Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.
Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.
AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?
The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK
etc
Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*
So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?
This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.
But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.
The police ignore actual crimes being committed all the time, yet are happy to send 5 officers to arrest this one guy for a mean thing he said on the internet. That's absolutely their fault, the investigating officer could easily have judged that no crime was commited and told the complainant to get fucked.
And wasn't the threat to arrest Pinochet die to an ICJ warrant, not because of some perceived harm caused to a UK citizen?
Airport police always move in groups, depends what they were doing at the time
I don’t think those police were randomly walking through the airport then when Linehan landed someone radioed them to pick him up.
His name would have pinged up as flying in and so it would have been arranged to arrest him on arrival.
Many years ago I was falsely accused of something and not arrested or informed of charges (yet alone being given the opportunity to provide evidence that would absolutely clear me) by the police and it went to court in the UK, which I knew nothing about, and then miraculously the police managed to contact me, having been unable to do so for six months before, to tell me there was a warrant out for me and I would be arrested on arrival in the UK so someone would be waiting for me when I landed or docked.
Obviously I avoided the UK until I managed to show the CPS that it was a load of bollocks with irrefutable evidence and they sent me a letter apologising, clearing me of any accusation and dropping the warrant. I made sure I carried that letter (physically and digital copies and lodged with my lawyer on top) for quite a few trips after as I didn’t trust that there wouldn’t be some glitch in the system.
You live in Jersey. That makes you a Rayner.
Not a Rayner, I’ve never not paid UK taxes that I was required to pay.
It appears then we have two people in the dock (so to speak) - Linehan and the Police.
I won't comment on Linehan - as for the Police, the charge (so to speak again) is the fact of using five armed officers to arrest one man. In my part of the world, the Police do "go about mob handed" when they need to (which in turn raises questions of the truth or perception of officer shortages). I've seen four or five for a traffic stop - the British Transport Police will turn up in numbers to support revenue collection teams trying to stop fare dodgers at East Ham Station.
There's an old adage there's safety in numbers - look at how opinion polls are viewed on here - and presumably the view is potential arrests need to happen with numerical force and security for the officers involved and I've no argument with that given how violent some can be.
On a more general point, we come back to the old chestnut of the right to offend versus the right to be offended. It's my experience those who dish out the offence in the name of "free speech" aren't happy when it's pushed back to them and the right to be offended seems to extend to those who can't (for whatever reason) easily answer back in the echo chambers of social media.
Using the Linehan incident as an argument for claiming Britain is an authoritarian state is no more valid than groups of ICE wandering the streets of some US cities detaining people at will. All societies are authoritarian to an extent - the rule of law requires a degree of enforcement if you don't have consent. Whether that enforcement happens with a knock on the door at 4am or in broad daylight isn't really the issue.
Morning all. Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.
He would have difficulty finding unarmed officers at Heathrow
Five needed?
Clearly not. But how do they work? If there's a group of five, do you keep them together as a unit anyway for responses if needed? The following things are all possible:
Decision to detain (rather than invite to interview)
Police know where he's going to be at a specific time and have police on the scene already
Said police operate in defined units, so you send a unit rather than, say, one or two
The most questionable part is probably #1, presumably it would be easy to get his number and phone him to ask him to come in. But maybe just as easy to nab him off the plane. PR-wise somewhat better to take the more civilised approach though.
For #3 it's also possible that only two (say) officers were requested to arrest and the others either moved with unit as a matter of course or fancied being there to witness things and have a story for their kids.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
I agree. One thing that doesn't help is that the general issue of violence against women by men (one of the biggest problems in human affairs) these days gets lost in the fog of culture war sniping whereby people use it in bad faith to pursue their particular agendas.
So for example we'll see it become violence against *our* women by *migrant* men - a lovely combination of racism and misogyny there. Or violence against women by men *pretending to be women* - a very niche area in the grand scheme of things.
I think this rather disrespects the issue and detracts from it. The defining feature of violence against women by men is right there in the description. The victims are women, the perpetrators are men.
Thanks for the header and I hope you are well, Cyclefree.
On this point "The advice, when faced with a man who scares or bothers them – by parents, in self-defence classes and anyone with experience of this – is, first, get away as fast as possible." I think there is a link to the Peggie vs NHS Fife/Upton case. Apparently one of the 'hurty' things that Peggie did was to leave the changing room when Upton was present - in other words doing exactly as you write - get away. Its not just the Met that have been captured by one side of the argument - NHS Fife, the SNP and thus Scottish Government have been too.
The solution to EVERYTHING that is wrong today is independence at some point in the future.
They will have no answers as to how Scotland would separate from the UK, how the economy would function, how much money there would be to "remove the VAT cliff edge" as just suggested etc etc. Nor a timeframe. Nor how any of that helps to fix the SNP failing to deliver its own targets on NHS waiting lists.
Awaiting an operation like my mum? In pain and discomfort like my mum? Need the government to sort the NHS today? What is the answer? INDEPENDENCE!!!
Wankers. They have literally no clue.
Nevertheless wankers who enjoy considerably more support than your set of wankers whose default position is that sticking with the current marvellous set up is the balm to our ills.
But we don't want to stick with the current set up. We're federalists.
Is 'ooh, I want to live in a federation, please tell me more' what they're telling you on the doorsteps? In that case you're elevation to Holyrood is guaranteed.
Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.
Lots of organisations that don't like the SC judgement and want to find a way round it say they are waiting for the new guidance rather than simply accepting that they must provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for employees and that they can only rely on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act for things that are genuinely single bilological sex. Part of the reasoning for the SC judgement is that any other interpretation results in inconsistencies and incompleteness in the law. Their judgement is clear and simple. But, just as the Forstater judgement led to lots of employers trying to find a way round it with the Bananarama defence (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it) and failing, the SC judgement has led to lots of organisations delaying implementation in the hope they can find a way round it.
Have you read the current EHRC guidance? It contains the following, very helpful (hah!) advice to service providers & employers:
“In workplaces and services that are open to the public where separate single-sex facilities are lawfully provided:
trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided”
So a service provider that does not have room for both mens, womens & mixed sex provision is placed in an apparently impossible position where they cannot legally provide toilet facilities without compromising their legal obligations to one protected characteristic or another. Helpfuily the EHRC doesn’t even bother to define when it might not be permission to let a trans person use either gendered toilet.
Note that the EHRC believes that only offering mixed sex provision is also “potentially” discriminatory, so employers & services providers can’t even take the option of making sure that all the provision has individual lockable external doors & making them mixed sex. They offer no legal justification for this position, but any employer is going to be unhappy at the prospect of going against EHRC advice.
This is the mess that employers & service providers are talking about when they complain that existing guidance is unclear: They have legal obligations under the Equality Act to both trans & non-trans individuals, but many of them have been put in the invidious position of being unable to satisfy both under the current EHRC guidance.
Single user washrooms
Take a washroom away from the men's and make it unisex. Problem solved. Or make them single user closed cubicles with a basin, as in my local tiny cafe. Most of the organisations complaining are very large indeed and have plenty of space.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
This feels like you're looking at overall numbers, rather than proportion within subset of population? White cis men are responsible for most crime because there's far more of them. And I don't know about you - but when, for example, the climbing instructor appointed to my daughter's group is a genuine man I am entirely relaxed; when it is a 6'1" person with a moustache and make up who insists on being referred to as 'she' - slightly less so.
Are you comparing 2 actual examples, or an actual example and a hypothetical that is a sum of all your discomfort with trans people?
It's an actual example. And I was uncomfortable. Not uncomfortable enough to kick up any sort of a fuss, obviously - I'm British. Rochdale reckons the person in this example is less likely to be any sort of a threat. Seems counter-intuitive to me, but there you go. Incidentally I have come across more than one trans climbing instructor. The effeminate male who insisted pronouns were 'they and their' did not trouble me at all except linguistically. The massive hairy bloke in make up who insisted pronouns were 'she and her' did.
“In workplaces and services that are open to the public where separate single-sex facilities are lawfully provided:
trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided”
So a service provider that does not have room for both mens, womens & mixed sex provision is placed in an apparently impossible position where they cannot legally provide toilet facilities without compromising their legal obligations to one protected characteristic or another. Helpfully the EHRC doesn’t even bother to define when it might not be permission to let a trans person use either gendered toilet.
Note that the EHRC believes that only offering mixed sex provision is also “potentially” discriminatory, so employers & services providers can’t even take the option of making sure that all the provision has individual lockable external doors & making them mixed sex. They offer no legal justification for this position, but any employer is going to be unhappy at the prospect of going against EHRC advice.
