient. Net result, every contractor I know in my industry stuck their day rate up 25% overnight...
Re your last point, if every contractor was able to put their day rate up by 25% and make it stick, why did they wait for IR35 to do that? Clearly the market could stand it, so why wait?
Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU.
According to the BBC: Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
That's not really ruling it out is it?
They need to understand that time has moved on . It’s not 2016 anymore .
Labour will do a bit of tinkering in terms of our relationship with the EU but that's about it.
All of the Remainers that have been pinning their hopes on Sir Keir reopening Brexit will soon be very disappointed IMO (along with everyone else that for the time being is pinning all their hopes and wishes and disillusionment with the current government on to Labour.
In Opposition SKS has been able to be absolutely anything anyone wants him to be. That is coming to an end very soon...
I don’t expect Rejoin but what I do expect is an effort to give younger people a chance to spend a few years in each other’s countries . Labour seem to think that their voters will keep putting up with this crap .
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
I would guess there are a lot of people also lying to get out of serving on the jury, not only because they might have better and more important things to do with work or family but the risk of potentially being on the jury that convicted or acquitted Trump as either side will likely give you hell afterwards.
Yes, jury duty is a right pain in the proverbial at the best of times, without all the political ramifications of this particular trial. It could also potentially last for a couple of months, which screws with your life considerably. Anyone with any sense won’t want to be near the jury, which means that those who do want to be there are even more likely to be partisan actors.
It's one of the reasons why bringing the death penalty back to the UK will be a non starter.
Because of well the police, CPS, and others there's been some shocking miscarriages of justice, no way most people will convict if their decision leads to an innocent person being murdered by the state.
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
I would guess there are a lot of people also lying to get out of serving on the jury, not only because they might have better and more important things to do with work or family but the risk of potentially being on the jury that convicted or acquitted Trump as either side will likely give you hell afterwards.
Yes, jury duty is a right pain in the proverbial at the best of times, without all the political ramifications of this particular trial. It could also potentially last for a couple of months, which screws with your life considerably. Anyone with any sense won’t want to be near the jury, which means that those who do want to be there are even more likely to be partisan actors.
Civic responsibility is still a possibile option as well. It's an expecially tough and stressful case to be on, but as with any case people who don't want to be there may still it their duty if called. Apparently letting go those who immediately said they coudl not be fair was more of a speeding up measure, since just because someone says that does not mean they could not be, if you followed up with questions to clarify that despite that initial thought the lawyers demonstrate they were able to act fairly. It just wasn't worth the time to do that.
Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU.
According to the BBC: Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
That's not really ruling it out is it?
Isn't "no plans to" Pig Latin for "yes, but we don't want to say it now"?
But I suspect there are still enough voters for whom Europe mobility is a deal breaker, and Starmer needs their votes.
And those of you who had high-minded reasons for supporting Leave and didn't really like the keeping foreigners out stuff... Tough. Dance with the one who bring ya.
Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU.
According to the BBC: Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
That's not really ruling it out is it?
They need to understand that time has moved on . It’s not 2016 anymore .
Labour will do a bit of tinkering in terms of our relationship with the EU but that's about it.
All of the Remainers that have been pinning their hopes on Sir Keir reopening Brexit will soon be very disappointed IMO (along with everyone else that for the time being is pinning all their hopes and wishes and disillusionment with the current government on to Labour.
In Opposition SKS has been able to be absolutely anything anyone wants him to be. That is coming to an end very soon...
I don’t expect Rejoin but what I do expect is an effort to give younger people a chance to spend a few years in each other’s countries . Labour seem to think that their voters will keep putting up with this crap .
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
Ken Livingstone had a limited company.
In short if you have multiple income streams you set up a limited company so you can claim back VAT and allowable expenses.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over the allowance Basic rate 8.75% Higher rate 33.75% Additional rate 39.35%
versus income tax rates
Band Taxable income Tax rate Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0% Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20% Higher rate £50,271 to £125,140 40% Additional rate over £125,140 45%
Yes but my point is it should not be allowed. I appreciate it is allowed but it shouldn't be.
Why?
Tax minimisation strategies are good, I mean if you have an ISA then you are helping reduce your tax bill.
You're completely missing my point. I have no issue with people taking advantage of tax loopholes if such loopholes exist; I just think they should not exist, they should be closed down.
