Lloyds to make underperforming staff redundant while offshoring jobs to India.
'The jobs of thousands of Lloyds Banking Group staff are at risk as part of a performance shake-up at the financial firm.
The banking group is set to tell those it deems are among the weakest performing 5% that they could be made redundant unless their work improves.
The policy applies across the organisation - from branch staff to senior directors - and marks the second time in less than two years that thousands of Lloyds' employees have faced job losses, after it cut 1,600 roles in January last year...att Britzman, an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said Lloyds had been "forced to take a more aggressive approach to weed out the lower performers".
"This seems like sensible business and aligns with the bank's quiet push to offshore more roles, aiming to hire 4,000 people in its India tech hub by year-end," he added.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx209gzg71wo
Presumably Rayner is going to claim to have taken advice from someone else.
That Telegraph story is a bit weird. As far as I am aware, no one knew who those people were until they voluntarily told the Telegraph. Not sure they are being scapegoated (unless I've missed Rayner naming them in an Alan Partridge kind of way).
Rayner said she received advice from the conveyancer and 2 tax/trust experts Conveyancers here say, no she did not
Conveyancers would have given advicer on conveyancing. We have yet to hear about the tax experts.
She stated she receivved advice about the stamp duty due from the conveyancing firm and the 2 others mentioned. The Conveyancer says they did not give advice on that issue. We have not yet heard from the others as you say
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
The price of any home is that which 'a willing buyer will pay a willing seller' so not really relevant
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
The price of any home is that which 'a willing buyer will pay a willing seller' so not really relevant
[Sen] Cassidy: Do you agree that the president deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed?
RFK: Absolutely.
Cassidy: But you just said that the COVID vaccine killed more people than COVID.
America is so screwed. Essentially every normal country in the world thinks they have gone mad and no longer trusts them. The only countries that favour Trump and his government are places like Russia and China, and not because he is Making America Great Again.
The damage done to the US will outlast most of us here.
China doesn't given the big tariffs he has imposed on their exports
Lloyds to make underperforming staff redundant while offshoring jobs to India.
'The jobs of thousands of Lloyds Banking Group staff are at risk as part of a performance shake-up at the financial firm.
The banking group is set to tell those it deems are among the weakest performing 5% that they could be made redundant unless their work improves.
The policy applies across the organisation - from branch staff to senior directors - and marks the second time in less than two years that thousands of Lloyds' employees have faced job losses, after it cut 1,600 roles in January last year...att Britzman, an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said Lloyds had been "forced to take a more aggressive approach to weed out the lower performers".
"This seems like sensible business and aligns with the bank's quiet push to offshore more roles, aiming to hire 4,000 people in its India tech hub by year-end," he added.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx209gzg71wo
It's not a good luck - but it does confirm that the bank cares more about profit than it's customers and staff..
Leader of Peterborough Council resigns and is suspended from the Labour Party for referring to victims of the banned thing as 'poor white trash' Peterborough a key target for the Tories next time, They won the area handily over Reform in the mayor race in May with Labour a distant third. Its the sort of seat they need to be working hard
Well, the swing against the Conservatives was very small as the Workers' Party hoovered up 12% of the vote, presumably mostly from Labour.
This is one of those seats where the Lab/Con duopoly faces a significant threat from BOTH Reform and the new emergent new anti-Labour party. For a bit of comedy, take the 2024 result, take ten points off both Labour and Conservative and add ten points to both Reform and the Workers Party and you get the sort of result which, were it to happen on a racecourse, would please any handicapper.
That would be interesting certainly. Lower than national Reform share, good performance comparatively in the mayoral 6000 votes clear of Reform, hyper marginal. If they arent targeting this they might as well pack up and go home.
Indeed, it's the no.4 target for the Conservatives over Labour so they should be in with a real shout.
The constituency covers about 60% of the area of Peterborough Council - the elections in May 2024 had the Conservatives losing half their seats with Labour and Peterborough First the main beneficiaries with five and three gains respectively.
The rest of the Council area is in the North West Cambridgeshire constituency which is the number 3 Conservative target so Tory activists spoilt for choice. The 2028 elections for Peterborough Council (assuming no General Election) will be highly informative.
Peterborough does it in thirds so tracking the progress of the target 26, 27, 28 should be illuminating on an ongoing basis
I sit corrected - the Conservatives last May lost 11 of the 14 seats they were defending so the result was even worse than I thought for them. However, and it's worth bearing in mind, in terms of vote share, they polled 29.5% and topped the poll but the big winners were Peterborough First who polled 16%.
The minority Labour administration survived a vote of no confidence in June winning that 32-26. Those bringing the motion included Peterborough First, the Liberal Democrats and Greens but it looks as though the Conservatives backed the minority Labour administration which may take some explaining.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
The key phrase there is "based on the information provided to us".
The questions are these:-
1. Did AR know or understand that she was still a property owner of the house put in trust for her son? This will depend on what Shoosmiths told her. 2. If she did, did she tell the conveyancers? 3. If she did not know, why not? 4. If she did know, why did she not tell the conveyancers? 5. Did she ask anyone else for advice and, if so, when and on what factual basis?
She'd better have some good answers to these. Because it's bloody stupid to blame your conveyancers and accuse them publicly of negligence. If they were negligent you do this in writing and they will be in contact with their insurers. Publicly blaming like this if they weren't leads to precisely this sort of response: we weren't asked for and do not give tax advice and you did not tell us.
It could still all have been a cock up, especially when you have different lawyers involved doing different tasks and not seeing the complete picture.
But as usual, Cyclefree's Golden Rule of Investigations kicks in.
It's not the cock up which is the problem but how you respond to it which all too often makes a small problem much worse.
Will any advisors names be redacted in the ethics report ? Obviously you don’t want your name trashed . Maybe there’s no paper trail and it was just in conversation which won’t help Rayner .
It appears as though this might well be an extra-judicial execution, not within any existing legal authority,
The Pentagon is working—STILL—to make up a legal rationale for slaughtering 11 people, 1,500 miles from America, AFTER THE FACT? WHAT? You can’t do this after they’re dead. That is a crime. That is murder. https://x.com/hissgoescobra/status/1963464928066711700
Whether or not they were bad guys is really not the point at all.
Yeah, all the explanations so far have been a bit Hague. Sorry, I meant vague...
Legal process and evidence do not appear to be high up the administration's list of priorities.
Further evidence that the Trump admin lied repeatedly (to the public and a judge) when it tried to deport 600 children to Guatemala in the dead of night.
"In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges—appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:
"Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
"And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.