This is the mess that employers & service providers are talking about when they complain that existing guidance is unclear: They have legal obligations under the Equality Act to both trans & non-trans individuals, but many of them have been put in the invidious position of being unable to satisfy both under the current EHRC guidance.
Single user washrooms
The EHRC states the following about single user washrooms: “However, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex.”
Quite how this is indirect sex discrimination is not defined. I presume that this is going to be the next Gender Crit legal push: to argue that mixed sex provision puts women at risk, so an provider that offers only mixed sex facilities, even in individual lockable ones, is breaking their obligations under the various Acts. That this eliminates all remaining legally feasible trans provision at a stroke is either a fringe benefit or the real aim, depending on which subset of the GCs we’re talking about.
Makes sense from the Labour side to have the investigation conclude quickly. That way you either get the resignation over with or you have the answer, after which you can assess the fallout over the weekend and if there’s still a story by Monday, revisit.
Incitement to violence in situations where the intent is possibly comedic rather than serious should perhaps be subject to the Tango test.
If people start going around punching feminine looking men in the balls, then it’s incitement to violence. If they don’t, it was a joke (or the poster doesn’t have the influence they think they have).
Take the bishop Brennan incident. Ted was told to kick him in the arse. He did so. That’s successful incitement. If he’d chickened out there’d have been no case to answer.
Surely not? Surely in the Bishop Brennan case the inciter bears no responsibility because noone reasonable would be expected to follow through? If I were to tell you, on here, to kick the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury (say) in the arse, and you did so, no legal process would go after Cookie off the internet because the suggestion is clearly ridiculous? Surely?
I'm impressed that you have very prudently covered yourself by selecting a See which currently has a Vacancy so nobody can follow your advice as there is presently no such Bishop!
Lets see how FILTH Rayner is getting on in her job:
Construction activity has decreased throughout the year to-date, which is the longest continuous downturn since early-2020. August data signalled only a partial easing in the speed of decline after output fell at the fastest pace for over five years in July.
Sharply reduced levels of housing and civil engineering activity were again the main reasons for a weak overall construction sector performance.
...
Lower volumes of output and incoming new work led to hiring freezes and the non-replacement of departing staff in August. Employment numbers have fallen throughout 2025 to date and the latest reduction was the fastest since May. A number of firms commented on efforts to mitigate rising payroll costs by cutting back on recruitment. Subcontractor usage also decreased markedly in August and at one of the fastest rates seen over the past five years.
Brilliant from Swinney. A load of waffle and then "this is my declaration, its our right to choose".
Great. So what's the plan man?
Oh, there isn't one.
SNP bloke on R4 Today this morning when asked about what currency would be used upon independence gave out details of a website to be consulted instead of answering the question.
Morning all. Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
If it transpires she did actually get formal written legal advice from experts who got wrong something findable from a quick google, it does somewhat raise questions for the people involved!
“In workplaces and services that are open to the public where separate single-sex facilities are lawfully provided:
trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided”
So a service provider that does not have room for both mens, womens & mixed sex provision is placed in an apparently impossible position where they cannot legally provide toilet facilities without compromising their legal obligations to one protected characteristic or another. Helpfully the EHRC doesn’t even bother to define when it might not be permission to let a trans person use either gendered toilet.
Note that the EHRC believes that only offering mixed sex provision is also “potentially” discriminatory, so employers & services providers can’t even take the option of making sure that all the provision has individual lockable external doors & making them mixed sex. They offer no legal justification for this position, but any employer is going to be unhappy at the prospect of going against EHRC advice.
This is the mess that employers & service providers are talking about when they complain that existing guidance is unclear: They have legal obligations under the Equality Act to both trans & non-trans individuals, but many of them have been put in the invidious position of being unable to satisfy both under the current EHRC guidance.
Single user washrooms
The EHRC states the following about single user washrooms: “However, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex.”
Quite how this is indirect sex discrimination is not defined. I presume that this is going to be the next Gender Crit legal push: to argue that mixed sex provision puts women at risk, so an provider that offers only mixed sex facilities, even in individual lockable ones, is breaking their obligations under the various Acts. That this eliminates all remaining legally feasible trans provision at a stroke is either a fringe benefit or the real aim, depending on which subset of the GCs we’re talking about.
This is the ambiguity that service providers are complaining about: the EHRC is making vague allusions to legal possibilities but not actually explaining the justification for any of them.
Morning all. Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
Minister avoids paying for her own tax advisor and wastes thousands of public funds on her own personal advice putting civil servants in a stressful position gate.
Tesla sales fell by +8% (vs a market growing at -2%) as the brand collapsed into year on year growth. Model Y is shamefully rejected and is now the best selling EV in August.
And those quarterly sales? A disastrous +23% on the rolling quarter (June - August vs March - May) as the best selling EV being off-sale definitely wasn't responsible for lower sales numbers.
Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.
Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.
AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?
The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK
etc
Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*
So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?
This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.
But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.
The police ignore actual crimes being committed all the time, yet are happy to send 5 officers to arrest this one guy for a mean thing he said on the internet. That's absolutely their fault, the investigating officer could easily have judged that no crime was commited and told the complainant to get fucked.
And wasn't the threat to arrest Pinochet die to an ICJ warrant, not because of some perceived harm caused to a UK citizen?
Airport police always move in groups, depends what they were doing at the time
I don’t think those police were randomly walking through the airport then when Linehan landed someone radioed them to pick him up.
His name would have pinged up as flying in and so it would have been arranged to arrest him on arrival.
Many years ago I was falsely accused of something and not arrested or informed of charges (yet alone being given the opportunity to provide evidence that would absolutely clear me) by the police and it went to court in the UK, which I knew nothing about, and then miraculously the police managed to contact me, having been unable to do so for six months before, to tell me there was a warrant out for me and I would be arrested on arrival in the UK so someone would be waiting for me when I landed or docked.
Obviously I avoided the UK until I managed to show the CPS that it was a load of bollocks with irrefutable evidence and they sent me a letter apologising, clearing me of any accusation and dropping the warrant. I made sure I carried that letter (physically and digital copies and lodged with my lawyer on top) for quite a few trips after as I didn’t trust that there wouldn’t be some glitch in the system.
You live in Jersey. That makes you a Rayner.
Not a Rayner, I’ve never not paid UK taxes that I was required to pay.
To be clear it was a group definition intended in jest, not a personal accusation
Makes sense from the Labour side to have the investigation conclude quickly. That way you either get the resignation over with or you have the answer, after which you can assess the fallout over the weekend and if there’s still a story by Monday, revisit.
Everybody knows these things are never truly independent, but you have to at least give the illusion that you carefully considered all the evidence. Also, if you drag it out a bit, if there is more to come, it lets the "independent" person take that on board.
If you clear them in a day, then more information is released over the weekend, the independent investigator looks terrible.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
This feels like you're looking at overall numbers, rather than proportion within subset of population? White cis men are responsible for most crime because there's far more of them. And I don't know about you - but when, for example, the climbing instructor appointed to my daughter's group is a genuine man I am entirely relaxed; when it is a 6'1" person with a moustache and make up who insists on being referred to as 'she' - slightly less so.
Are you comparing 2 actual examples, or an actual example and a hypothetical that is a sum of all your discomfort with trans people?
It's an actual example. And I was uncomfortable. Not uncomfortable enough to kick up any sort of a fuss, obviously - I'm British. Rochdale reckons the person in this example is less likely to be any sort of a threat. Seems counter-intuitive to me, but there you go. Incidentally I have come across more than one trans climbing instructor. The effeminate male who insisted pronouns were 'they and their' did not trouble me at all except linguistically. The massive hairy bloke in make up who insisted pronouns were 'she and her' did.
What did your daughter think/feel? Was hairy eyeliner bloke a good instructor?
The most read article on the BBC news article is positive for Rayner. Basically pins the blame on the three lawyers she consulted.
She'll survive.
I doubt it.
She is now the story, and the BBC in particular will run the story until they have a scalp (it goes without saying that the Telegraph, Mail, Sun, Express, GBNews and Talk TV won't quit until it brings down the Government, but that might be them wishcasting). For what it is worth she needs to resign the housing portfolio to kill the story.
Through cock-up or conspiracy not paying £40,000 is very naughty. It is presumably a lot naughtier, for example, than saving Richard Desmond a £50m tax bill in exchange for a £10,000 donation to the Tory Party, or PPE fast lane procurement opportunities for friends and family of Ministers. I say that because with the exception of Labour voters Michelle and Dougie both those stories have been largely ignored, even when you would have thought them relevant.