Not closing them down means that those who can't take advantage of the loopholes subsidise those who can. I have a strange affinity to the idea of a level playing field.
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
I would guess there are a lot of people also lying to get out of serving on the jury, not only because they might have better and more important things to do with work or family but the risk of potentially being on the jury that convicted or acquitted Trump as either side will likely give you hell afterwards.
Yes, jury duty is a right pain in the proverbial at the best of times, without all the political ramifications of this particular trial. It could also potentially last for a couple of months, which screws with your life considerably. Anyone with any sense won’t want to be near the jury, which means that those who do want to be there are even more likely to be partisan actors.
It's one of the reasons why bringing the death penalty back to the UK will be a non starter.
Because of well the police, CPS, and others there's been some shocking miscarriages of justice, no way most people will convict if their decision leads to an innocent person being murdered by the state.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
As someone who as done both...
As a self employed contractor, structuring yourself as a service company through a ltd means you take on additional bookkeeping responsibilities and liabilities. The alternative when working as a contractor is to go through an "umbrella company" who are a pissant middle man who take a percentage of your day rate for doing sod all, screw up your tax returns, and generally act as a pointless intermediary taking a huge cut of your salary in exchange for a teensy tiny liability risk.
Then IR35 came along and they made structuring yourself as a ltd company no longer as tax efficient. Net result, every contractor I know in my industry stuck their day rate up 25% overnight...
Re your last point, if every contractor was able to put their day rate up by 25% and make it stick, why did they wait for IR35 to do that? Clearly the market could stand it, so why wait?
Take an IT contractor earning £350 a day, equivalent to a £70k a year salary. The IR35 changes reduced their income by 14%, the pissant umbrella company takes another bite if you no longer want to do the ltd company legwork.
The very rapid result of IR35 was everyone (and I do mean everyone, everyone structured themselves as ltd) was suddenly on the receiving end of a 15-20%-ish pay cut.
I'm not an economist, but essentially the fixed costs for the entire industry of contractors shifted 20% overnight. Hence, everyone put their prices up to the new equilibrium.
In my industry, it really did happen overnight - facing the same 20% cut in incomes, everyone put their prices up by about the same amount give or take, as everyone more or less has the same 'clearing price' below which they can't afford to pay their bills, therefore they don't take the jobs on.
Judge struggling to find 12 jurors in the Trump case.
Hoping to start actual trial by Monday but lost two jurors this afternoon.
They got 7 on the first day of proper jury selection, lost two of those, but called something like 500 people down for potential selection. Even with 50% self selecting out first up they will manage to get 12 jurors and 6 alternates, even if goes in to next week (which many legal people had been predicting in the first place).
It’s not an easy job to find a dozen and more people in the US who have an impartial view of the guy, especially when they might be lying to try and get selected for the jury in the first place. Not surprised it’s taken all week.
I would guess there are a lot of people also lying to get out of serving on the jury, not only because they might have better and more important things to do with work or family but the risk of potentially being on the jury that convicted or acquitted Trump as either side will likely give you hell afterwards.
Yes, jury duty is a right pain in the proverbial at the best of times, without all the political ramifications of this particular trial. It could also potentially last for a couple of months, which screws with your life considerably. Anyone with any sense won’t want to be near the jury, which means that those who do want to be there are even more likely to be partisan actors.
It's one of the reasons why bringing the death penalty back to the UK will be a non starter.
Because of well the police, CPS, and others there's been some shocking miscarriages of justice, no way most people will convict if their decision leads to an innocent person being murdered by the state.
It is said that one of the reasons for getting rid of the death penalty is that juries were becoming reluctant to convict back in the 1950s and 60s.
This is why Singaporean dictator Lee Kuan Yew abolished jury trial for murder in Singapore. He said he could have a pregnant woman on the jury and she'd be unlikely to vote guilty knowing the defendant would be hanged. Nice guy. He boasts about this in his autobiography.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
He was a consultant working for multiple parties (newspapers, magazines, TV, speeches etc)
Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU.
According to the BBC: Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
That's not really ruling it out is it?
This is a second example, following the smoking ban proposal, of a change in rights not near the start of adulthood or retirement but somewhere in between. See where this is going?