Do we really want to import all this into the UK via Farage and his crew ?
Farage is a traitor.
So is Trump, and it didn't stop him from winning election.
Indeed. But we need to make it clear who people are voting for when the vote for the Farage Party.
There is much evidence, but Farage's recent time in Washington is one piece.
But that isn't happening.
We have researched Farage's fiasco in Congress. The mainstream media and Farage fans won't be reporting that Farage was f*****' beasted and owned by Jamie Raskin. He was humiliated. But you won't see that on a TV screen near you.
Angela Rayner having her pants pulled down is far more newsworthy than Farage's modesty being exposed.
If Farage was 'beasted' by a US politician I am not sure that reflects particularly well on the politician or particularly badly on Farage.
He was there to give his views on the political situation in the UK. I don't know why the committee particularly wanted to know this, but apparently they did. As far as I'm aware he didn't wade into US politics, so what was the US politician's angle? That he knew UK politics better than a British politician?
I suspect the Dems saw Farage not as an objective analyst from a foreign land but as a Trump sycophant there to boost MAGA by contrasting the US under Trump favourable against Britain. If so, I can't see that they were mistaken.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
The price of any home is that which 'a willing buyer will pay a willing seller' so not really relevant
It will be when she wishes to remortgage.
That rather depends on the mortgage and LTV
My daughter has just agreed to buy a home and is only seeking a 25% morgage so no survey or valuation needed
Will any advisors names be redacted in the ethics report ? Obviously you don’t want your name trashed . Maybe there’s no paper trail and it was just in conversation which won’t help Rayner .
This is one of the things it hinges on I think. The messaging seems to be that there’s been 2 trusts lawyers consulted. Now Rayner could have been super diligent and got two separate opinions from 2 seperate people who were formally instructed to give that advice. Or it could have been more informal. If it’s the latter, it’s going to be problematic because there might be a limited paper trail and she might not have a formal engagement with them, which won’t be good…
Presumably Rayner is going to claim to have taken advice from someone else.
That Telegraph story is a bit weird. As far as I am aware, no one knew who those people were until they voluntarily told the Telegraph. Not sure they are being scapegoated (unless I've missed Rayner naming them in an Alan Partridge kind of way).
Rayner said she received advice from the conveyancer and 2 tax/trust experts Conveyancers here say, no she did not
Conveyancers would have given advicer on conveyancing. We have yet to hear about the tax experts.
She stated she receivved advice about the stamp duty due from the conveyancing firm and the 2 others mentioned. The Conveyancer says they did not give advice on that issue. We have not yet heard from the others as you say
The Conveyancer wouldn't have given advice - I suspect the question went - is this your primary or a second home. Based on that answer and the purchase price the tax due is £x...
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed for the first time the government is looking at digital ID as a way to tackle illegal immigration.
The prime minister said a new identity programme could play an "important part" in reducing the incentive to enter the UK without permission.
The last Labour government started issuing ID cards to UK citizens, but the scheme was scrapped by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition over privacy concerns.
Will any advisors names be redacted in the ethics report ? Obviously you don’t want your name trashed . Maybe there’s no paper trail and it was just in conversation which won’t help Rayner .
I think it is too late for that
Both Rayner's conveyancers and her Trust advisors have been publicly named
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
This is the crucial statement from the Verrico & Associates
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator, based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
Which is fine in and of itself, if she can brandish a piece of formal legal advice that says “you can tell your conveyancers that the lower rate applies.” But can she?
(PS, while I think this has come from briefings rather than from AR herself, the unravelling of the “advice from conveyancers” line tonight is enough in itself to feel a little problematic for her).
Will any advisors names be redacted in the ethics report ? Obviously you don’t want your name trashed . Maybe there’s no paper trail and it was just in conversation which won’t help Rayner .
Her problem will be that unless she has written advice that says 'you told me x,y,z and that means the tax position is *', where * is incorrect and x,y,z is all correct info then its just hearsay - some bloke told me it was all OK informally is not a defence
The absence of her stating 'i received written advice that i have of course passed to the ethics investigator' suggests Malcolm Buggeridge
This is the crucial statement from the Verrico & Associates
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator, based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
Which is fine in and of itself, if she can brandish a piece of formal legal advice that says “you can tell your conveyancers that the lower rate applies.” But can she?
(PS, while I think this has come from briefings rather than from AR herself, the unravelling of the “advice from conveyancers” line tonight is enough in itself to feel a little problematic for her).
It is now very clear matter of what she said to the legal adviser and what did they say to her. It should all be in writing.
It appears as though this might well be an extra-judicial execution, not within any existing legal authority,
The Pentagon is working—STILL—to make up a legal rationale for slaughtering 11 people, 1,500 miles from America, AFTER THE FACT? WHAT? You can’t do this after they’re dead. That is a crime. That is murder. https://x.com/hissgoescobra/status/1963464928066711700
Whether or not they were bad guys is really not the point at all.
Yeah, all the explanations so far have been a bit Hague. Sorry, I meant vague...
Legal process and evidence do not appear to be high up the administration's list of priorities.
Further evidence that the Trump admin lied repeatedly (to the public and a judge) when it tried to deport 600 children to Guatemala in the dead of night.
"In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges—appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:
"Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
"And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.
Do we really want to import all this into the UK via Farage and his crew ?
Farage is a traitor.
So is Trump, and it didn't stop him from winning election.
Indeed. But we need to make it clear who people are voting for when the vote for the Farage Party.
There is much evidence, but Farage's recent time in Washington is one piece.
But that isn't happening.
We have researched Farage's fiasco in Congress. The mainstream media and Farage fans won't be reporting that Farage was f*****' beasted and owned by Jamie Raskin. He was humiliated. But you won't see that on a TV screen near you.
Angela Rayner having her pants pulled down is far more newsworthy than Farage's modesty being exposed.
If Farage was 'beasted' by a US politician I am not sure that reflects particularly well on the politician or particularly badly on Farage.
He was there to give his views on the political situation in the UK. I don't know why the committee particularly wanted to know this, but apparently they did. As far as I'm aware he didn't wade into US politics, so what was the US politician's angle? That he knew UK politics better than a British politician?
I suspect the Dems saw Farage not as an objective analyst from a foreign land but as a Trump sycophant there to boost MAGA by contrasting the US under Trump favourable against Britain. If so, I can't see that they were mistaken.
They may well have done, and been right, but attacking him on the grounds of his UK political background would have been grotesquely crass and offensive. A UK Parliamentary committee wouldn't publicly dress down a US lawmaker who had come over to give evidence to their committee, though they might expect and understand that there would be biases in their evidence.