Morning all. Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
Minister avoids paying for her own tax advisor and wastes thousands of public funds on her own personal advice putting civil servants in a stressful position gate.
Minister googles 'stamp duty rules' and follows instructions
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
So a service provider that does not have room for both mens, womens & mixed sex provision is placed in an apparently impossible position where they cannot legally provide toilet facilities without compromising their legal obligations to one protected characteristic or another. Helpfuily the EHRC doesn’t even bother to define when it might not be permission to let a trans person use either gendered toilet.
Note that the EHRC believes that only offering mixed sex provision is also “potentially” discriminatory, so employers & services providers can’t even take the option of making sure that all the provision has individual lockable external doors & making them mixed sex. They offer no legal justification for this position, but any employer is going to be unhappy at the prospect of going against EHRC advice.
This is the mess that employers & service providers are talking about when they complain that existing guidance is unclear: They have legal obligations under the Equality Act to both trans & non-trans individuals, but many of them have been put in the invidious position of being unable to satisfy both under the current EHRC guidance.
Single user washrooms
Take a washroom away from the men's and make it unisex. Problem solved. Or make them single user closed cubicles with a basin, as in my local tiny cafe. Most of the organisations complaining are very large indeed and have plenty of space.
Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.
Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.
AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?
The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK
etc
Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*
So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?
This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.
But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.
The police ignore actual crimes being committed all the time, yet are happy to send 5 officers to arrest this one guy for a mean thing he said on the internet. That's absolutely their fault, the investigating officer could easily have judged that no crime was commited and told the complainant to get fucked.
And wasn't the threat to arrest Pinochet die to an ICJ warrant, not because of some perceived harm caused to a UK citizen?
Airport police always move in groups, depends what they were doing at the time
I don’t think those police were randomly walking through the airport then when Linehan landed someone radioed them to pick him up.
His name would have pinged up as flying in and so it would have been arranged to arrest him on arrival.
Many years ago I was falsely accused of something and not arrested or informed of charges (yet alone being given the opportunity to provide evidence that would absolutely clear me) by the police and it went to court in the UK, which I knew nothing about, and then miraculously the police managed to contact me, having been unable to do so for six months before, to tell me there was a warrant out for me and I would be arrested on arrival in the UK so someone would be waiting for me when I landed or docked.
Obviously I avoided the UK until I managed to show the CPS that it was a load of bollocks with irrefutable evidence and they sent me a letter apologising, clearing me of any accusation and dropping the warrant. I made sure I carried that letter (physically and digital copies and lodged with my lawyer on top) for quite a few trips after as I didn’t trust that there wouldn’t be some glitch in the system.
You live in Jersey. That makes you a Rayner.
Not a Rayner, I’ve never not paid UK taxes that I was required to pay.
To be clear it was a group definition intended in jest, not a personal accusation
Morning all. Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
Minister avoids paying for her own tax advisor and wastes thousands of public funds on her own personal advice putting civil servants in a stressful position gate.
Minister googles 'stamp duty rules' and follows instructions
If you'd posted that we wouldn't be having this conversation. You didn't.
Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.
Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.
AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?
The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK
etc
Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*
So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?
This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.
But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.
The police ignore actual crimes being committed all the time, yet are happy to send 5 officers to arrest this one guy for a mean thing he said on the internet. That's absolutely their fault, the investigating officer could easily have judged that no crime was commited and told the complainant to get fucked.
And wasn't the threat to arrest Pinochet die to an ICJ warrant, not because of some perceived harm caused to a UK citizen?
What is interesting is that, with this case, the Police seem to be saying they think UK law has world wide jurisdiction.
Write something on the internet, in Pakistan, say, and you could be arrested when you decide to holiday in the U.K.
To start with, the Unionists in NI could have endless fun with a certain kind of Nationalist blogger from the South. The ones who spend their days posting calls for violence.
And the Nationalists could have endless fun if the same kind with Loyalist bloggers if the same type.
Then we could move on to other countries. Can I get an arrest warrant for a Shining Path supporter posting about the need to murder social group X of Peruvians? Given my wife is probably in that group, why not?
Makes sense from the Labour side to have the investigation conclude quickly. That way you either get the resignation over with or you have the answer, after which you can assess the fallout over the weekend and if there’s still a story by Monday, revisit.
Everybody knows these things are never truly independent, but you have to at least give the illusion that you carefully considered all the evidence. Also, if you drag it out a bit, if there is more to come, it lets the "independent" person take that on board.
If you clear them in a day, then more information is released over the weekend, the independent investigator looks terrible.
Yes but then you get three days of “what will the investigator say?”
I don’t think that anyone is probably that bothered how the investigator looks (rightly or wrongly), this is SKS’s favourite playbook - put it into a ‘process’, and then stand behind the fact that it has gone through an independent investigation.
Lets see how FILTH Rayner is getting on in her job:
Construction activity has decreased throughout the year to-date, which is the longest continuous downturn since early-2020. August data signalled only a partial easing in the speed of decline after output fell at the fastest pace for over five years in July.
Sharply reduced levels of housing and civil engineering activity were again the main reasons for a weak overall construction sector performance.
...
Lower volumes of output and incoming new work led to hiring freezes and the non-replacement of departing staff in August. Employment numbers have fallen throughout 2025 to date and the latest reduction was the fastest since May. A number of firms commented on efforts to mitigate rising payroll costs by cutting back on recruitment. Subcontractor usage also decreased markedly in August and at one of the fastest rates seen over the past five years.
By comparison this is the construction PMI from July 2024:
Construction activity increases at fastest pace in 26 months
Growth accelerated in the UK construction sector as the second half of the year got underway, with July seeing much faster increases in both activity and new orders during the month. In turn, firms ramped up purchasing activity and raised staffing levels for the third month running.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
What if it concluded she is guilty as hell and must resign?
There will be those who believe it to be a Starmer stitch-up in that case!
I'm unsure on this. If she sought sensible advice and was badly advised then she should just pay up and stay. If she aimed to deceive, then clearly she should go. If (which seems most likely to me at present) she asked someone but maybe didn't really get sensible advice then I'm not quite sure - there's all kinds of nuance in that case about whether she was naive or didn't wish to look too hard when she got an answer that meant less tax.
Morning all. Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
Minister avoids paying for her own tax advisor and wastes thousands of public funds on her own personal advice putting civil servants in a stressful position gate.
Minister googles 'stamp duty rules' and follows instructions
If you'd posted that we wouldn't be having this conversation. You didn't.
I did, it was the first thing i said - this 'The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous'
I then listed some options if she couldnt be arsed to do that on finding a tax expert if googling is beyond her. I assume she would pay them like a normal human.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
This feels like you're looking at overall numbers, rather than proportion within subset of population? White cis men are responsible for most crime because there's far more of them. And I don't know about you - but when, for example, the climbing instructor appointed to my daughter's group is a genuine man I am entirely relaxed; when it is a 6'1" person with a moustache and make up who insists on being referred to as 'she' - slightly less so.
Are you comparing 2 actual examples, or an actual example and a hypothetical that is a sum of all your discomfort with trans people?
It's an actual example. And I was uncomfortable. Not uncomfortable enough to kick up any sort of a fuss, obviously - I'm British. Rochdale reckons the person in this example is less likely to be any sort of a threat. Seems counter-intuitive to me, but there you go. Incidentally I have come across more than one trans climbing instructor. The effeminate male who insisted pronouns were 'they and their' did not trouble me at all except linguistically. The massive hairy bloke in make up who insisted pronouns were 'she and her' did.
What did your daughter think/feel? Was hairy eyeliner bloke a good instructor?
No - unfriendly and unclear and not really tuned in to 9 year olds. It was not the happy and lighthearted session she was used to. I suspect they only put hairy eyeliner bloke with children when out of other options. And she is very literal minded and slightly weirded out by a person with a moustache insisting on being referred to as 'she'.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
This feels like you're looking at overall numbers, rather than proportion within subset of population? White cis men are responsible for most crime because there's far more of them. And I don't know about you - but when, for example, the climbing instructor appointed to my daughter's group is a genuine man I am entirely relaxed; when it is a 6'1" person with a moustache and make up who insists on being referred to as 'she' - slightly less so.
The hard questions there in the particular instance are around rationality, perception, fact and degree, and self-perception. I'm asking you, but it's a question to all of us.
Would you (or your dad) have been concerned at having a homosexual Scout Group leader in charge of your (or his) child 20 or 40 years ago ?