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
Ken Livingstone had a limited company.
In short if you have multiple income streams you set up a limited company so you can claim back VAT and allowable expenses.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over the allowance Basic rate 8.75% Higher rate 33.75% Additional rate 39.35%
versus income tax rates
Band Taxable income Tax rate Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0% Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20% Higher rate £50,271 to £125,140 40% Additional rate over £125,140 45%
You are ignoring corporate tax - the total rate paid on corporation tax + dividends is much the same as personal income tax
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
There are so many people in Manhattan they can find a fair jury even for him, but he may be the hardest person ever to manage that for even above serious violent criminals, due to his assertion that attacking witnesses, judges, and prospective jurors, is political speech, and given he has supporters who do act on this stuff.
It is entirely rational to not want to be on a jury dealing with Trump, for similar reasons one would not, per impossibile, want to be a juror in a case in Russia where Putin was the defendant.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
He was a consultant working for multiple parties (newspapers, magazines, TV, speeches etc)
I used 'how is that allowed' in the sense of 'why is that allowed'.
It will then turn out that two of the jurors were keen Trump supporters and lied about it during jury selection.
Trump has to keep on insulting and threatening, in order to retain his brand image. Also because he is insane. So when the mistrial is declared he may already have his arse in jail.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
The thing you will love is it looks like it’s off the back of the Tories pushing for such a scheme.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
It’s as good as ruling it out, isn’t it? “We have no plans to do that” is as good as saying it won’t happen.
The YouGov England sub sample has a swing of 17.5% from Conservative to Labour and 11% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so the Baxter numbers look catastrophic for the governing party.
On the West Midlands Mayoral poll, Labour will be happy - a 2% deficit (if correct) will encourage Labour voters and activists out in a way a 14% lead doesn't. It's a classic opportunity to squeeze LD, Green and Reform voters (not all of whom are Conservative).
As we saw in London in 2021, some of the pre-election polling can be a little iffy - we need a poll 3-4 days before the vote in order to wager sensibly. For the West Midlands contest, Labour are 1.12 with Smarkets and the Conservatives at 3. The R&W national polling for the area seemed in line with other polls (14% swing to Labour as I recall) but we can't ignore the Savanta polling and while it looks like an outlier it may well be picking up a local trend - we'll see.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
from the bbc
And Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
A party spokesperson said it had already pledged "no return to the single market, customs union or free movement" if it takes office.
Seems like they consider it to break the free movement pledge to me.
Forgive me if this has already been pointed out, but British Politics since 2010 makes a lot more sense if one assumes that *all* of the Conservative MPs have been blackmailed.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
It's eminently plausible, given how paranoid they are about opening any opportunity for the Tories on Brexit, even when there's a big popularity upside. It's the same with pet passports - another clear win if Labour committed to rejoin the scheme: I wrote to their shadow minister who replied quickly completely dodging the question, and has then simply ignored every reminder I have sent him.
Six months back they might have had a chance of my tactical vote, but Labour can go hang for it, they offer so little.
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
He was a consultant working for multiple parties (newspapers, magazines, TV, speeches etc)
I used 'how is that allowed' in the sense of 'why is that allowed'.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
It’s as good as ruling it out, isn’t it? “We have no plans to do that” is as good as saying it won’t happen.
Au contraire.
It means "this is inevitable, but it would create an almighty stink if we acknowledged it now."
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
It's eminently plausible, given how paranoid they are about opening any opportunity for the Tories on Brexit, even when there's a big popularity upside. It's the same with pet passports - another clear win if Labour committed to rejoin the scheme: I wrote to their shadow minister who replied quickly completely dodging the question, and has then simply ignored every reminder I have sent him.
Six months back they might have had a chance of my tactical vote, but Labour can go hang for it, they offer so little.
I thought you lived on the IoW? Are thr Lib Dems no longer the main challenger to the Tories?
Personally I think he's not doing too bad a job, but I have to admit communication isn't his forté.
Sub Truss?
Chortle.
The day collar discussion is not needed...
