The first UK council to appoint the US technology company Palantir to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems is reviewing the contract after protests by workers and councillors over its links to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
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.
How do you know? How can you be sure? That seems to be the question underlying Raynergate.
The first UK council to appoint the US technology company Palantir to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems is reviewing the contract after protests by workers and councillors over its links to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
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.
Perhaps it would work out for her. There are precedents. It's not my reading of it though. I think she'll want to tough it out. I don't either way see her as the next leader. I never have.
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?!
The front pages didn’t lead on as Sean F mentioned the mendacious DT angle of she took money from her sons trust to blow on a Hove flat .
Delighted to have been appointed President of @ChathamHouse. At a time of extraordinary geopolitical change, the ethos and mission of the Institute have never been more important or valuable. Looking forward to working with the team over the years ahead.
The interesting aspect of the Rayner fiasco is that whether she stays or goes it will have zero impact on the course of government, which the FT argues is managed decline...
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.
When they banned buying a house and paying the mortgage on expenses, swaps appeared instantly.
MP A buy a house and rents it to MP B, who puts the rent on expenses.
MP B buys a house and rents it to MP A, who put the rent on expenses.
The interesting aspect of the Rayner fiasco is that whether she stays or goes it will have zero impact on the course of government, which the FT argues is managed decline...
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.
As a man, I would prefer to use a single cubicle with a basin rather than a large shared space. I suspect I’m not alone.
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.
She cannot be cleared of underpaying tax as she has admitted that
However, if she remains in office she simply cannot be housing minister by the time of Reeves statement in November, so remaining in office creates an unwelcome problem for Starmer on how and when he removes her and into which alternative position
Either way, this is yet another problem for Starmer to resolve and in the middle of all this is their annual conference
Thanks Cyclefree. Much appreciate the article as always.
One thing that came to mind when reading your article was a passage in one of the Harry Potter books.
The Prime Minister gazed hopelessly at the pair of them for a moment, then the words he had fought to suppress all evening burst from him at last. “But for heaven’s sake — you’re wizards! You can do magic! Surely you can sort out — well — anything!” Scrimgeour turned slowly on the spot and exchanged an incredulous look with Fudge, who really did manage a smile this time as he said kindly, “The trouble is, the other side can do magic too, Prime Minister.
This issue isn't completely a men vs women issue. There are women who disagree with you too.
I think this is an issue where democracy has really struggled. The role of democracy is to be a peaceful way for societies to manage and resolve conflicts. But the public debate on this issue has been incredibly toxic and extreme.
But maybe that's just social media in general. For the last couple of days I've had a ferocious argument on Reddit with supposed lefties supporting Russia.
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.
I'm surprised most of them can find gainful employment outside of politics at all 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.
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.
AIUI from yesterday’s reporting, she bought the new apartment by herself, which would suggest a mortgage well north of half a million on it, perhaps £650k? She said she has no savings, and sold her interest in the constituency home to buy the Hove property.
The first UK council to appoint the US technology company Palantir to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems is reviewing the contract after protests by workers and councillors over its links to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
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.
AIUI from yesterday’s reporting, she bought the new apartment by herself, which would suggest a mortgage well north of half a million on it, perhaps £650k? She said she has no savings, and sold her interest in the constituency home to buy the Hove property.
It is reported her mortgage on the Hove flat is £650,000
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.
AIUI from yesterday’s reporting, she bought the new apartment by herself, which would suggest a mortgage well north of half a million on it, perhaps £650k? She said she has no savings, and sold her interest in the constituency home to buy the Hove property.
Not knowing quite how mortgage lenders assess the creditworthiness of cabinet ministers, I still don’t think it’s too much of a reach for someone on her salary to be offered a loan of at least that.
The first UK council to appoint the US technology company Palantir to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems is reviewing the contract after protests by workers and councillors over its links to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
“…to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems”
There’s going to be so many companies taking advantage of public sector bodies with AI, same as with any other new technology that the decision-makers don’t understand at all.
The first UK council to appoint the US technology company Palantir to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems is reviewing the contract after protests by workers and councillors over its links to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
“…to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems”
There’s going to be so many companies taking advantage of public sector bodies with AI, same as with any other new technology that the decision-makers don’t understand at all.
It's the new NFTs....
Wrappers around ChatGPT and that will be 10x a ChatGPT licence.
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.