I think that that traditional prejudice has now largely been learned out of our culture, perhaps with exceptions - but it has taken half a century and more to get to where we are, and there is always a risk of going backwards again.
I can point to a couple of areas where my views have changed quite markedly. It's usually been about personal contact, and distinguishing between small minorities within a "group", and the overall group.
One interesting one fairly recently for me is around youths on bikes with balaclavas, and whether I need to be cautious around all of them. Locally we have quite a small sample, though. Equally, my views have become more diverse, and particularised, about travellers and 'groups within travellers'.
Politically imo, we have far too much politics and media which seek to exploit a prejudice around a minority and weaponise a perception to apply to "all of them". Muslims are an obvious case - there are now occasional videos of people accusing random brown-skinned people of being 'from the boats' who need to 'go back to where you came from', including from children.
But one of my usual critiques of feminist activism has long been a habit of doing the same around "men".
Morning all. Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
Minister avoids paying for her own tax advisor and wastes thousands of public funds on her own personal advice putting civil servants in a stressful position gate.
Minister googles 'stamp duty rules' and follows instructions
if it emerges she asked ChatGPT or similar and then took the advice
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Morning all. Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
Minister avoids paying for her own tax advisor and wastes thousands of public funds on her own personal advice putting civil servants in a stressful position gate.
Minister googles 'stamp duty rules' and follows instructions
if it emerges she asked ChatGPT or similar and then took the advice
Siri, what can i buy with 40 grand of avoided tax?
The solution to EVERYTHING that is wrong today is independence at some point in the future.
They will have no answers as to how Scotland would separate from the UK, how the economy would function, how much money there would be to "remove the VAT cliff edge" as just suggested etc etc. Nor a timeframe. Nor how any of that helps to fix the SNP failing to deliver its own targets on NHS waiting lists.
Awaiting an operation like my mum? In pain and discomfort like my mum? Need the government to sort the NHS today? What is the answer? INDEPENDENCE!!!
Wankers. They have literally no clue.
Nevertheless wankers who enjoy considerably more support than your set of wankers whose default position is that sticking with the current marvellous set up is the balm to our ills.
But we don't want to stick with the current set up. We're federalists.
Are you the sort of federalists that want England split up into penny-packets? Or can we have our own national government like the Scots?
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
This feels like you're looking at overall numbers, rather than proportion within subset of population? White cis men are responsible for most crime because there's far more of them. And I don't know about you - but when, for example, the climbing instructor appointed to my daughter's group is a genuine man I am entirely relaxed; when it is a 6'1" person with a moustache and make up who insists on being referred to as 'she' - slightly less so.
Are you comparing 2 actual examples, or an actual example and a hypothetical that is a sum of all your discomfort with trans people?
It's an actual example. And I was uncomfortable. Not uncomfortable enough to kick up any sort of a fuss, obviously - I'm British. Rochdale reckons the person in this example is less likely to be any sort of a threat. Seems counter-intuitive to me, but there you go. Incidentally I have come across more than one trans climbing instructor. The effeminate male who insisted pronouns were 'they and their' did not trouble me at all except linguistically. The massive hairy bloke in make up who insisted pronouns were 'she and her' did.
What did your daughter think/feel? Was hairy eyeliner bloke a good instructor?
No - unfriendly and unclear and not really tuned in to 9 year olds. It was not the happy and lighthearted session she was used to. I suspect they only put hairy eyeliner bloke with children when out of other options. And she is very literal minded and slightly weirded out by a person with a moustache insisting on being referred to as 'she'.
Just in the interests of balance, my wife's aunt (registered female at birth) has quite an impressive moustache.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
This feels like you're looking at overall numbers, rather than proportion within subset of population? White cis men are responsible for most crime because there's far more of them. And I don't know about you - but when, for example, the climbing instructor appointed to my daughter's group is a genuine man I am entirely relaxed; when it is a 6'1" person with a moustache and make up who insists on being referred to as 'she' - slightly less so.
Are you comparing 2 actual examples, or an actual example and a hypothetical that is a sum of all your discomfort with trans people?
It's an actual example. And I was uncomfortable. Not uncomfortable enough to kick up any sort of a fuss, obviously - I'm British. Rochdale reckons the person in this example is less likely to be any sort of a threat. Seems counter-intuitive to me, but there you go. Incidentally I have come across more than one trans climbing instructor. The effeminate male who insisted pronouns were 'they and their' did not trouble me at all except linguistically. The massive hairy bloke in make up who insisted pronouns were 'she and her' did.
What did your daughter think/feel? Was hairy eyeliner bloke a good instructor?
No - unfriendly and unclear and not really tuned in to 9 year olds. It was not the happy and lighthearted session she was used to. I suspect they only put hairy eyeliner bloke with children when out of other options. And she is very literal minded and slightly weirded out by a person with a moustache insisting on being referred to as 'she'.
My very best wishes to your daughter. I hope she had the wisdom to keep her opinions to herself. Tolerance only seems to go one way.
Also a bit unfortunate for the optics, that Rayner story drops in same week that BBC are bigging up their documentary on the footballers who were first scammed then HMRC are chasing them for millions in tax liabilities.
Morning all. Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
Minister avoids paying for her own tax advisor and wastes thousands of public funds on her own personal advice putting civil servants in a stressful position gate.
Minister googles 'stamp duty rules' and follows instructions
I once worked (as a consultant) for a guy who had his unpleasant fat fingers in many pies . He was basically a hood who ran the Hartcliffe area of Bristol. Anyway, HMRC got very interested and threatened serious prosecution. The lead inspector was a senior and very experienced twin set and pearls variety older lady (probably a lot younger than I am now) but mid to late fifties anyway. In a moment of particularly heated debate my reprobate client jumped onto the table pointed at the inspector and shouted "I wouldn't f*** you if you were the last woman alive!" The Inspector's calm response was one of "if you did, at least your tax affairs would be in order".
The solution to EVERYTHING that is wrong today is independence at some point in the future.
They will have no answers as to how Scotland would separate from the UK, how the economy would function, how much money there would be to "remove the VAT cliff edge" as just suggested etc etc. Nor a timeframe. Nor how any of that helps to fix the SNP failing to deliver its own targets on NHS waiting lists.
Awaiting an operation like my mum? In pain and discomfort like my mum? Need the government to sort the NHS today? What is the answer? INDEPENDENCE!!!
Wankers. They have literally no clue.
Nevertheless wankers who enjoy considerably more support than your set of wankers whose default position is that sticking with the current marvellous set up is the balm to our ills.
But we don't want to stick with the current set up. We're federalists.
Are you the sort of federalists that want England split up into penny-packets? Or can we have our own national government like the Scots?
What's a penny packet?
I don't think that the current Government Regions, roughly Wales or Scotland sized plus or minus quite a lot, are a bad set of definitions.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
I'm not sure of Needles impartiality. When he was interviewed on Sky yesterday I found it difficult to see past his shit eating grin tbh.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
You think the independent investigator will ask such precise questions or first consult a tax expert in these matters, before getting the report out the door in 24hrs?
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
In truth, I think the government faces a lose-lose situation here given Ange’s peculiar constitutional position within the Labour Party.
Keeping her is going to be bad for the optics regardless of what gets concluded (and this will all re-ignite again if property taxes do increase in the budget).
Losing her then puts a big question mark on whether she stays as deputy leader or not (is it sustainable to have a deputy leader on the backbenches?) and if not, who the membership will choose to replace her. If a die-hard left winger wins who is opposed to the current government trajectory, what the hell does Starmer do with them?
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
I'm not sure of Needles impartiality. When he was interviewed on Sky yesterday I found it difficult to see past his shit eating grin tbh.
The solution to EVERYTHING that is wrong today is independence at some point in the future.
They will have no answers as to how Scotland would separate from the UK, how the economy would function, how much money there would be to "remove the VAT cliff edge" as just suggested etc etc. Nor a timeframe. Nor how any of that helps to fix the SNP failing to deliver its own targets on NHS waiting lists.
Awaiting an operation like my mum? In pain and discomfort like my mum? Need the government to sort the NHS today? What is the answer? INDEPENDENCE!!!
Wankers. They have literally no clue.
Nevertheless wankers who enjoy considerably more support than your set of wankers whose default position is that sticking with the current marvellous set up is the balm to our ills.
But we don't want to stick with the current set up. We're federalists.
Are you the sort of federalists that want England split up into penny-packets? Or can we have our own national government like the Scots?
That would be up to the people of England to decide. I know that people say "ah but England is too big" and yet America manages with very big and very small states...