I wonder how many people, like me, don't really know what a conveyancer is? I know it's something to do with buying a house, and one was involved when we bought our house years ago, but aside from that I know f-all about their role and responsibilities.
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed for the first time the government is looking at digital ID as a way to tackle illegal immigration.
The prime minister said a new identity programme could play an "important part" in reducing the incentive to enter the UK without permission.
The last Labour government started issuing ID cards to UK citizens, but the scheme was scrapped by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition over privacy concerns.
This is the crucial statement from the Verrico & Associates
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator, based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
Which is fine in and of itself, if she can brandish a piece of formal legal advice that says “you can tell your conveyancers that the lower rate applies.” But can she?
(PS, while I think this has come from briefings rather than from AR herself, the unravelling of the “advice from conveyancers” line tonight is enough in itself to feel a little problematic for her).
I do fear we are entering uncharted waters with both her conveyancer's and trust advisor's denying any liability
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
Sorry for not being clear, the Telegraph have been trying to value the Ashton property not the Hove one.
In essence, they are suggesting the trust may have overpaid Rayner.
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed for the first time the government is looking at digital ID as a way to tackle illegal immigration.
The prime minister said a new identity programme could play an "important part" in reducing the incentive to enter the UK without permission.
The last Labour government started issuing ID cards to UK citizens, but the scheme was scrapped by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition over privacy concerns.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
The price of any home is that which 'a willing buyer will pay a willing seller' so not really relevant
It will be when she wishes to remortgage.
That rather depends on the mortgage and LTV
My daughter has just agreed to buy a home and is only seeking a 25% morgage so no survey or valuation needed
The press are claiming it’s a £650,000 mortgage on a £800,000 flat. So already 80ish %
Presumably Rayner is going to claim to have taken advice from someone else.
That Telegraph story is a bit weird. As far as I am aware, no one knew who those people were until they voluntarily told the Telegraph. Not sure they are being scapegoated (unless I've missed Rayner naming them in an Alan Partridge kind of way).
Rayner said she received advice from the conveyancer and 2 tax/trust experts Conveyancers here say, no she did not
Conveyancers would have given advicer on conveyancing. We have yet to hear about the tax experts.
She stated she receivved advice about the stamp duty due from the conveyancing firm and the 2 others mentioned. The Conveyancer says they did not give advice on that issue. We have not yet heard from the others as you say
The Conveyancer wouldn't have given advice - I suspect the question went - is this your primary or a second home. Based on that answer and the purchase price the tax due is £x...
Yes. But she said they advised her, they were one of her '3 people who told me' They are quite correctly protecting their reputation.
She gave them incorrect information it seems amd must now prove she had direct advice to do so to have even the thinnest veneer of a defence
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
I wonder how many people, like me, don't really know what a conveyancer is? I know it's something to do with buying a house, and one was involved when we bought our house years ago, but aside from that I know f-all about their role and responsibilities.
[Sen] Cassidy: Do you agree that the president deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed?
RFK: Absolutely.
Cassidy: But you just said that the COVID vaccine killed more people than COVID.
America is so screwed. Essentially every normal country in the world thinks they have gone mad and no longer trusts them. The only countries that favour Trump and his government are places like Russia and China, and not because he is Making America Great Again.
The damage done to the US will outlast most of us here.
China doesn't given the big tariffs he has imposed on their exports
The US is driving all kinds of countries into the arms of China. Not to mention the economic damage that the US is doing to itself, that will hand dominance of many key economic sectors to China. The US has done a ludicrously bad job of containing China, and not just by Trump's administration, rather than slowing China down they have spurred China on. There won't be many measures by which the US is number one for much longer.
It appears as though this might well be an extra-judicial execution, not within any existing legal authority,
The Pentagon is working—STILL—to make up a legal rationale for slaughtering 11 people, 1,500 miles from America, AFTER THE FACT? WHAT? You can’t do this after they’re dead. That is a crime. That is murder. https://x.com/hissgoescobra/status/1963464928066711700
Whether or not they were bad guys is really not the point at all.
Yeah, all the explanations so far have been a bit Hague. Sorry, I meant vague...
Legal process and evidence do not appear to be high up the administration's list of priorities.
Further evidence that the Trump admin lied repeatedly (to the public and a judge) when it tried to deport 600 children to Guatemala in the dead of night.
"In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges—appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:
"Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
"And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.
Do we really want to import all this into the UK via Farage and his crew ?
Farage is a traitor.
So is Trump, and it didn't stop him from winning election.
Indeed. But we need to make it clear who people are voting for when the vote for the Farage Party.
There is much evidence, but Farage's recent time in Washington is one piece.
But that isn't happening.
We have researched Farage's fiasco in Congress. The mainstream media and Farage fans won't be reporting that Farage was f*****' beasted and owned by Jamie Raskin. He was humiliated. But you won't see that on a TV screen near you.
Angela Rayner having her pants pulled down is far more newsworthy than Farage's modesty being exposed.
If Farage was 'beasted' by a US politician I am not sure that reflects particularly well on the politician or particularly badly on Farage.
He was there to give his views on the political situation in the UK. I don't know why the committee particularly wanted to know this, but apparently they did. As far as I'm aware he didn't wade into US politics, so what was the US politician's angle? That he knew UK politics better than a British politician?
I suspect the Dems saw Farage not as an objective analyst from a foreign land but as a Trump sycophant there to boost MAGA by contrasting the US under Trump favourable against Britain. If so, I can't see that they were mistaken.
They may well have done, and been right, but attacking him on the grounds of his UK political background would have been grotesquely crass and offensive. A UK Parliamentary committee wouldn't publicly dress down a US lawmaker who had come over to give evidence to their committee, though they might expect and understand that there would be biases in their evidence.
That's probably correct but it just seems to be part of the US political culture, which is like ours but on steroids.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
The price of any home is that which 'a willing buyer will pay a willing seller' so not really relevant
It will be when she wishes to remortgage.
That rather depends on the mortgage and LTV
My daughter has just agreed to buy a home and is only seeking a 25% morgage so no survey or valuation needed
The press are claiming it’s a £650,000 mortgage on a £800,000 flat. So already 80ish %
If there’s no paper/ email trail then surely Rayner would have resigned already as it would be her word against the advisors .
Starmer would surely have asked her if she could categorically prove she was given bad advice .
On the flipside, if she had a clear letter from a legal advisor that said "given the information provided in regards to your family situation, you are entitled to reduced stamp duty", the Guardian would have had a fax days ago.