AIUI from yesterday’s reporting, she bought the new apartment by herself, which would suggest a mortgage well north of half a million on it, perhaps £650k? She said she has no savings, and sold her interest in the constituency home to buy the Hove property.
Not knowing quite how mortgage lenders assess the creditworthiness of cabinet ministers, I still don’t think it’s too much of a reach for someone on her salary to be offered a loan of at least that.
If she’s using her MP salary of £90k and her ministerial salary of £70k together, then yes maybe, 4x gross income.
But if she loses the ministerial salary she’s going to be horribly over-leveraged at c.7x salary.
The first UK council to appoint the US technology company Palantir to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems is reviewing the contract after protests by workers and councillors over its links to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
I will ask my Dad ! He is opposite the councillors that make these daft decisions
From the article it looks to be - amongst other things - fully automated transcription services. If it works to an acceptable standard and saves money then it’s a mistake.
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.
AIUI from yesterday’s reporting, she bought the new apartment by herself, which would suggest a mortgage well north of half a million on it, perhaps £650k? She said she has no savings, and sold her interest in the constituency home to buy the Hove property.
Not knowing quite how mortgage lenders assess the creditworthiness of cabinet ministers, I still don’t think it’s too much of a reach for someone on her salary to be offered a loan of at least that.
If she’s using her MP salary of £90k and her ministerial salary of £70k together, then yes maybe, 4x gross income.
But if she loses the ministerial salary she’s going to be horribly over-leveraged at c.7x salary.
She will never be short of money.. she has wealthy friends
O/T I have just noticed that a local cinema is offering on 31 October a showing of Nosferatu to the music of Radiohead. It promises a Hallowee'en you will not forget.
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.
Edge cases, eh!
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
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.
AIUI from yesterday’s reporting, she bought the new apartment by herself, which would suggest a mortgage well north of half a million on it, perhaps £650k? She said she has no savings, and sold her interest in the constituency home to buy the Hove property.
Not knowing quite how mortgage lenders assess the creditworthiness of cabinet ministers, I still don’t think it’s too much of a reach for someone on her salary to be offered a loan of at least that.
If she’s using her MP salary of £90k and her ministerial salary of £70k together, then yes maybe, 4x gross income.
But if she loses the ministerial salary she’s going to be horribly over-leveraged at c.7x salary.
She will never be short of money.. she has wealthy friends
Is that Lord Ali....yes it Ange....could you do us a solid, i will pay you back.
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.
But normal humans wouldn't think of themselves as even havign additional properties when they'd sold or given away the house in question. Why click on that?
The interesting aspect of the Rayner fiasco is that whether she stays or goes it will have zero impact on the course of government, which the FT argues is managed decline...
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.
It may be the lawyers' fault. Or it could be a SNAFU. But unless we are told what she was asked, what advice she sought and what information she gave them, we cannot know. Nor can the BBC unless it has seen all the relevant material which I'm willing to bet it hasn't.
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.
Yes, our dysfunctional housing market has gold standard political protection. Our mindset is all about 'ladders' and property as a way to accrue wealth rather than a place to live. We all know this isn't a sensible sustainable approach but we're hooked on it. It's hardcoded now. It's in the psyche. No party wants to challenge it and risk presiding over a significant drop in prices. Labour are the best bet but I'm not holding my breath.
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.
I'm surprised most of them can find gainful employment outside of politics at all tbh.
It would be interesting to compare salaries of the 2024 intake immediately before and after entering parliament. I suspect the median new MP will have had quite a large pay increase, though the mean new MP may have had a pay cut.
That’s not cool, it’s also not fair on other residents of the block.
On related matters, what is the security detail of the DPM like and where would they stay in each of her situations? Does she have to have a spare room or do they have to loiter outside on shifts?
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.
I'm surprised most of them can find gainful employment outside of politics at all tbh.
It would be interesting to compare salaries of the 2024 intake immediately before and after entering parliament. I suspect the median new MP will have had quite a large pay increase, though the mean new MP may have had a pay cut.
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.
Getting a definite ‘how dare you call me a Unionist, I identify as a federalist!’ vibe. You can probably get a certificate for that.
That’s not cool, it’s also not fair on other residents of the block.
On related matters, what is the security detail of the DPM like and where would they stay in each of her situations? Does she have to have a spare room or do they have to loiter outside on shifts?
Not the sort of thing that gets publicised, for obvious reasons. But it's a good point.
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.