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
I'm not sure of Needles impartiality. When he was interviewed on Sky yesterday I found it difficult to see past his shit eating grin tbh.
Mr Centre of Gravity and Mr Centre of Buoyancy got into a muddle there, I think.
There are several cuts in the video, and it seemingly did not sink quickly. You may be correct, but I wonder if Mr Did Not Close Sea Chests or Mrs Water Got In or Ms We Did Not Seal The Hull were the primary cause.
Of course, Messrs C of G, C of B and Moment Arm, and Mrs Free Surface still had the last word.
Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.
Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.
AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?
The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK
etc
Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*
So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?
This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
That’s a different point. I was using “cause harm” because I didn’t know the precise charge but there are certainly restrictions on use of offensive or threatening language. I do think it’s a bad law, but it’s not the police’s fault.
But there was a threat to arrest Pinochet at one point if he visited.
The police ignore actual crimes being committed all the time, yet are happy to send 5 officers to arrest this one guy for a mean thing he said on the internet. That's absolutely their fault, the investigating officer could easily have judged that no crime was commited and told the complainant to get fucked.
And wasn't the threat to arrest Pinochet die to an ICJ warrant, not because of some perceived harm caused to a UK citizen?
What is interesting is that, with this case, the Police seem to be saying they think UK law has world wide jurisdiction.
Write something on the internet, in Pakistan, say, and you could be arrested when you decide to holiday in the U.K.
To start with, the Unionists in NI could have endless fun with a certain kind of Nationalist blogger from the South. The ones who spend their days posting calls for violence.
And the Nationalists could have endless fun if the same kind with Loyalist bloggers if the same type.
Then we could move on to other countries. Can I get an arrest warrant for a Shining Path supporter posting about the need to murder social group X of Peruvians? Given my wife is probably in that group, why not?
Sounds like endless fun
Is Linehan a British citizen or UK resident?
If so, the police could presumably argue jurisdiction.
Incitement to violence in situations where the intent is possibly comedic rather than serious should perhaps be subject to the Tango test.
If people start going around punching feminine looking men in the balls, then it’s incitement to violence. If they don’t, it was a joke (or the poster doesn’t have the influence they think they have).
Take the bishop Brennan incident. Ted was told to kick him in the arse. He did so. That’s successful incitement. If he’d chickened out there’d have been no case to answer.
Surely not? Surely in the Bishop Brennan case the inciter bears no responsibility because noone reasonable would be expected to follow through? If I were to tell you, on here, to kick the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury (say) in the arse, and you did so, no legal process would go after Cookie off the internet because the suggestion is clearly ridiculous? Surely?
At the risk of being overly pedantic - the See of St Edmundsbury is currently vacant, and so there isn't anyone for Cookie to kick in the arse - making it an even more ridiculous suggestion than otherwise.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Tesla sales fell by +8% (vs a market growing at -2%) as the brand collapsed into year on year growth. Model Y is shamefully rejected and is now the best selling EV in August.
And those quarterly sales? A disastrous +23% on the rolling quarter (June - August vs March - May) as the best selling EV being off-sale definitely wasn't responsible for lower sales numbers.
Morning all! Raining here, although the forecast suggests it might clear up soon. More to the point, it feels cold.
I lived with the gender issue for many years. My mother qualified as a pharmacist in 1929, ran a pharmacy in East London for some years, then, in 1933 opened her own pharmacy, with her sister as shop assistant. My father a teacher didn't appear in the pharmacy regularly until well after the war. Customers/patients soon got used to my mother being the pharmacist, the person to speak to, but casual visitors, such as reps were frequently confused, and it took some of them quite a while to accept the situation. As I grew up I got used to people talking about my father being the pharmacist, but frequently had to correct them, often to their bemusement!
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
In truth, I think the government faces a lose-lose situation here given Ange’s peculiar constitutional position within the Labour Party.
Keeping her is going to be bad for the optics regardless of what gets concluded (and this will all re-ignite again if property taxes do increase in the budget).
Losing her then puts a big question mark on whether she stays as deputy leader or not (is it sustainable to have a deputy leader on the backbenches?) and if not, who the membership will choose to replace her. If a die-hard left winger wins who is opposed to the current government trajectory, what the hell does Starmer do with them?
Yes, a bit tricky if she stays deputy leader but had to resign as Housing Minister and then Starmer is sick to the extent he cannot carry out his job for three months and you have the Deputy PM, who has resigned for tax issues, acting PM.
The deputy leader issue is probably something that the Labour Party probably need to revisit - it’s not an issue in opposition but in government it can have big consequences.
Brilliant from Swinney. A load of waffle and then "this is my declaration, its our right to choose".
Great. So what's the plan man?
Oh, there isn't one.
I know you are critical of the SNP's desire for Independence but not sure why you get so fazed by it
It is their DNA, and as a young teenager living in Berwick on Tweed in the 1950's, Wendy Wood had a habit of painting a white line in the centre of the border bridge quite regularly marking it as Scotland
To be fair she had a point (Berwick has changed hands 13 times) and the middle of the River Tweed is the Scottish border until it diverts north just outside Berwick
Maybe because I have lived with Scottish nationalism most of my days, and have been married to a Scot for 62 years who rejects Independence, I really do not get into a state over the SNP's avowed desire for Independance
"But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man."
They are one and the same.
It is a lie to say that a man who identifies as a woman somehow automatically becomes less of a threat. Male pattern criminality is the same for him as for other men. There is some evidence - though more research is needed - that the proportion of sex offenders among trans-identified males in British prisons is higher than it is for other males.
But as I say much more research is needed. Worth noting that when a (female) professor of criminology suggested just this sort of research she was horribly abused and forced out of her job.
But ask yourself this: if a man refuses to accept a woman's boundaries, refuses to take No for an answer, insists on forcing himself into a space and making a woman uncomfortable, why wouldn't a woman perceive him as a potential threat?
The other lie which is perpetrated is that no trans identified man has ever attacked a woman in a loo or a changing room. Again, untrue - as a moment's research would show. See, for instance, Katie Dolatowski - a 6 foot man who sexually assaulted a 10 year old girl in a public bathroom.
No woman, no girl should have to take the risk of assault or indecent exposure or voyeurism by any sort of man in a place where they are vulnerable and entitled to privacy, dignity and security. And, frankly, men and women who don't get this are enabling predatory behaviour. They should be ashamed of themselves not go round attacking those women pointing out this obvious and, until recently, uncontroversial truth.
It is for men to be kind and inclusive and to sort out ie stop the violence they inflict on their fellow transgender men. Not expect women to put themselves at risk.
The solution to EVERYTHING that is wrong today is independence at some point in the future.
They will have no answers as to how Scotland would separate from the UK, how the economy would function, how much money there would be to "remove the VAT cliff edge" as just suggested etc etc. Nor a timeframe. Nor how any of that helps to fix the SNP failing to deliver its own targets on NHS waiting lists.
Awaiting an operation like my mum? In pain and discomfort like my mum? Need the government to sort the NHS today? What is the answer? INDEPENDENCE!!!
Wankers. They have literally no clue.
Nevertheless wankers who enjoy considerably more support than your set of wankers whose default position is that sticking with the current marvellous set up is the balm to our ills.
But we don't want to stick with the current set up. We're federalists.
Are you the sort of federalists that want England split up into penny-packets? Or can we have our own national government like the Scots?
I think you can rest easy, there's more chance of Kemi becoming PM than a federalised UK occurring.
Also a bit unfortunate for the optics, that Rayner story drops in same week that BBC are bigging up their documentary on the footballers who were first scammed then HMRC are chasing them for millions in tax liabilities.
She really has turned into a hopeless media performer. The “err, err, umm, errs” in that are really bad for someone at the top of national politics.
She sometimes looks like a bit of an empty shell nowadays. I think out of everyone in the government, power and scrutiny has taken a real toll on Reeves. One of the reasons I’m still not convinced that she’ll be chancellor at the next GE, possibly by her own volition.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
Yes, she could easily earn more than her current income.
Isn't everyone waiting for the new guidance? Not just Scotland. Given the inconsistencies and incompletenesses in the existing laws, as I understand it.
There is no need to wait. The law is perfectly clear. Even the Equality & Human Rights Commission has said there's no reason to wait. The law has in fact been perfectly clear for some considerable time. It is simply that a lot of organisations don't like it and are using any and every excuse to avoid complying with it.
As for Linehan, I don't give a flying fuck about him. Another male narcissist who thinks his feelings matter more than anything else. He has been pretty unpleasant to women if they don't treat him with the respect he claims to deserve and goes into a bloody great sulk. The great baby. If he's been mistreated he should get a remedy but the hero worship is unwarranted.