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
It's the Ashton-under-Lyne that Angela sold and the Trust bought a part share of which that the Telegraph is saying was seriously overpriced.
I.e. she's taken more money from the trust that she shouldn't have - and that is way more damning than the stamp duty...
If there’s no paper/ email trail then surely Rayner would have resigned already as it would be her word against the advisors .
Starmer would surely have asked her if she could categorically prove she was given bad advice .
On the flipside, if you had a letter from a legal advisor that said "given the information provided you are entitled to reduced stamp duty", the Guardian would have had a fax days ago.
Confidentiality issues, though: - it bears on the family house.
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
Presumably Rayner is going to claim to have taken advice from someone else.
That Telegraph story is a bit weird. As far as I am aware, no one knew who those people were until they voluntarily told the Telegraph. Not sure they are being scapegoated (unless I've missed Rayner naming them in an Alan Partridge kind of way).
Rayner said she received advice from the conveyancer and 2 tax/trust experts Conveyancers here say, no she did not
Conveyancers would have given advicer on conveyancing. We have yet to hear about the tax experts.
She stated she receivved advice about the stamp duty due from the conveyancing firm and the 2 others mentioned. The Conveyancer says they did not give advice on that issue. We have not yet heard from the others as you say
The Conveyancer wouldn't have given advice - I suspect the question went - is this your primary or a second home. Based on that answer and the purchase price the tax due is £x...
Yes. But she said they advised her, they were one of her '3 people who told me' They are quite correctly protecting their reputation.
She gave them incorrect information it seems amd must now prove she had direct advice to do so to have even the thinnest veneer of a defence
Or alternatively they’re lying . If there’s no paper trail and it was simply in conversation then it’s over for Rayner .
[Sen] Cassidy: Do you agree that the president deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed?
RFK: Absolutely.
Cassidy: But you just said that the COVID vaccine killed more people than COVID.
America is so screwed. Essentially every normal country in the world thinks they have gone mad and no longer trusts them. The only countries that favour Trump and his government are places like Russia and China, and not because he is Making America Great Again.
The damage done to the US will outlast most of us here.
World's biggest political story. Dwarfs everything else.
This is the crucial statement from the Verrico & Associates
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator, based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
So did the information provided by Ms Rayner reference a trust because I bet HMRC's online calculator doesn't ask any question about trusts - HMRC's calculators only go so far and are designed for simply common scenarios..
If there’s no paper/ email trail then surely Rayner would have resigned already as it would be her word against the advisors .
Starmer would surely have asked her if she could categorically prove she was given bad advice .
On the flipside, if you had a letter from a legal advisor that said "given the information provided you are entitled to reduced stamp duty", the Guardian would have had a fax days ago.
Confidentiality issues, though: - it bears on the family house.
Obviously redacted. But if she got such advice, there will be a document that informs her in writing that this is the case and she could have provide a heavily redacted version with this clear advice in it.
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
It appears as though this might well be an extra-judicial execution, not within any existing legal authority,
The Pentagon is working—STILL—to make up a legal rationale for slaughtering 11 people, 1,500 miles from America, AFTER THE FACT? WHAT? You can’t do this after they’re dead. That is a crime. That is murder. https://x.com/hissgoescobra/status/1963464928066711700
Whether or not they were bad guys is really not the point at all.
Yeah, all the explanations so far have been a bit Hague. Sorry, I meant vague...
Legal process and evidence do not appear to be high up the administration's list of priorities.
Further evidence that the Trump admin lied repeatedly (to the public and a judge) when it tried to deport 600 children to Guatemala in the dead of night.
"In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges—appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:
"Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
"And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.
Do we really want to import all this into the UK via Farage and his crew ?
Farage is a traitor.
So is Trump, and it didn't stop him from winning election.
Indeed. But we need to make it clear who people are voting for when the vote for the Farage Party.
There is much evidence, but Farage's recent time in Washington is one piece.
But that isn't happening.
We have researched Farage's fiasco in Congress. The mainstream media and Farage fans won't be reporting that Farage was f*****' beasted and owned by Jamie Raskin. He was humiliated. But you won't see that on a TV screen near you.
Angela Rayner having her pants pulled down is far more newsworthy than Farage's modesty being exposed.
If Farage was 'beasted' by a US politician I am not sure that reflects particularly well on the politician or particularly badly on Farage.
He was there to give his views on the political situation in the UK. I don't know why the committee particularly wanted to know this, but apparently they did. As far as I'm aware he didn't wade into US politics, so what was the US politician's angle? That he knew UK politics better than a British politician?
I suspect the Dems saw Farage not as an objective analyst from a foreign land but as a Trump sycophant there to boost MAGA by contrasting the US under Trump favourable against Britain. If so, I can't see that they were mistaken.
They may well have done, and been right, but attacking him on the grounds of his UK political background would have been grotesquely crass and offensive. A UK Parliamentary committee wouldn't publicly dress down a US lawmaker who had come over to give evidence to their committee, though they might expect and understand that there would be biases in their evidence.
That's probably correct but it just seems to be part of the US political culture, which is like ours but on steroids.
It appears as though this might well be an extra-judicial execution, not within any existing legal authority,
The Pentagon is working—STILL—to make up a legal rationale for slaughtering 11 people, 1,500 miles from America, AFTER THE FACT? WHAT? You can’t do this after they’re dead. That is a crime. That is murder. https://x.com/hissgoescobra/status/1963464928066711700
Whether or not they were bad guys is really not the point at all.
Yeah, all the explanations so far have been a bit Hague. Sorry, I meant vague...
Legal process and evidence do not appear to be high up the administration's list of priorities.
Further evidence that the Trump admin lied repeatedly (to the public and a judge) when it tried to deport 600 children to Guatemala in the dead of night.
"In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges—appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:
"Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
"And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.
Do we really want to import all this into the UK via Farage and his crew ?
Farage is a traitor.
So is Trump, and it didn't stop him from winning election.
Indeed. But we need to make it clear who people are voting for when the vote for the Farage Party.
There is much evidence, but Farage's recent time in Washington is one piece.
But that isn't happening.
We have researched Farage's fiasco in Congress. The mainstream media and Farage fans won't be reporting that Farage was f*****' beasted and owned by Jamie Raskin. He was humiliated. But you won't see that on a TV screen near you.
Angela Rayner having her pants pulled down is far more newsworthy than Farage's modesty being exposed.
If Farage was 'beasted' by a US politician I am not sure that reflects particularly well on the politician or particularly badly on Farage.
He was there to give his views on the political situation in the UK. I don't know why the committee particularly wanted to know this, but apparently they did. As far as I'm aware he didn't wade into US politics, so what was the US politician's angle? That he knew UK politics better than a British politician?