Getting a definite ‘how dare you call me a Unionist, I identify as a federalist!’ vibe. You can probably get a certificate for that.
Interesting that federalists aren't in favour of keeping Scotland within the UK, unless it's renamed the UF or something. Mind, it'd be pretty much unrecognisable, so maybe RP does have a point.
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.
But normal humans wouldn't think of themselves as even havign additional properties when they'd sold or given away the house in question. Why click on that?
I can only speak as I would behave, but then I might be horrendously risk averse, wary of the vagaries of tax legislation, and not “normal” in these situations. But if I had any kind of housing arrangement (for want of a better word) that was slightly odd or atypical, I would likely be checking that there wasn’t some rule somewhere around it.
I’m afraid the more complicated your affairs get the more you must really do your homework (or ask someone to do it for you) whenever a tax point arises. To be fair to Rayner, taking her word for it, it does at least look like she tried in some way to do that - whether it was adequate enough, we shall see.
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.
I would take over a hotel an convert it to apartments for MPs and not pay them a housing allowance for living anywhere else. I would choose one located on the tube network for convenience. I understand there is a suitable hotel in Epping that will soon be available.
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.
Edge cases, eh!
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
You argue very passionately Cyclefree and often I agree with what you say. Sometimes though I think back to my experience of being an outed gay boy at school and remember how I felt and was treated. I remember boys saying they didn't want to share a changing room with me because I might be looking at their junk. As if I was interested in every spotty thug just because I was gay. If I'd been running around with an erection trying to get off with them they might have had a point but of course I just wanted to get PE over and done with. I understand your points about women's rights and I don't disagree but I feel queasy about the view propounded by Linehan and co (which I fully accept may not be your views) that any trans woman in a female changing room is automatically committing a violent act.
That’s not cool, it’s also not fair on other residents of the block.
On related matters, what is the security detail of the DPM like and where would they stay in each of her situations? Does she have to have a spare room or do they have to loiter outside on shifts?
Not the sort of thing that gets publicised, for obvious reasons. But it's a good point.
AIUI Heath's detail had to be keen sailors
Not something to be too concerned about until we elect a hotel owner
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.
I would take over a hotel an convert it to apartments for MPs and not pay them a housing allowance for living anywhere else. I would choose one located on the tube network for convenience. I understand there is a suitable hotel in Epping that will soon be available.
Better still find one in Brum convenient to an empty factory. They'll be needing it soon when the Palace falls down.
The first UK council to appoint the US technology company Palantir to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems is reviewing the contract after protests by workers and councillors over its links to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
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.
A small wrinkle on the Raynor affair that I just noticed: the trust set up for her child is almost certainly a trust for a vulnerable person. Unlike the trusts people like TSE setup for their children, the tax treatment of these is different. Trusts like TSE‘s treats all income, CGT etc as accruing to the parent / trustees for tax purposes. For Trusts for vulnerable people the tax treatment calculates the taxes owed as if they had been earned by the vulnerable person instead of the trustees even though (IIRC) they are actually paid by the trustees - the trustees can then claim the difference in taxes owed back from HMRC if necessary.
All this will have been explained to Raynor at some length by her lawyers. It’s therefore not entirely surprising that she might have thought that, having transferred property to the vulnerable persons trust, the same exemptions would apply to stamp duty calculations. Unfortunately for her these exemptions for vulnerable trust-related taxes do not include the question of whether the parent is deemed to own a property owned by the trust for the purposes of calculating stamp duty.
One could even argue that, given that the government chose to exempt the parents / trustees from tax liabilities arising from trusts for vulnerable people, the omission of property ownership for the purposes of calculating stamp duty was an oversight & that it should have been included alongside all the other taxes: The whole point appears to be to make sure that the trustees do not carry any extra tax liability as a consequence of carrying out their duties as trustees for a vulnerable person.
Nevertheless, the law is what it is & the gov.uk guidance is clear: Raynor should have known that & if she was advised otherwise then she was extremely badly advised. Can she prove that she was badly advised by the professionals she consulted? If not, then I think she’s probably toast.
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.
If you support a federal UK you support the Union, you just (presumably) don't support the current system of asymmetric devolution.
You haven't answered my question of what that federation would look like.
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.
What a retarded take
It she’s cleared she should stay in position as she’s done nothing wrong
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.
I agree
I don't think toilets is the bigger issues - women's toilets are all cubicles. Its changing rooms more.