A discussion we are only having because I spotted it after watcing her debate for two minutes. Ahem
Was it ever established beyond your fruitier ramblings and because it fitted with her being a bit a shagger in the past that it is a 'day collar'? Doing a Google lense search of it seems to bring up fashion pieces that look exactly the same. I thought there must be something different about the bale that made it 'the bondage version', but can't find any evidence of that. So as fun a rumour as it is, I'm calling bullshit and going to say she's wearing it because it's a nice piece of jewellery her hubbie bought her.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
You're right, despite the over-excitement on here. It should be read as: Labour has no plans whatsoever to risk losing votes at the GE by enabling the Tories and their press to claim that they are 'rejoining' the EU by the back door, by for example opening the floodgates to millions, yes millions, of young European foreigners to come over here and take our jobs, claim benefits, or both.
People may not like Starmer's excessive caution, but the opinion polls suggest it's working. Once in power, stuff like this will change.
If the state is going to have to finance it, the state should own it. Given the discount the debt is trading at, a 40% haircut is not enough in any event.
This is doing my head in now. A whole sub-thread has appeared based on @nico679's assertion (18:25): "Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU."
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
Thanks. But we're back to the 'no plans'. 'We have no plans' ≠ 'We rule it out'.
You're right, despite the over-excitement on here. It should be read as: Labour has no plans whatsoever to risk losing votes at the GE by enabling the Tories and their press to claim that they are 'rejoining' the EU by the back door, by for example opening the floodgates to millions, yes millions, of young European foreigners to come over here and take our jobs, claim benefits, or both.
People may not like Starmer's excessive caution, but the opinion polls suggest it's working. Once in power, stuff like this will change.
It might not this time round- though power is a massive aphrodisiac and reality a strong teacher. But so much of the swing in opinion is of the "one funeral at a time" sort that the debate will look different in 2028 anyway.
But for now, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom. It's horrible and starting to smell funny. But as long as Uncle Nigel can still change the contents of his will, we have to keep it. We don't want to risk upsetting him.
"Yes Uncle Nigel, it's a lovely Brexit. No, we wouldn't dream of getting rid of it. The man from the antique shop was just here so we could know the value to insure it properly."
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed Rayner’s living arrangements
Party says selection papers from deputy leader’s candidate application ‘disposed of’ in line with ‘data protection requirements’
Labour destroyed documents that could have revealed where Angela Rayner claimed to be living when she applied to be a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is being investigated by police over claims that she broke electoral law by registering the wrong address as her permanent residence on the electoral register between 2010 and 2015.
She was registered at her own house in Vicarage Road, Stockport, for those five years, while her husband at the time lived about a mile away at a house in Lowndes Lane. They married in 2010.
Neighbours have claimed that she actually lived at Lowndes Lane and that her brother was living in the Vicarage Road property.
Labour has previously said it would not reveal which address she included on internal selection papers in 2014. Now it has emerged that the papers have been “disposed of”, which a Labour spokesman said was carried out in line with data protection laws.
'Personal data should be kept for no longer than is necessary'
It would appear they have a fair, if convenient, defence.
Indeed.
They could release her legal/financial advice though.
She could.
I've seen this mentioned several times and it makes me chuckle.
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
Yes indeed. I mean, in this case she is not an ordinary person now, whether she was then we'll leave aside for the moment, but you do see a lot of assumptions about ordinary people being intimately involved with detailed financial things that really only the well off do.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London
I remember reading at the time Boris Johnson could have saved circa £50,000 a year in tax if he had set up a limited company.
The question that poses for me is: how is or was that allowed?
As someone who as done both...
As a self employed contractor, structuring yourself as a service company through a ltd means you take on additional bookkeeping responsibilities and liabilities. The alternative when working as a contractor is to go through an "umbrella company" who are a pissant middle man who take a percentage of your day rate for doing sod all, screw up your tax returns, and generally act as a pointless intermediary taking a huge cut of your salary in exchange for a teensy tiny liability risk.
Then IR35 came along and they made structuring yourself as a ltd company no longer as tax efficient. Net result, every contractor I know in my industry stuck their day rate up 25% overnight...
Re your last point, if every contractor was able to put their day rate up by 25% and make it stick, why did they wait for IR35 to do that? Clearly the market could stand it, so why wait?
Because it was EVERY contractor, so the end clients had little choice.
Ridiculous decision by Labour to rule out a youth mobility scheme with the EU.
According to the BBC: Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
That's not really ruling it out is it?