I suspect the Dems saw Farage not as an objective analyst from a foreign land but as a Trump sycophant there to boost MAGA by contrasting the US under Trump favourable against Britain. If so, I can't see that they were mistaken.
They may well have done, and been right, but attacking him on the grounds of his UK political background would have been grotesquely crass and offensive. A UK Parliamentary committee wouldn't publicly dress down a US lawmaker who had come over to give evidence to their committee, though they might expect and understand that there would be biases in their evidence.
I saw a bit of it and it didn't reflect well on the US Congress. Politicians of both sides seemed more interested in grandstanding speeches rather than actually letting the witnesses speak.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
Sorry for not being clear, the Telegraph have been trying to value the Ashton property not the Hove one.
In essence, they are suggesting the trust may have overpaid Rayner.
For a quarter of the house? On a professional valuation (or two)? When in any case the other quarter of the house was given gratis, which gives a hell of a margin for any hiccups?
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
Sorry for not being clear, the Telegraph have been trying to value the Ashton property not the Hove one.
In essence, they are suggesting the trust may have overpaid Rayner.
For a quarter of the house? On a professional valuation (or two)? When in any case the other quarter of the house was given gratis, which gives a hell of a margin for any hiccups?
I wonder how many people, like me, don't really know what a conveyancer is? I know it's something to do with buying a house, and one was involved when we bought our house years ago, but aside from that I know f-all about their role and responsibilities.
I'm glad someone admitted this before me.
Verrico is a small conveyancing firm that does not employ any qualified solicitors. Instead, they are licensed conveyancers who only focus on property advice and typically handle straightforward transactions.
Experts said Ms Rayner’s choice of firm cast serious doubt over whether she had sought appropriate legal advice.
Lloyds to make underperforming staff redundant while offshoring jobs to India.
'The jobs of thousands of Lloyds Banking Group staff are at risk as part of a performance shake-up at the financial firm.
The banking group is set to tell those it deems are among the weakest performing 5% that they could be made redundant unless their work improves.
The policy applies across the organisation - from branch staff to senior directors - and marks the second time in less than two years that thousands of Lloyds' employees have faced job losses, after it cut 1,600 roles in January last year...att Britzman, an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said Lloyds had been "forced to take a more aggressive approach to weed out the lower performers".
"This seems like sensible business and aligns with the bank's quiet push to offshore more roles, aiming to hire 4,000 people in its India tech hub by year-end," he added.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx209gzg71wo
It's not a good luck - but it does confirm that the bank cares more about profit than it's customers and staff..
A more interventionist government might move to stop Lloyds offshoring jobs but our political class has a naive belief in free trade.
Graham Linehan accuser ‘is disgraced transgender police officer’
Watson was sacked by Leicestershire Police after being found guilty by a misconduct hearing of sending former police officer Harry Miller more than 1,200 messages over an 18-month period, branding him a “Nazi”, a “bigot” and a “wife-beater”.
"Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan has gone on trial in London on charges of harassment and criminal damage against a transgender woman.
Westminster Magistrates' Court was told the 57-year-old allegedly used social media to "relentlessly" publish offensive posts about an 18-year-old trans campaigner."
The man who accused him has quite a record of offensive posts, writing in one that he wished acid had been thrown over a woman's face instead of soup. (According to the evidence given in court today.)
So you think Linehan is in the right?
What are you jumping to that assumption based on what I wrote?
I reported some evidence which has come out during the trial, during the cross-examination of the complainant. The cross-examination was, in my professional opinion, very good. (I am not surprised by this because I know the KC doing it.) Some of the admissions made by the complainant about what he was doing and why do not reflect well on him. He was also under-age at the time and was hanging round with some dubious individuals. So there is a safeguarding issue there as well. But I have not heard all the evidence and so I express no views on whether Linehan was guilty or not. He is innocent until proven guilty. As you know perfectly well.
There is the moral as well as the legal. Do you think a man in his fifties getting into a nasty Internet spat with a young person is right? Especially when that man is famous and has some influence amongst those of a similar mindset?
I also wish you'd refer to the complainant as 'she'. I know you won't.
I do not know enough about the facts here to opine.
I have given you my general view of Linehan in the header.
The complainant is factually and legally male. I am not going to call him something he isn't. He goes by the name Sophie Brooks.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
The price of any home is that which 'a willing buyer will pay a willing seller' so not really relevant
It will be when she wishes to remortgage.
That rather depends on the mortgage and LTV
My daughter has just agreed to buy a home and is only seeking a 25% morgage so no survey or valuation needed
The press are claiming it’s a £650,000 mortgage on a £800,000 flat. So already 80ish %
Is it not her Ashton house that they are suggesting was overvalued?
She was purchasing from herself with the child's trust, so must have taken a valuation to work out how much the 25% would cost. This would never have been tested against any sort of market.
As a trustee and a beneficiary of the sale that does create a conflict of interest.
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
It's more than really weird, it's the most weird story of all time.
It's not unknown. There is a bizarre sexual fetish where people - men - being sexually weirder than women - get turned on by the idea of amputations, even of their own limbs
Presumably Rayner is going to claim to have taken advice from someone else.
That Telegraph story is a bit weird. As far as I am aware, no one knew who those people were until they voluntarily told the Telegraph. Not sure they are being scapegoated (unless I've missed Rayner naming them in an Alan Partridge kind of way).
Rayner said she received advice from the conveyancer and 2 tax/trust experts Conveyancers here say, no she did not
Conveyancers would have given advicer on conveyancing. We have yet to hear about the tax experts.
She stated she receivved advice about the stamp duty due from the conveyancing firm and the 2 others mentioned. The Conveyancer says they did not give advice on that issue. We have not yet heard from the others as you say
The Conveyancer wouldn't have given advice - I suspect the question went - is this your primary or a second home. Based on that answer and the purchase price the tax due is £x...
Yes. But she said they advised her, they were one of her '3 people who told me' They are quite correctly protecting their reputation.
She gave them incorrect information it seems amd must now prove she had direct advice to do so to have even the thinnest veneer of a defence
Or alternatively they’re lying . If there’s no paper trail and it was simply in conversation then it’s over for Rayner .
I think its already over. We now just await the formality of the ethics report tomorrow.
If there’s no paper/ email trail then surely Rayner would have resigned already as it would be her word against the advisors .
Starmer would surely have asked her if she could categorically prove she was given bad advice .