In NZ we had mixed toilets (no urinals, just cubicles) and a very chatty female secretary... Most disconcerting.
A small wrinkle on the Raynor affair that I just noticed: the trust set up for her child is almost certainly a trust for a vulnerable person. Unlike the trusts people like TSE setup for their children, the tax treatment of these is different. Trusts like TSE‘s treats all income, CGT etc as accruing to the parent / trustees for tax purposes. For Trusts for vulnerable people the tax treatment calculates the taxes owed as if they had been earned by the vulnerable person instead of the trustees even though (IIRC) they are actually paid by the trustees - the trustees can then claim the difference in taxes owed back from HMRC if necessary.
All this will have been explained to Raynor at some length by her lawyers. It’s therefore not entirely surprising that she might have thought that, having transferred property to the vulnerable persons trust, the same exemptions would apply to stamp duty calculations. Unfortunately for her these exemptions for vulnerable trust-related taxes do not apply to include whether or not the parent is deemed to own a property owned by the trust for the purposes of calculating stamp duty.
One could even argue that, given that the government chose to exempt the parents / trustees from tax liabilities arising from trusts for vulnerable people, the omission of property ownership for the purposes of calculating stamp duty was an oversight & that it should have been included alongside all the other taxes: The whole point appears to be to make sure that the trustees do not carry any extra tax liability as a consequence of carrying out their duties as trustees for a vulnerable person.
Nevertheless, the law is what it is & the gov.uk guidance is clear: Raynor should have known that & if she was advised otherwise then she was extremely badly advised. Can she prove that she was badly advised by the professionals she consulted? If not, then I think she’s probably toast.
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.
Edge cases, eh!
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
Yes, edge cases. As all of the data shows. I support women's rights - they absolutely matter. I just don't understand why "trans women are a threat" gets endlessly discussed whilst the vast majority of threat gets ignored.
A good mate of mine was *close* friends with Sarah Everard. She can't understand why all the noise on threats to women is trans and now migrants when they are quite literally a tiny minority of the cases where women are abused, assaulted and far worse.
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.
What a retarded take
It she’s cleared she should stay in position as she’s done nothing wrong
Take a chill pill ! I was just having a dig at the DM .
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.
AIUI from yesterday’s reporting, she bought the new apartment by herself, which would suggest a mortgage well north of half a million on it, perhaps £650k? She said she has no savings, and sold her interest in the constituency home to buy the Hove property.
Not knowing quite how mortgage lenders assess the creditworthiness of cabinet ministers, I still don’t think it’s too much of a reach for someone on her salary to be offered a loan of at least that.
If she’s using her MP salary of £90k and her ministerial salary of £70k together, then yes maybe, 4x gross income.
But if she loses the ministerial salary she’s going to be horribly over-leveraged at c.7x salary.
Unless the lender takes MPs expenses into account. I wonder if they do?
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.
What a retarded take
It she’s cleared she should stay in position as she’s done nothing wrong
How rude, however she is the Housing Minister and she f***** up stamp duty payments. She should go whether her error was malign or accidental.
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.
The point is that you don't know which man is a threat until it's too late, and so it's sensible to take some precautions on the basis that all men are a potential threat. Even you. Even me.
So then the question is, are trans women in the group called men, that are potential threats to women, or not? The answer of the Supreme Court, Cyclefree, gender critical feminists, terfs, and myself, is that trans women are, for this purpose, still men.
It's not that trans women, as a group, are more of a threat than cis men. Just that, for threat identification purposes, there's no reason to think that they're less of a threat, particularly if you allow self-ID.
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.
Edge cases, eh!
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
Labours pious attitude in opposition left them vulnerable to any controversy in government. There have been scandals aplenty, and they only have themselves to blame
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.
AIUI from yesterday’s reporting, she bought the new apartment by herself, which would suggest a mortgage well north of half a million on it, perhaps £650k? She said she has no savings, and sold her interest in the constituency home to buy the Hove property.
Not knowing quite how mortgage lenders assess the creditworthiness of cabinet ministers, I still don’t think it’s too much of a reach for someone on her salary to be offered a loan of at least that.
If she’s using her MP salary of £90k and her ministerial salary of £70k together, then yes maybe, 4x gross income.
But if she loses the ministerial salary she’s going to be horribly over-leveraged at c.7x salary.
Unless the lender takes MPs expenses into account. I wonder if they do?
Indeed. She will have very little personal outgoings as she can claim her living costs on expenses
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?!