They need to understand that time has moved on . It’s not 2016 anymore .
Labour will do a bit of tinkering in terms of our relationship with the EU but that's about it.
All of the Remainers that have been pinning their hopes on Sir Keir reopening Brexit will soon be very disappointed IMO (along with everyone else that for the time being is pinning all their hopes and wishes and disillusionment with the current government on to Labour.
In Opposition SKS has been able to be absolutely anything anyone wants him to be. That is coming to an end very soon...
I don’t expect Rejoin but what I do expect is an effort to give younger people a chance to spend a few years in each other’s countries . Labour seem to think that their voters will keep putting up with this crap .
Realign, renegotiate, rejoin, the 10 year plan.
What do you mean 'realign' - we have never de-aligned.
Comments
The idea that ordinary people take legal and financial advice about their tax affairs is laughable - an assumption by those with enough money to make taking such advice the norm.
As for Rodric Williams, how the hell is he still in post, and how the hell is he still licenced to practice law?
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/liz-trusss-new-book-includes-false-rothschild-quote-about-control-of-money-jsy4f6k8
I advise contempt towards any "news" item based on a Twitter/X post (or that cites "experts"). Some journalists want everyone else to become as stupid as they are.
Possibly one reason people were stunned to discover Boris wasn't fiddling his finances to get a lower tax rate when running for mayor of London. His opponents just naturally assumed he must be, because most people of their status do they expect.
Anyway…
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-rayner-council-house-tax-kitchen-b2530756.html
Hung jury means no verdict possible: 10 to 2.
It will then turn out that two of the jurors were keen Trump supporters and lied about it during jury selection.
Add in there's a hearing about Trump committing contempt of court (which he surely has, but no judge will dare jail him for it and he knows it) next week on one of the days, and the day off, and maybe they don't get to opening statements until this time next week!
In short if you have multiple income streams you set up a limited company so you can claim back VAT and allowable expenses.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over the allowance
Basic rate 8.75%
Higher rate 33.75%
Additional rate 39.35%
versus income tax rates
Band Taxable income Tax rate
Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0%
Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20%
Higher rate £50,271 to £125,140 40%
Additional rate over £125,140 45%
That's not really ruling it out is it?
But what benefit is there to the people and the state for it apparently to be so common as to be the expectation for people to avoid taxes? I get ideas of lower taxes of breaks for specific purposes having a benefit, but a million ways for rich people with accountants to avoid?
The chap I found did my years taxes (including the CGT) for a couple of hundred quid.
He saved me more than that by doing the allowances for various things right, plus he actually fixed my tax code. Which my employer had got wrong. IIRC he had professional insurance.
As a self employed contractor, structuring yourself as a service company through a ltd means you take on additional bookkeeping responsibilities and liabilities. The alternative when working as a contractor is to go through an "umbrella company" who are a pissant middle man who take a percentage of your day rate for doing sod all, screw up your tax returns, and generally act as a pointless intermediary taking a huge cut of your salary in exchange for a teensy tiny liability risk.
Then IR35 came along and they made structuring yourself as a ltd company no longer as tax efficient. Net result, every contractor I know in my industry stuck their day rate up 25% overnight...
You’ll always have the odd jury member that’s part of the Trump Cult .
All of the Remainers that have been pinning their hopes on Sir Keir reopening Brexit will soon be very disappointed IMO (along with everyone else that for the time being is pinning all their hopes and wishes and disillusionment with the current government on to Labour)
In Opposition, SKS has been able to be absolutely anything anyone wants him to be. That is coming to an end very soon...
This one the case is not as serious or straightforward as the others, but equally maybe that makes a conviction easier because even if convicted he might not get jail time, or would only get like a single year, so even a supporter short of total cultdome may feel able to exercise their duty properly.
Acquittal is of course possible anyway. The DC case which was due to start in March was his biggest worry (with the florida documents case stalled), and the Supreme Court have done him a solid with that one.
Tax minimisation strategies are good, I mean if you have an ISA then you are helping reduce your tax bill.
Note to self: Must remember to proof read when using my phone.
Think contracting. No NI for a start…
So your company is contracted by a paper to write a column, say.