Worth reading the article I reference and the Northumbria judgment (as well as the Newman v Met judgment - currently being appealed) for the utter shitshow the police have got themselves into, aided and abetted by the craven authorities.
Got confused by the system ... I was going by the ECHR review as described by the HoC Library, linky posted just now.
There will be guidance. But guidance is not the law and cannot change the law.
The obligation is to comply with the law and loads of organisations have for some considerable time before the FWS judgment and since it deliberately chosen to ignore the law. Not because they are confused and the law is unclear but because they don't want to comply. They are acting in bad faith. The Scottish government has even said that it may wait until after the 2026 Holyrood elections before complying. It has not yet paid FWS the costs they are owed and so they are, once again, having to raise money from ordinary women to take the government to court again to get it to comply with the law. This is despite ScotGov saying that of course it respected the SC judgment and Swinney blethering on about how important the rule of law is, how much he respects it blah blah. Well his government's actions show this to be a complete lie.
It is intolerable.
The ScottIsh Government are still in thrall to Stonewall and their ilk, who will be telling them not to comply with the SC judgement.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
I'm not sure of Needles impartiality. When he was interviewed on Sky yesterday I found it difficult to see past his shit eating grin tbh.
He is a Labour party member.
AHH, that explains it...
If there’s one person I do not want investigating my tax affairs then it is Dan Neidle.
He brought down Nadim Zahawi at great personal and professional risk, he’s caused immense difficulties for Baroness Mone.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
Yes, she could easily earn more than her current income.
Isn't "an Evening with...." tours getting a bit old hat these days?
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
I would imagine a large alarm going off in the back of the head of your average conveyancer, at the first mention of the “T-word”.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
I'm not sure of Needles impartiality. When he was interviewed on Sky yesterday I found it difficult to see past his shit eating grin tbh.
He is a Labour party member.
AHH, that explains it...
Dan Neidle was very circumspect. His view on WATO was if the Lawyers who had drafted her Trust had made an error in their advice she was vindicated, but if she hadn't asked them, but had consulted anyone else who was not aware of the terms of the Trust she was negligent.
Sarah Montague made a point of qualifying Neidle's expert opinion by caveating that he was a Labour Party member, in order I thought, to question the veracity of his opinion.
FWIW, deliberate or accidental, before Johnson she would probably have been expected to walk for an early bath.
Rowley is right that the law is an arse. But the law did not compel him to send FIVE armed officers to arrest Linehan. That's an operational decision.
Absolutely. They could have easily contacted him and said could you arrange to come in and do an interview.
He’s in court today, Westminster Magistrates, so it’s not as if they don’t know where to find him.
AIUI he’s now living in the US, which might complicate things somewhat. Especially if the posts in question were sent from there, giving jurisdictional issues. Can an Irishman writing online from America even be subject to English law in the first place?
The one thing I will give the cops a pass on is ‘armed officers’, at a port of entry most of them are armed routinely.
This is the part that boggles the mind. "You have broken our laws". But I wasn't in your country. "Citizens have a legal responsibility." But I'm not a citizen. "This online platform in our country." But X isn't in the UK
etc
Surely the crime isn’t the *posting* it’s the *causing harm*
So if the harm is caused to someone in the UK that’s where the crime is committed?
That's fundamentally ridiculous. Couldn't the met then arrest Trump on arrival for his state visit because some idiot reports that's he's caused them harm?
This is the kind of shit that makes us a laughing stock around the world.
Linehan was ON BAIL. That's why the Met were interested in him re-entering country.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
Surely it's not possible to obtain a mortgage based on the proportion of salary depending on such whims of public and PM?
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
I would imagine a large alarm going off in the back of the head of your average conveyancer, at the first mention of the “T-word”.
One thing from the footballers documentary that was they were convinced to buy apartments for loads more than they were worth in Spain and Florida being told that they were amazingly undervalued. It appears they didn't even a) visit the places and b) have a look in a local estate agent to see what properties went for. Who buys a apartment for £600k for cash without at very least looking what the neighbourhood goes for (apparently these properties weren't even worth £300k).
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
The endless TV appearances and newspaper columns are going to be insufferable if she resigns.
It’ll be like pre-PM Boris Johnson, except without the sense of humour.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
Yes, she could easily earn more than her current income.
Isn't "an Evening with...." tours getting a bit old hat these days?
She is media box office, social, tv and radio. Even GBeebies would pay her a fortune to provide debate and be their pantomime villain.
Brilliant from Swinney. A load of waffle and then "this is my declaration, its our right to choose".
Great. So what's the plan man?
Oh, there isn't one.
I know you are critical of the SNP's desire for Independence but not sure why you get so fazed by it
It is their DNA, and as a young teenager living in Berwick on Tweed in the 1950's, Wendy Wood had a habit of painting a white line in the centre of the border bridge quite regularly marking it as Scotland
To be fair she had a point (Berwick has changed hands 13 times) and the middle of the River Tweed is the Scottish border until it diverts north just outside Berwick
Maybe because I have lived with Scottish nationalism most of my days, and have been married to a Scot for 62 years who rejects Independence, I really do not get into a state over the SNP's avowed desire for Independance
I have zero problem arguing for a change to the constitutional arrangements - federalism wasn't popular inside Labour either.
My point is that the SNP have No Policy on Anything other than Independence. Because every single issue is answered with "independence"
Brilliant from Swinney. A load of waffle and then "this is my declaration, its our right to choose".
Great. So what's the plan man?
Oh, there isn't one.
I know you are critical of the SNP's desire for Independence but not sure why you get so fazed by it
It is their DNA, and as a young teenager living in Berwick on Tweed in the 1950's, Wendy Wood had a habit of painting a white line in the centre of the border bridge quite regularly marking it as Scotland
To be fair she had a point (Berwick has changed hands 13 times) and the middle of the River Tweed is the Scottish border until it diverts north just outside Berwick
Maybe because I have lived with Scottish nationalism most of my days, and have been married to a Scot for 62 years who rejects Independence, I really do not get into a state over the SNP's avowed desire for Independance
I have zero problem arguing for a change to the constitutional arrangements - federalism wasn't popular inside Labour either.
My point is that the SNP have No Policy on Anything other than Independence. Because every single issue is answered with "independence"
I'm sensing a slight waning of 'Rayner is toast' sentiment. Would that be fair?
Is resigning now actually bad for her? The government is unpopular, there may be a new leader election in 2027-8 ish by which time she will have served her time if she resigns or have unfairly got away with it and weakened if she clings on.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
Yes, she could easily earn more than her current income.
Rayner will be fine. She is one of those politicians who has “after dinner speaking circuit” written all over her. She has the character and the background pretty much made for it. I don’t expect her to struggle to make ends meet after politics.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
Surely it's not possible to obtain a mortgage based on the proportion of salary depending on such whims of public and PM?
Why? Anybody can be sacked at any time or their employer go bust or etc etc
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
In truth, I think the government faces a lose-lose situation here given Ange’s peculiar constitutional position within the Labour Party.
Keeping her is going to be bad for the optics regardless of what gets concluded (and this will all re-ignite again if property taxes do increase in the budget).
Losing her then puts a big question mark on whether she stays as deputy leader or not (is it sustainable to have a deputy leader on the backbenches?) and if not, who the membership will choose to replace her. If a die-hard left winger wins who is opposed to the current government trajectory, what the hell does Starmer do with them?
The deputy leader position is going to be the really awkward one, if she resigns from that. It’s directly elected, so she can’t be ‘asked to resign’ by the PM.
The resulting contest would dominate conference season, as as you suggest they could end up with for example someone standing on the single issue of “Palestine” elected by the membership.
The solution to EVERYTHING that is wrong today is independence at some point in the future.
They will have no answers as to how Scotland would separate from the UK, how the economy would function, how much money there would be to "remove the VAT cliff edge" as just suggested etc etc. Nor a timeframe. Nor how any of that helps to fix the SNP failing to deliver its own targets on NHS waiting lists.
Awaiting an operation like my mum? In pain and discomfort like my mum? Need the government to sort the NHS today? What is the answer? INDEPENDENCE!!!
Wankers. They have literally no clue.
Nevertheless wankers who enjoy considerably more support than your set of wankers whose default position is that sticking with the current marvellous set up is the balm to our ills.
But we don't want to stick with the current set up. We're federalists.
Are you the sort of federalists that want England split up into penny-packets? Or can we have our own national government like the Scots?