The front pages didn’t lead on as Sean F mentioned the mendacious DT angle of she took money from her sons trust to blow on a Hove flat .
In public perception, now, I suspect she's going to be considered either utterly inept, or worse.....
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.
I'm surprised most of them can find gainful employment outside of politics at all tbh.
How much better things would be if talented moneymakers such as Lord Sugar, Lady Mone* and mullet plumber guy governed us.
*I’m aware the first two are involved in our political system but the amount of actual governmenting they do is afaics is minimal to zilch.
Labours pious attitude in opposition left them vulnerable to any controversy in government. There have been scandals aplenty, and they only have themselves to blame
I don't often agree with you, and I am not sure "scandals aplenty" matches the pro-rata scandals of your boy Johnson's bunch whilst in Government, however you are right that Rayner should fall for being caught doing what she called Tories out for.
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.
But normal humans wouldn't think of themselves as even havign additional properties when they'd sold or given away the house in question. Why click on that?
I can only speak as I would behave, but then I might be horrendously risk averse, wary of the vagaries of tax legislation, and not “normal” in these situations. But if I had any kind of housing arrangement (for want of a better word) that was slightly odd or atypical, I would likely be checking that there wasn’t some rule somewhere around it.
I’m afraid the more complicated your affairs get the more you must really do your homework (or ask someone to do it for you) whenever a tax point arises. To be fair to Rayner, taking her word for it, it does at least look like she tried in some way to do that - whether it was adequate enough, we shall see.
Someone like Rayner should be extra careful to make sure she is not leaving any hostages to fortune, bearing in mind political rivals and the right wing media wanting to destroy her.
The first UK council to appoint the US technology company Palantir to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems is reviewing the contract after protests by workers and councillors over its links to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
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.
AIUI from yesterday’s reporting, she bought the new apartment by herself, which would suggest a mortgage well north of half a million on it, perhaps £650k? She said she has no savings, and sold her interest in the constituency home to buy the Hove property.
Not knowing quite how mortgage lenders assess the creditworthiness of cabinet ministers, I still don’t think it’s too much of a reach for someone on her salary to be offered a loan of at least that.
If she’s using her MP salary of £90k and her ministerial salary of £70k together, then yes maybe, 4x gross income.
But if she loses the ministerial salary she’s going to be horribly over-leveraged at c.7x salary.
Unless the lender takes MPs expenses into account. I wonder if they do?
Anyone taking a mortgage then losing their job is horribly over leveraged. Lenders just care about the current income position and work on the assumption people retain that earning potential. Once LTV goes below about 75% they care even less than not very much as they can just repossess and make their money back if SHTF I was a senior mortgage underwriter at a leading UK bank in the lead up to the GFC, I know its a 'bit' tighter now but the broad principles the same - risk to the bank? At 75%/80% LTV not much, so its a raw can they afford repayment on current income?
Labours pious attitude in opposition left them vulnerable to any controversy in government. There have been scandals aplenty, and they only have themselves to blame
Labours pious attitude in opposition left them vulnerable to any controversy in government. There have been scandals aplenty, and they only have themselves to blame
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.
What a retarded take
It she’s cleared she should stay in position as she’s done nothing wrong
How rude, however she is the Housing Minister and she f***** up stamp duty payments. She should go whether her error was malign or accidental.
It’s not rude it’s fair given the comment was she should stay in place to wind up sections of the media,
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.
I'm surprised most of them can find gainful employment outside of politics at all tbh.
It would be interesting to compare salaries of the 2024 intake immediately before and after entering parliament. I suspect the median new MP will have had quite a large pay increase, though the mean new MP may have had a pay cut.
As Ken Livingstone observed of one scandal or another, for most Conservative MPs, election means a pay cut, whereas for most Labour MPs, it is the most they've earned in their lives.
Labours pious attitude in opposition left them vulnerable to any controversy in government. There have been scandals aplenty, and they only have themselves to blame
Who was it who labelled all tories Scum !
Sorry, I apologised for my hyperbole when Johnson was PM, oh I see...
The first UK council to appoint the US technology company Palantir to deploy artificial intelligence (AI) into its systems is reviewing the contract after protests by workers and councillors over its links to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
Subjugating commercial decisions to the boss's politics is standard American practice, isn't it? Better reasons for not signing up with Palantir are risks to data security and harm to our own economy.
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.