Unlike everyone else, Johnson didn’t do this. But he had such a company previously. But stopped using it a year or 2 *before* the expenses scandal and before he got the big gig at the Telegraph.
The payments people at the Telegraph tried to get him to switch. Because it was inconvenient to have one person doing this.
Then he bought it out of the bag against Livingstone. Who had such a company for his press work.
Because of well the police, CPS, and others there's been some shocking miscarriages of justice, no way most people will convict if their decision leads to an innocent person being murdered by the state.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/18/criminal-cases-review-commission-apologises-to-andrew-malkinson-for-handling-of-case
Starmer has won and he needs to stop stressing about the likes of Braverman and the ERG
I think it would be an excellent agreement
But I suspect there are still enough voters for whom Europe mobility is a deal breaker, and Starmer needs their votes.
And those of you who had high-minded reasons for supporting Leave and didn't really like the keeping foreigners out stuff... Tough. Dance with the one who bring ya.
Not closing them down means that those who can't take advantage of the loopholes subsidise those who can. I have a strange affinity to the idea of a level playing field.
Take an IT contractor earning £350 a day, equivalent to a £70k a year salary. The IR35 changes reduced their income by 14%, the pissant umbrella company takes another bite if you no longer want to do the ltd company legwork.
The very rapid result of IR35 was everyone (and I do mean everyone, everyone structured themselves as ltd) was suddenly on the receiving end of a 15-20%-ish pay cut.
I'm not an economist, but essentially the fixed costs for the entire industry of contractors shifted 20% overnight. Hence, everyone put their prices up to the new equilibrium.
In my industry, it really did happen overnight - facing the same 20% cut in incomes, everyone put their prices up by about the same amount give or take, as everyone more or less has the same 'clearing price' below which they can't afford to pay their bills, therefore they don't take the jobs on.
I'd just like somebody, anybody, to provide the evidence for that assertion - then I can join in. Until then, how do I know this isn't fake news?
want to be a juror in a case in Russia where Putin was the defendant.
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/18/brussels-proposes-return-to-pre-brexit-free-movement-for-uk-and-eu-young-people
IPSOS 62-32, YouGov 60-35.
The YouGov England sub sample has a swing of 17.5% from Conservative to Labour and 11% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so the Baxter numbers look catastrophic for the governing party.
On the West Midlands Mayoral poll, Labour will be happy - a 2% deficit (if correct) will encourage Labour voters and activists out in a way a 14% lead doesn't. It's a classic opportunity to squeeze LD, Green and Reform voters (not all of whom are Conservative).
As we saw in London in 2021, some of the pre-election polling can be a little iffy - we need a poll 3-4 days before the vote in order to wager sensibly. For the West Midlands contest, Labour are 1.12 with Smarkets and the Conservatives at 3. The R&W national polling for the area seemed in line with other polls (14% swing to Labour as I recall) but we can't ignore the Savanta polling and while it looks like an outlier it may well be picking up a local trend - we'll see.
And Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year.
A party spokesperson said it had already pledged "no return to the single market, customs union or free movement" if it takes office.
Seems like they consider it to break the free movement pledge to me.
Six months back they might have had a chance of my tactical vote, but Labour can go hang for it, they offer so little.
It means "this is inevitable, but it would create an almighty stink if we acknowledged it now."
See "we have no plans to raise taxes."
MENZIES.
TRUSS.
Labour has no plans whatsoever to risk losing votes at the GE by enabling the Tories and their press to claim that they are 'rejoining' the EU by the back door, by for example opening the floodgates to millions, yes millions, of young European foreigners to come over here and take our jobs, claim benefits, or both.
People may not like Starmer's excessive caution, but the opinion polls suggest it's working. Once in power, stuff like this will change.
Given the discount the debt is trading at, a 40% haircut is not enough in any event.
It was probably Merchan’s first error in this trial not to order the tighter restrictions on reporting that he’s brought in today.
But for now, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom. It's horrible and starting to smell funny. But as long as Uncle Nigel can still change the contents of his will, we have to keep it. We don't want to risk upsetting him.
"Yes Uncle Nigel, it's a lovely Brexit. No, we wouldn't dream of getting rid of it. The man from the antique shop was just here so we could know the value to insure it properly."
"The husband of former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has been charged in connection with the embezzlement of funds from the Scottish National Party."