Starmer only understands following procedures and no matter. he will only respond once the ethics report is published
I can’t imagine he wouldn’t have said to her look Angela in the current climate a simple conversation isn’t going to cut it . Do you have paperwork proving at least that you were told you could pay the lower stamp duty . If you don’t then resign.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
The price of any home is that which 'a willing buyer will pay a willing seller' so not really relevant
It will be when she wishes to remortgage.
That rather depends on the mortgage and LTV
My daughter has just agreed to buy a home and is only seeking a 25% morgage so no survey or valuation needed
The press are claiming it’s a £650,000 mortgage on a £800,000 flat. So already 80ish %
Is it not her Ashton house that they are suggesting was overvalued?
She was purchasing from herself with the child's trust, so must have taken a valuation to work out how much the 25% would cost. This would never have been tested against any sort of market.
As a trustee and a beneficiary of the sale, that does create a conflict of interest.
Yup. It looks like I got the wrong end of the stick.
I wonder how many people, like me, don't really know what a conveyancer is? I know it's something to do with buying a house, and one was involved when we bought our house years ago, but aside from that I know f-all about their role and responsibilities.
I'm glad someone admitted this before me.
Verrico is a small conveyancing firm that does not employ any qualified solicitors. Instead, they are licensed conveyancers who only focus on property advice and typically handle straightforward transactions.
Experts said Ms Rayner’s choice of firm cast serious doubt over whether she had sought appropriate legal advice.
She has got herself in a mess now by first claiming I told them lawyers everything, who told me it was all proper like. Now if it turns out them proper lawyers were just these people, well she is in a pickle, because her excuse was legal advice was wrong, not I didn't go to a proper lawyer.
But it has also been claimed 3 different sets of lawyers have been working on this, so have to see who they were.
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
There is a rare psychological condition whereby people become obsessed with amputations and having one done on themselves. Perhaps this guy had that and just did a bit of insurance fraud on the back of it.
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
It's more than really weird, it's the most weird story of all time.
It's not unknown. There is a bizarre sexual fetish where people - men - being sexually weirder than women - get turned on by the idea of amputations, even of their own limbs
[Sen] Cassidy: Do you agree that the president deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed?
RFK: Absolutely.
Cassidy: But you just said that the COVID vaccine killed more people than COVID.
America is so screwed. Essentially every normal country in the world thinks they have gone mad and no longer trusts them. The only countries that favour Trump and his government are places like Russia and China, and not because he is Making America Great Again.
The damage done to the US will outlast most of us here.
World's biggest political story. Dwarfs everything else.
Depends, by 2029 Farage could be PM here, Le Pen President of France, the AfD won most seats in Germany, Polievre finally won most seats in Canada and either Vance elected POTUS to continue MAGA unless a Democrat is elected President of the US. All anti immigration and protectionist.
Nationalism as the increasingly main force on the right of western politics is not going away, nor is anti immigration and anti free market globalisation sentiment (even Polievre backs tariffs on Chinese electrical car imports). Especially if borders are not controlled and companies like Lloyds seemingly more interested in shipping jobs abroad than their own domestic workforce
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
There is a rare psychological condition whereby people become obsessed with amputations and having one done on themselves. Perhaps this guy had that and just did a bit of insurance fraud on the back of it.
This is the crucial statement from the Verrico & Associates
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator, based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
So did the information provided by Ms Rayner reference a trust because I bet HMRC's online calculator doesn't ask any question about trusts - HMRC's calculators only go so far and are designed for simply common scenarios..
Will the purchase of the property result in owning two or more properties?
They probably asked her this question. I doubt they were involved in working out whether the answer was Yes or No.
She's silly to have mentioned these people at all.
If there’s no paper/ email trail then surely Rayner would have resigned already as it would be her word against the advisors .
Starmer would surely have asked her if she could categorically prove she was given bad advice .
Starmer only understands following procedures and no matter. he will only respond once the ethics report is published
I can’t imagine he wouldn’t have said to her look Angela in the current climate a simple conversation isn’t going to cut it . Do you have paperwork proving at least that you were told you could pay the lower stamp duty . If you don’t then resign.
She told him on Monday that she was waiting for legal advice which she received on Wednesday
Starmer admitted such today, so Starmer would not have prejudged that advice
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
Sorry for not being clear, the Telegraph have been trying to value the Ashton property not the Hove one.
In essence, they are suggesting the trust may have overpaid Rayner.
For a quarter of the house? On a professional valuation (or two)? When in any case the other quarter of the house was given gratis, which gives a hell of a margin for any hiccups?
If a surveyor used the comparators in that article to calculator fair price they wouldn't have a leg to stand on were they to be sued... A 3 bed semi definitely isn't a reasonable comparison to a 4 bed detached especially 1 adapted at vast expense to meet someone's particular needs.
The conveyancers who sent the proceeds of my parents in law's house sale to fraudsters have still not come up with their money, five months later. So I will join you on this particular hill.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
It's the Ashton-under-Lyne that Angela sold and the Trust bought a part share of which that the Telegraph is saying was seriously overpriced.
I.e. she's taken more money from the trust that she shouldn't have - and that is way more damning than the stamp duty...
I’m guessing that UK trusts are like offshore trusts where the trustees are liable to legal action from beneficiaries for any actions they take that can be considered damaging to the trust.
If they paid over the odds then the Trustees would be in a potential pickle, even from the current beneficiary’s children, if future beneficiaries, if they have overpaid for an asset to the detriment of the Trust so I would imagine the trustees will have ensured they paid market rate or less. If not, well.
[Sen] Cassidy: Do you agree that the president deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed?
RFK: Absolutely.
Cassidy: But you just said that the COVID vaccine killed more people than COVID.
America is so screwed. Essentially every normal country in the world thinks they have gone mad and no longer trusts them. The only countries that favour Trump and his government are places like Russia and China, and not because he is Making America Great Again.
The damage done to the US will outlast most of us here.
China doesn't given the big tariffs he has imposed on their exports
The US is driving all kinds of countries into the arms of China. Not to mention the economic damage that the US is doing to itself, that will hand dominance of many key economic sectors to China. The US has done a ludicrously bad job of containing China, and not just by Trump's administration, rather than slowing China down they have spurred China on. There won't be many measures by which the US is number one for much longer.
Russia and North Korea were already allied to China before Trump.
China was also undercutting US manufacturing jobs with cheap dumped goods on the US market, Trump's election victory is a reaction to China's economic growth not its cause
It appears as though this might well be an extra-judicial execution, not within any existing legal authority,
The Pentagon is working—STILL—to make up a legal rationale for slaughtering 11 people, 1,500 miles from America, AFTER THE FACT? WHAT? You can’t do this after they’re dead. That is a crime. That is murder. https://x.com/hissgoescobra/status/1963464928066711700
Whether or not they were bad guys is really not the point at all.