It may be the lawyers' fault. Or it could be a SNAFU. But unless we are told what she was asked, what advice she sought and what information she gave them, we cannot know. Nor can the BBC unless it has seen all the relevant material which I'm willing to bet it hasn't.
To my mind, it would be a natural error, to consider that once you had disposed of the beneficial ownership of your previous property, a subsequently-bought property would not be an additional property, for stamp duty land tax purposes. In fact, logic would suggest that only a property which you have beneficial ownership of should count, for that purpose.
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.
The point is that you don't know which man is a threat until it's too late, and so it's sensible to take some precautions on the basis that all men are a potential threat. Even you. Even me.
So then the question is, are trans women in the group called men, that are potential threats to women, or not? The answer of the Supreme Court, Cyclefree, gender critical feminists, terfs, and myself, is that trans women are, for this purpose, still men.
It's not that trans women, as a group, are more of a threat than cis men. Just that, for threat identification purposes, there's no reason to think that they're less of a threat, particularly if you allow self-ID.
I can’t understand why men need to threaten women. I can’t understand when people are racist. Sadly, it seems I am becoming a minority in both cases.
Labours pious attitude in opposition left them vulnerable to any controversy in government. There have been scandals aplenty, and they only have themselves to blame
Well nobody likes piety in anyone but a priest - but I'm not sure I'd want an Opposition (Lab or Con) going easy on Government scandals so as to create the space to misbehave in power themselves.
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.
It may be the lawyers' fault. Or it could be a SNAFU. But unless we are told what she was asked, what advice she sought and what information she gave them, we cannot know. Nor can the BBC unless it has seen all the relevant material which I'm willing to bet it hasn't.
To my mind, it would be a natural error, to consider that once you had disposed of the beneficial ownership of your previous property, a subsequently-bought property would not be an additional property, for stamp duty land tax purposes. In fact, logic would suggest that only a property which you have beneficial ownership of should count, for that purpose.
Labours pious attitude in opposition left them vulnerable to any controversy in government. There have been scandals aplenty, and they only have themselves to blame
Well nobody likes piety in anyone but a priest - but I'm not sure I'd want an Opposition (Lab or Con) going easy on Government scandals so as to create the space to misbehave in power themselves.
Absolutely. What the Tories did is, in any case, utterly irrelevant to what happens now Whataboutery is completely inappropriate (from the perpetrators current or previous)
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.
The point is that you don't know which man is a threat until it's too late, and so it's sensible to take some precautions on the basis that all men are a potential threat. Even you. Even me.
So then the question is, are trans women in the group called men, that are potential threats to women, or not? The answer of the Supreme Court, Cyclefree, gender critical feminists, terfs, and myself, is that trans women are, for this purpose, still men.
It's not that trans women, as a group, are more of a threat than cis men. Just that, for threat identification purposes, there's no reason to think that they're less of a threat, particularly if you allow self-ID.
I can’t understand why men need to threaten women. I can’t understand when people are racist. Sadly, it seems I am becoming a minority in both cases.
Comments
The review of the £500,000-a-year deal with the company co-founded by the Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel was announced by Coventry city council’s Labour leadership on Tuesday after the Guardian first reported concerns. Palantir is also involved in the US government’s immigration crackdown and helps to manage data in the NHS.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/04/coventry-council-review-palantir-contract-protests-israel-defense-forces-link
Delighted to have been appointed President of @ChathamHouse. At a time of extraordinary geopolitical change, the ethos and mission of the Institute have never been more important or valuable. Looking forward to working with the team over the years ahead.
https://x.com/theresa_may/status/1963533646738178480
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1963526783891902945
MP A buy a house and rents it to MP B, who puts the rent on expenses.
MP B buys a house and rents it to MP A, who put the rent on expenses.
Coincidences, eh?
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.
As a man, I would prefer to use a single cubicle with a basin rather than a large shared space. I suspect I’m not alone.
However, if she remains in office she simply cannot be housing minister by the time of Reeves statement in November, so remaining in office creates an unwelcome problem for Starmer on how and when he removes her and into which alternative position
Either way, this is yet another problem for Starmer to resolve and in the middle of all this is their annual conference
Cabinet reshuffle - but when ?
One thing that came to mind when reading your article was a passage in one of the Harry Potter books.
The Prime Minister gazed hopelessly at the pair of them for a moment, then the words he had fought to suppress all evening burst from him at last.
“But for heaven’s sake — you’re wizards! You can do magic! Surely you can sort out — well — anything!”