I think you can rest easy, there's more chance of Kemi becoming PM than a federalised UK occurring.
Nationalists still howl away at the moon demanding independence despite the falling support for it at the ballot box. Neither will happen soon.
I do have to laugh though. SNP supporters call me a unionist despite openly not being. That has now been broadened out so that they call Scottish Green, Alba and Sovereignty voters unionists - because *only* a vote for their party is for independence.
With these things I always find it interesting to watch who stays silent both own side and the opposition.
Yup, the flipping of houses is endemic in our political class.
Expense scandal showed a lot seem to be full time property investors, part time politicians.
I remember there was quote from an MP, off the record, that the unofficial policy for MPs was that public wouldn’t pay them the going rate they could get in the private sector so the expenses system was set up for them to make up that shortfall via building a property empire.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
The endless TV appearances and newspaper columns are going to be insufferable if she resigns.
It’ll be like pre-PM Boris Johnson, except without the sense of humour.
Where does her partners income come into this? He, if it's still the same chap, doesn't appear to have a high-powered job.
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
Surely it's not possible to obtain a mortgage based on the proportion of salary depending on such whims of public and PM?
Why? Anybody can be sacked at any time or their employer go bust or etc etc
The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.
An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.
A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.
Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.
“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”
----
She isn't going anywhere.
Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.
"Angela - Are you guilty?" "No" "Excellent - no case to answer!"
I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
Broadly yes but there are nuances. Did she fully and accurately describe the trust is potentially different to mentioning its existence. If she did mention it and then the advice specifically says pay £x despite the trust, that is slightly different to the advice saying pay £x.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
Except can she afford the mortgage if her pay is cut?
Yes, she could easily earn more than her current income.
Isn't "an Evening with...." tours getting a bit old hat these days?
Perhaps, but selling a thousand seats at £30 each a few times sorts out the problem somewhat.
(Not that AR could sell many tickets, unless she retired from politics completely).
With these things I always find it interesting to watch who stays silent both own side and the opposition.
Yup, the flipping of houses is endemic in our political class.
Expense scandal showed a lot seem to be full time property investors, part time politicians.
I remember there was quote from an MP, off the record, that the unofficial policy for MPs was that public wouldn’t pay them the going rate they could get in the private sector so the expenses system was set up for them to make up that shortfall via building a property empire.
Its a total mystery why so many policies over the years have appeared to be at very least protect, at best designed to pump, the property market.
I'm sensing a slight waning of 'Rayner is toast' sentiment. Would that be fair?
Lol.
Have you seen the newspapers? I've had two unprompted whatsapp messages from 2024 Labour voters today along the lines of 'wow, she has to go'.
Its the hypocrisy, and the fact that she is housing minister. It means any pleas of mitigation go out the window....
I expected the newspapers to be worse . As a Labour/Lib voter if she’s cleared she should stay if only to just drive the Daily Mail into a total meltdown.
I'm sensing a slight waning of 'Rayner is toast' sentiment. Would that be fair?
Is resigning now actually bad for her? The government is unpopular, there may be a new leader election in 2027-8 ish by which time she will have served her time if she resigns or have unfairly got away with it and weakened if she clings on.
Agreed. She'd do better to get ahead of this and resign this morning. She could be Chancellor/For Sec within a couple of years.
But I suspect she won't, and will end up worse off because of it. Either hanging on for a few days, or sacked later today.
I'm sensing a slight waning of 'Rayner is toast' sentiment. Would that be fair?
Lol.
Have you seen the newspapers? I've had two unprompted whatsapp messages from 2024 Labour voters today along the lines of 'wow, she has to go'.
Its the hypocrisy, and the fact that she is housing minister. It means any pleas of mitigation go out the window....
I expected the newspapers to be worse . As a Labour/Lib voter if she’s cleared she should stay if only to just drive the Daily Mail into a total meltdown.
They're uniformly terrible.....what did you expect?!
Comments
It appears then we have two people in the dock (so to speak) - Linehan and the Police.
I won't comment on Linehan - as for the Police, the charge (so to speak again) is the fact of using five armed officers to arrest one man. In my part of the world, the Police do "go about mob handed" when they need to (which in turn raises questions of the truth or perception of officer shortages). I've seen four or five for a traffic stop - the British Transport Police will turn up in numbers to support revenue collection teams trying to stop fare dodgers at East Ham Station.
There's an old adage there's safety in numbers - look at how opinion polls are viewed on here - and presumably the view is potential arrests need to happen with numerical force and security for the officers involved and I've no argument with that given how violent some can be.
On a more general point, we come back to the old chestnut of the right to offend versus the right to be offended. It's my experience those who dish out the offence in the name of "free speech" aren't happy when it's pushed back to them and the right to be offended seems to extend to those who can't (for whatever reason) easily answer back in the echo chambers of social media.
Using the Linehan incident as an argument for claiming Britain is an authoritarian state is no more valid than groups of ICE wandering the streets of some US cities detaining people at will. All societies are authoritarian to an extent - the rule of law requires a degree of enforcement if you don't have consent. Whether that enforcement happens with a knock on the door at 4am or in broad daylight isn't really the issue.
Sne still hasnt resigned? Lol, excellent news for holing HMS Labour below the waterline.
The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous
Or, ask one of the many experts in the department for Housing that you are the boss of
Or, ask your boss, a KC, if he knows anyone who knows the law around taxation
Or, ask any of the many, many legal people in parliament to hook you up with an expert on the issue
- Decision to detain (rather than invite to interview)
- Police know where he's going to be at a specific time and have police on the scene already
- Said police operate in defined units, so you send a unit rather than, say, one or two
The most questionable part is probably #1, presumably it would be easy to get his number and phone him to ask him to come in. But maybe just as easy to nab him off the plane. PR-wise somewhat better to take the more civilised approach though.For #3 it's also possible that only two (say) officers were requested to arrest and the others either moved with unit as a matter of course or fancied being there to witness things and have a story for their kids.
So for example we'll see it become violence against *our* women by *migrant* men - a lovely combination of racism and misogyny there. Or violence against women by men *pretending to be women* - a very niche area in the grand scheme of things.
I think this rather disrespects the issue and detracts from it. The defining feature of violence against women by men is right there in the description. The victims are women, the perpetrators are men.
On this point "The advice, when faced with a man who scares or bothers them – by parents, in self-defence classes and anyone with experience of this – is, first, get away as fast as possible." I think there is a link to the Peggie vs NHS Fife/Upton case. Apparently one of the 'hurty' things that Peggie did was to leave the changing room when Upton was present - in other words doing exactly as you write - get away. Its not just the Met that have been captured by one side of the argument - NHS Fife, the SNP and thus Scottish Government have been too.
Take a washroom away from the men's and make it unisex. Problem solved. Or make them single user closed cubicles with a basin, as in my local tiny cafe. Most of the organisations complaining are very large indeed and have plenty of space.
Incidentally I have come across more than one trans climbing instructor. The effeminate male who insisted pronouns were 'they and their' did not trouble me at all except linguistically. The massive hairy bloke in make up who insisted pronouns were 'she and her' did.
Quite how this is indirect sex discrimination is not defined. I presume that this is going to be the next Gender Crit legal push: to argue that mixed sex provision puts women at risk, so an provider that offers only mixed sex facilities, even in individual lockable ones, is breaking their obligations under the various Acts. That this eliminates all remaining legally feasible trans provision at a stroke is either a fringe benefit or the real aim, depending on which subset of the GCs we’re talking about.
Construction activity has decreased throughout the year to-date, which is the longest continuous downturn since early-2020. August data signalled only a partial easing in the speed of decline after output fell at the fastest pace for over five years in July.
Sharply reduced levels of housing and civil engineering activity were again the main reasons for a weak overall construction sector performance.
...
Lower volumes of output and incoming new work led to hiring freezes and the non-replacement of departing staff in August. Employment numbers have fallen throughout 2025 to date and the latest reduction was the fastest since May. A number of firms commented on efforts to mitigate rising payroll costs by cutting back on recruitment. Subcontractor usage also decreased markedly in August and at one of the fastest rates seen over the past five years.
https://www.pmi.spglobal.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/d53e54e883da40448dcb05af5ed1bf26
Tesla sales fell by +8% (vs a market growing at -2%) as the brand collapsed into year on year growth. Model Y is shamefully rejected and is now the best selling EV in August.
And those quarterly sales? A disastrous +23% on the rolling quarter (June - August vs March - May) as the best selling EV being off-sale definitely wasn't responsible for lower sales numbers.