Yeah, all the explanations so far have been a bit Hague. Sorry, I meant vague...
Legal process and evidence do not appear to be high up the administration's list of priorities.
Further evidence that the Trump admin lied repeatedly (to the public and a judge) when it tried to deport 600 children to Guatemala in the dead of night.
"In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges—appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:
"Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
"And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.
Do we really want to import all this into the UK via Farage and his crew ?
Farage is a traitor.
So is Trump, and it didn't stop him from winning election.
Indeed. But we need to make it clear who people are voting for when the vote for the Farage Party.
There is much evidence, but Farage's recent time in Washington is one piece.
But that isn't happening.
We have researched Farage's fiasco in Congress. The mainstream media and Farage fans won't be reporting that Farage was f*****' beasted and owned by Jamie Raskin. He was humiliated. But you won't see that on a TV screen near you.
Angela Rayner having her pants pulled down is far more newsworthy than Farage's modesty being exposed.
If Farage was 'beasted' by a US politician I am not sure that reflects particularly well on the politician or particularly badly on Farage.
He was there to give his views on the political situation in the UK. I don't know why the committee particularly wanted to know this, but apparently they did. As far as I'm aware he didn't wade into US politics, so what was the US politician's angle? That he knew UK politics better than a British politician?
I suspect the Dems saw Farage not as an objective analyst from a foreign land but as a Trump sycophant there to boost MAGA by contrasting the US under Trump favourable against Britain. If so, I can't see that they were mistaken.
They may well have done, and been right, but attacking him on the grounds of his UK political background would have been grotesquely crass and offensive. A UK Parliamentary committee wouldn't publicly dress down a US lawmaker who had come over to give evidence to their committee, though they might expect and understand that there would be biases in their evidence.
I saw a bit of it and it didn't reflect well on the US Congress. Politicians of both sides seemed more interested in grandstanding speeches rather than actually letting the witnesses speak.
Farage shouldn’t be there acting as a proxy lightning rod for US culture wars. And his invitation by the US government to do so is a hostile act towards Britain, which they only do because they know they’ll get away with it.
This is the crucial statement from the Verrico & Associates
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator, based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
So did the information provided by Ms Rayner reference a trust because I bet HMRC's online calculator doesn't ask any question about trusts - HMRC's calculators only go so far and are designed for simply common scenarios..
Will the purchase of the property result in owning two or more properties?
They probably asked her this question. I doubt they were involved in working out whether the answer was Yes or No.
She's silly to have mentioned these people at all.
Remember she had just sold her remaining interest in her former home to her son's trust.
The answer to the question Will the purchase of the property result in owning two or more properties - is No, this is the only property I own.
Unless by own the question is own* where * leads to a footnote with the x00 variations that exist.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
It's the Ashton-under-Lyne that Angela sold and the Trust bought a part share of which that the Telegraph is saying was seriously overpriced.
I.e. she's taken more money from the trust that she shouldn't have - and that is way more damning than the stamp duty...
If true, yes, that is what can sink her. The stamp duty business is a nothingburger. Voters won't understand it, and the whole thing can be written off as a cock-up if neither Rayner nor the conveyancers knew the trust changed things.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
It's the Ashton-under-Lyne that Angela sold and the Trust bought a part share of which that the Telegraph is saying was seriously overpriced.
I.e. she's taken more money from the trust that she shouldn't have - and that is way more damning than the stamp duty...
I’m guessing that UK trusts are like offshore trusts where the trustees are liable to legal action from beneficiaries for any actions they take that can be considered damaging to the trust.
If they paid over the odds then the Trustees would be in a potential pickle, even from the current beneficiary’s children, if future beneficiaries, if they have overpaid for an asset to the detriment of the Trust so I would imagine the trustees will have ensured they paid market rate or less. If not, well.
I'd think that's true of almost any trust. Even the Little Snoring annual pancake day race charity. Though oddly executors of probate estates seem to be exempted in the standard legal boilerplate.
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
There is a rare psychological condition whereby people become obsessed with amputations and having one done on themselves. Perhaps this guy had that and just did a bit of insurance fraud on the back of it.
In the story its exactly that, but also sexual.
Major should never have introduced Care in the Community.
If there’s no paper/ email trail then surely Rayner would have resigned already as it would be her word against the advisors .
Starmer would surely have asked her if she could categorically prove she was given bad advice .
Starmer only understands following procedures and no matter. he will only respond once the ethics report is published
I can’t imagine he wouldn’t have said to her look Angela in the current climate a simple conversation isn’t going to cut it . Do you have paperwork proving at least that you were told you could pay the lower stamp duty . If you don’t then resign.
She told him on Monday that she was waiting for legal advice which she received on Wednesday
Starmer admitted such today, so Starmer would not have prejudged that advice
That Wednesday advice is only important if Rayner has written confirmation of the wrong advice . Even if she had the wrong advice verbally it won’t help her . So Starmer should have insisted on seeing what advice she was given previously before staging his Save Angie campaign . As you know I like her and hope the ethics investigation clears her of breaking the ministerial code but if it doesn’t then sadly it’s over for her .
Presumably Rayner is going to claim to have taken advice from someone else.
That Telegraph story is a bit weird. As far as I am aware, no one knew who those people were until they voluntarily told the Telegraph. Not sure they are being scapegoated (unless I've missed Rayner naming them in an Alan Partridge kind of way).
Rayner said she received advice from the conveyancer and 2 tax/trust experts Conveyancers here say, no she did not
The Conveyancers are just saying they didn't give her any bespoke tax advice.
Presumably Rayner is going to claim to have taken advice from someone else.
That Telegraph story is a bit weird. As far as I am aware, no one knew who those people were until they voluntarily told the Telegraph. Not sure they are being scapegoated (unless I've missed Rayner naming them in an Alan Partridge kind of way).
Rayner said she received advice from the conveyancer and 2 tax/trust experts Conveyancers here say, no she did not
The Conveyancers are just saying they didn't give her any bespoke tax advice.
Yes. In response to her saying or intimating they had
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
There is a rare psychological condition whereby people become obsessed with amputations and having one done on themselves. Perhaps this guy had that and just did a bit of insurance fraud on the back of it.
In the story its exactly that, but also sexual.
Major should never have introduced Care in the Community.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
It's the Ashton-under-Lyne that Angela sold and the Trust bought a part share of which that the Telegraph is saying was seriously overpriced.