Scrimgeour turned slowly on the spot and exchanged an incredulous look with Fudge, who really did manage a smile this time as he said kindly, “The trouble is, the other side can do magic too, Prime Minister.
This issue isn't completely a men vs women issue. There are women who disagree with you too.
I think this is an issue where democracy has really struggled. The role of democracy is to be a peaceful way for societies to manage and resolve conflicts. But the public debate on this issue has been incredibly toxic and extreme.
But maybe that's just social media in general. For the last couple of days I've had a ferocious argument on Reddit with supposed lefties supporting Russia.
RFM: 32% (+3)
LAB: 22% (-1)
CON: 18% (+1)
LDM: 12% (-2)
GRN: 7% (-2)
Via @JLPartnersPolls, 19 Aug - 1 Sep.
Changes w/ 17-19 Jul.
There’s going to be so many companies taking advantage of public sector bodies with AI, same as with any other new technology that the decision-makers don’t understand at all.
Wrappers around ChatGPT and that will be 10x a ChatGPT licence.
But if she loses the ministerial salary she’s going to be horribly over-leveraged at c.7x salary.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/2c281cc8-8db3-4feb-891b-a546242d7083?shareToken=ba179eb3362ea7304e774529b7e549dd
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
Popcorn time
On related matters, what is the security detail of the DPM like and where would they stay in each of her situations? Does she have to have a spare room or do they have to loiter outside on shifts?
https://x.com/addicted2newz/status/1963508801769795840?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
I’m afraid the more complicated your affairs get the more you must really do your homework (or ask someone to do it for you) whenever a tax point arises. To be fair to Rayner, taking her word for it, it does at least look like she tried in some way to do that - whether it was adequate enough, we shall see.
Not something to be too concerned about until we elect a hotel owner
All this will have been explained to Raynor at some length by her lawyers. It’s therefore not entirely surprising that she might have thought that, having transferred property to the vulnerable persons trust, the same exemptions would apply to stamp duty calculations. Unfortunately for her these exemptions for vulnerable trust-related taxes do not include the question of whether the parent is deemed to own a property owned by the trust for the purposes of calculating stamp duty.
One could even argue that, given that the government chose to exempt the parents / trustees from tax liabilities arising from trusts for vulnerable people, the omission of property ownership for the purposes of calculating stamp duty was an oversight & that it should have been included alongside all the other taxes: The whole point appears to be to make sure that the trustees do not carry any extra tax liability as a consequence of carrying out their duties as trustees for a vulnerable person.
Nevertheless, the law is what it is & the gov.uk guidance is clear: Raynor should have known that & if she was advised otherwise then she was extremely badly advised. Can she prove that she was badly advised by the professionals she consulted? If not, then I think she’s probably toast.
See https://www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes/trusts-for-vulnerable-people for some details.
You haven't answered my question of what that federation would look like.
It she’s cleared she should stay in position as she’s done nothing wrong
I don't think toilets is the bigger issues - women's toilets are all cubicles. Its changing rooms more.
In NZ we had mixed toilets (no urinals, just cubicles) and a very chatty female secretary... Most disconcerting.
A good mate of mine was *close* friends with Sarah Everard. She can't understand why all the noise on threats to women is trans and now migrants when they are quite literally a tiny minority of the cases where women are abused, assaulted and far worse.
So then the question is, are trans women in the group called men, that are potential threats to women, or not? The answer of the Supreme Court, Cyclefree, gender critical feminists, terfs, and myself, is that trans women are, for this purpose, still men.
It's not that trans women, as a group, are more of a threat than cis men. Just that, for threat identification purposes, there's no reason to think that they're less of a threat, particularly if you allow self-ID.
Nice.
£800k and the signage looks like a Hastings dosshouse.
*I’m aware the first two are involved in our political system but the amount of actual governmenting they do is afaics is minimal to zilch.
I was a senior mortgage underwriter at a leading UK bank in the lead up to the GFC, I know its a 'bit' tighter now but the broad principles the same - risk to the bank? At 75%/80% LTV not much, so its a raw can they afford repayment on current income?
It turns out he was only in DC grifting for cash from Tech Bros opposed to the Online Safety Act.
However, the law is not logical, in this case.
AI tech shows promise writing emails or summarizing meetings. Don't bother with anything more complex
https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/04/m365_copilot_uk_government/
Whataboutery is completely inappropriate (from the perpetrators current or previous)