If you clear them in a day, then more information is released over the weekend, the independent investigator looks terrible.
She is now the story, and the BBC in particular will run the story until they have a scalp (it goes without saying that the Telegraph, Mail, Sun, Express, GBNews and Talk TV won't quit until it brings down the Government, but that might be them wishcasting). For what it is worth she needs to resign the housing portfolio to kill the story.
Through cock-up or conspiracy not paying £40,000 is very naughty. It is presumably a lot naughtier, for example, than saving Richard Desmond a £50m tax bill in exchange for a £10,000 donation to the Tory Party, or PPE fast lane procurement opportunities for friends and family of Ministers. I say that because with the exception of Labour voters Michelle and Dougie both those stories have been largely ignored, even when you would have thought them relevant.
"No"
"Excellent - no case to answer!"
I agree
Write something on the internet, in Pakistan, say, and you could be arrested when you decide to holiday in the U.K.
To start with, the Unionists in NI could have endless fun with a certain kind of Nationalist blogger from the South. The ones who spend their days posting calls for violence.
And the Nationalists could have endless fun if the same kind with Loyalist bloggers if the same type.
Then we could move on to other countries. Can I get an arrest warrant for a Shining Path supporter posting about the need to murder social group X of Peruvians? Given my wife is probably in that group, why not?
Sounds like endless fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWjB4IDgstE
I don’t think that anyone is probably that bothered how the investigator looks (rightly or wrongly), this is SKS’s favourite playbook - put it into a ‘process’, and then stand behind the fact that it has gone through an independent investigation.
Construction activity increases at fastest pace in 26 months
Growth accelerated in the UK construction sector as the second half of the year got underway, with July seeing much faster increases in both activity and new orders during the month. In turn, firms ramped up purchasing activity and raised staffing levels for the third month running.
https://www.pmi.spglobal.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/3492f73427ce4baaba072df99719b7a8
I'm unsure on this. If she sought sensible advice and was badly advised then she should just pay up and stay. If she aimed to deceive, then clearly she should go. If (which seems most likely to me at present) she asked someone but maybe didn't really get sensible advice then I'm not quite sure - there's all kinds of nuance in that case about whether she was naive or didn't wish to look too hard when she got an answer that meant less tax.
'The tax requirements are in black and white on the government website that you can find as top search result for 'stamp duty rules' and one click on the first result page on 'higher rates for additional properties' and its in no way ambiguous'
I then listed some options if she couldnt be arsed to do that on finding a tax expert if googling is beyond her. I assume she would pay them like a normal human.
Would you (or your dad) have been concerned at having a homosexual Scout Group leader in charge of your (or his) child 20 or 40 years ago ?
I think that that traditional prejudice has now largely been learned out of our culture, perhaps with exceptions - but it has taken half a century and more to get to where we are, and there is always a risk of going backwards again.
I can point to a couple of areas where my views have changed quite markedly. It's usually been about personal contact, and distinguishing between small minorities within a "group", and the overall group.
One interesting one fairly recently for me is around youths on bikes with balaclavas, and whether I need to be cautious around all of them. Locally we have quite a small sample, though. Equally, my views have become more diverse, and particularised, about travellers and 'groups within travellers'.
Politically imo, we have far too much politics and media which seek to exploit a prejudice around a minority and weaponise a perception to apply to "all of them". Muslims are an obvious case - there are now occasional videos of people accusing random brown-skinned people of being 'from the boats' who need to 'go back to where you came from', including from children.
But one of my usual critiques of feminist activism has long been a habit of doing the same around "men".
Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.
Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.
Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.
Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?
If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.
https://youtu.be/GkPXGIuaUa4
Also a bit unfortunate for the optics, that Rayner story drops in same week that BBC are bigging up their documentary on the footballers who were first scammed then HMRC are chasing them for millions in tax liabilities.
I don't think that the current Government Regions, roughly Wales or Scotland sized plus or minus quite a lot, are a bad set of definitions.
Keeping her is going to be bad for the optics regardless of what gets concluded (and this will all re-ignite again if property taxes do increase in the budget).
Losing her then puts a big question mark on whether she stays as deputy leader or not (is it sustainable to have a deputy leader on the backbenches?) and if not, who the membership will choose to replace her. If a die-hard left winger wins who is opposed to the current government trajectory, what the hell does Starmer do with them?
If so, the police could presumably argue jurisdiction.
Daniel Finkelstein argues that we should import something more like the US test for hate speech prosecution (Brandenburg vs. Ohio): https://x.com/Dannythefink/status/1963138707734851753
under which he believes Linehan would not have been arrested or charged whereas Lucy Connolly would have been.
Politically none of this matters. She is better resigning.
I lived with the gender issue for many years. My mother qualified as a pharmacist in 1929, ran a pharmacy in East London for some years, then, in 1933 opened her own pharmacy, with her sister as shop assistant. My father a teacher didn't appear in the pharmacy regularly until well after the war. Customers/patients soon got used to my mother being the pharmacist, the person to speak to, but casual visitors, such as reps were frequently confused, and it took some of them quite a while to accept the situation.
As I grew up I got used to people talking about my father being the pharmacist, but frequently had to correct them, often to their bemusement!
The deputy leader issue is probably something that the Labour Party probably need to revisit - it’s not an issue in opposition but in government it can have big consequences.
It is their DNA, and as a young teenager living in Berwick on Tweed in the 1950's, Wendy Wood had a habit of painting a white line in the centre of the border bridge quite regularly marking it as Scotland
To be fair she had a point (Berwick has changed hands 13 times) and the middle of the River Tweed is the Scottish border until it diverts north just outside Berwick
Maybe because I have lived with Scottish nationalism most of my days, and have been married to a Scot for 62 years who rejects Independence, I really do not get into a state over the SNP's avowed desire for Independance
They are one and the same.
It is a lie to say that a man who identifies as a woman somehow automatically becomes less of a threat. Male pattern criminality is the same for him as for other men. There is some evidence - though more research is needed - that the proportion of sex offenders among trans-identified males in British prisons is higher than it is for other males.
But as I say much more research is needed. Worth noting that when a (female) professor of criminology suggested just this sort of research she was horribly abused and forced out of her job.
But ask yourself this: if a man refuses to accept a woman's boundaries, refuses to take No for an answer, insists on forcing himself into a space and making a woman uncomfortable, why wouldn't a woman perceive him as a potential threat?
The other lie which is perpetrated is that no trans identified man has ever attacked a woman in a loo or a changing room. Again, untrue - as a moment's research would show. See, for instance, Katie Dolatowski - a 6 foot man who sexually assaulted a 10 year old girl in a public bathroom.
No woman, no girl should have to take the risk of assault or indecent exposure or voyeurism by any sort of man in a place where they are vulnerable and entitled to privacy, dignity and security. And, frankly, men and women who don't get this are enabling predatory behaviour. They should be ashamed of themselves not go round attacking those women pointing out this obvious and, until recently, uncontroversial truth.
It is for men to be kind and inclusive and to sort out ie stop the violence they inflict on their fellow transgender men. Not expect women to put themselves at risk.
She sometimes looks like a bit of an empty shell nowadays. I think out of everyone in the government, power and scrutiny has taken a real toll on Reeves. One of the reasons I’m still not convinced that she’ll be chancellor at the next GE, possibly by her own volition.
He brought down Nadim Zahawi at great personal and professional risk, he’s caused immense difficulties for Baroness Mone.
Sarah Montague made a point of qualifying Neidle's expert opinion by caveating that he was a Labour Party member, in order I thought, to question the veracity of his opinion.
FWIW, deliberate or accidental, before Johnson she would probably have been expected to walk for an early bath.
It’ll be like pre-PM Boris Johnson, except without the sense of humour.
My point is that the SNP have No Policy on Anything other than Independence. Because every single issue is answered with "independence"
Have you seen the newspapers? I've had two unprompted whatsapp messages from 2024 Labour voters today along the lines of 'wow, she has to go'.
Its the hypocrisy, and the fact that she is housing minister. It means any pleas of mitigation go out the window....
The resulting contest would dominate conference season, as as you suggest they could end up with for example someone standing on the single issue of “Palestine” elected by the membership.
I do have to laugh though. SNP supporters call me a unionist despite openly not being. That has now been broadened out so that they call Scottish Green, Alba and Sovereignty voters unionists - because *only* a vote for their party is for independence.
(Not that AR could sell many tickets, unless she retired from politics completely).
But I suspect she won't, and will end up worse off because of it. Either hanging on for a few days, or sacked later today.