I.e. she's taken more money from the trust that she shouldn't have - and that is way more damning than the stamp duty...
If true, yes, that is what can sink her. The stamp duty business is a nothingburger. Voters won't understand it, and the whole thing can be written off as a cock-up if neither Rayner nor the conveyancers knew the trust changed things.
Problem is then I read the article and as I've pointed out below the comparators aren't valid.
What you are then left with is the difficult question of how do you value a property especially adapted for the needs of someone who needs a property to be adapted. Which if £80,000 of adaptions would be required to your typical £550,000 home may make a £630,000 valuation reasonable under the circumstances...
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
It's more than really weird, it's the most weird story of all time.
It's not unknown. There is a bizarre sexual fetish where people - men - being sexually weirder than women - get turned on by the idea of amputations, even of their own limbs
Yes, I recall now that Theodore Dalrymple recently wrote a short story that featured someone with the condition.
It appears as though this might well be an extra-judicial execution, not within any existing legal authority,
The Pentagon is working—STILL—to make up a legal rationale for slaughtering 11 people, 1,500 miles from America, AFTER THE FACT? WHAT? You can’t do this after they’re dead. That is a crime. That is murder. https://x.com/hissgoescobra/status/1963464928066711700
Whether or not they were bad guys is really not the point at all.
Yeah, all the explanations so far have been a bit Hague. Sorry, I meant vague...
Legal process and evidence do not appear to be high up the administration's list of priorities.
Further evidence that the Trump admin lied repeatedly (to the public and a judge) when it tried to deport 600 children to Guatemala in the dead of night.
"In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges—appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:
"Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
"And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.
Do we really want to import all this into the UK via Farage and his crew ?
Farage is a traitor.
So is Trump, and it didn't stop him from winning election.
Indeed. But we need to make it clear who people are voting for when the vote for the Farage Party.
There is much evidence, but Farage's recent time in Washington is one piece.
But that isn't happening.
We have researched Farage's fiasco in Congress. The mainstream media and Farage fans won't be reporting that Farage was f*****' beasted and owned by Jamie Raskin. He was humiliated. But you won't see that on a TV screen near you.
Angela Rayner having her pants pulled down is far more newsworthy than Farage's modesty being exposed.
If Farage was 'beasted' by a US politician I am not sure that reflects particularly well on the politician or particularly badly on Farage.
He was there to give his views on the political situation in the UK. I don't know why the committee particularly wanted to know this, but apparently they did. As far as I'm aware he didn't wade into US politics, so what was the US politician's angle? That he knew UK politics better than a British politician?
I suspect the Dems saw Farage not as an objective analyst from a foreign land but as a Trump sycophant there to boost MAGA by contrasting the US under Trump favourable against Britain. If so, I can't see that they were mistaken.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
It's the Ashton-under-Lyne that Angela sold and the Trust bought a part share of which that the Telegraph is saying was seriously overpriced.
I.e. she's taken more money from the trust that she shouldn't have - and that is way more damning than the stamp duty...
If true, yes, that is what can sink her. The stamp duty business is a nothingburger. Voters won't understand it, and the whole thing can be written off as a cock-up if neither Rayner nor the conveyancers knew the trust changed things.
Problem is then I read the article and as I've pointed out below the comparators aren't valid.
What you are then left with is the difficult question of how do you value a property especially adapted for the needs of someone who needs a property to be adapted. Which if £80,000 of adaptions would be required to your typical £550,000 home may make a £630,000 valuation reasonable under the circumstances...
Though if sold on the open market, surely having lots of adaptations reduces the number of potential buyers?
Normal buyers won't want it as it would be an expense to have them removed.
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
It's more than really weird, it's the most weird story of all time.
It's not unknown. There is a bizarre sexual fetish where people - men - being sexually weirder than women - get turned on by the idea of amputations, even of their own limbs
Not just the idea necessarily. A friend knows someone who was born without the lower part of one arm leaving a nice round stump. They were at a ‘showbiz party’ also attended by quite a well known gay actor. Said actor invited handless friend back to his place for high jinks. Afaik the invitation wasn’t taken up.
Presumably Rayner is going to claim to have taken advice from someone else.
That Telegraph story is a bit weird. As far as I am aware, no one knew who those people were until they voluntarily told the Telegraph. Not sure they are being scapegoated (unless I've missed Rayner naming them in an Alan Partridge kind of way).
Rayner said she received advice from the conveyancer and 2 tax/trust experts Conveyancers here say, no she did not
The Conveyancers are just saying they didn't give her any bespoke tax advice.
Yes. In response to her saying or intimating they had
I didn't see that in her statement. It doesn't say who she got the advice from.
Were I the Ethics investigator (oh please, God, one last job?!) I'd want to have the complete file from Shoosmiths, the complete file from Verrico, the conveyancers, all other correspondence AR or anyone on her behalf had with any other advisor on this matter and an interview with AR herself to ask her the questions I have outlined above at a minimum. It might also be necessary to speak to the relevant solicitors & conveyancers
Now if you can get those quickly and you have the time and resources to read everything, prepare the interviews, do them, get an accurate record of them written up, consider the evidence, get any tax advice needed, consider the Ministerial Code, assess whether this was cock up or deliberate and any mitigating circumstances and then write your report and you're prepared to work pretty much round the clock etc etc, you can probably do this in a couple of days or so. A stretch but doable.
But does the Ethics advisor have those resources and will he in fact do this? And if he doesn't read and review all the evidence what value will his report actually have?
DEAR GOVERNMENT - GET INVESTIGATORS IN WHO KNOW HOW TO DO THE FUCKING JOB. THAT SUE GRAY WOMAN WAS USELESS.
It appears as though this might well be an extra-judicial execution, not within any existing legal authority,
The Pentagon is working—STILL—to make up a legal rationale for slaughtering 11 people, 1,500 miles from America, AFTER THE FACT? WHAT? You can’t do this after they’re dead. That is a crime. That is murder. https://x.com/hissgoescobra/status/1963464928066711700
Whether or not they were bad guys is really not the point at all.
Yeah, all the explanations so far have been a bit Hague. Sorry, I meant vague...
Legal process and evidence do not appear to be high up the administration's list of priorities.
Further evidence that the Trump admin lied repeatedly (to the public and a judge) when it tried to deport 600 children to Guatemala in the dead of night.
"In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges—appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:
"Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
"And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.
Do we really want to import all this into the UK via Farage and his crew ?
Farage is a traitor.
So is Trump, and it didn't stop him from winning election.
Indeed. But we need to make it clear who people are voting for when the vote for the Farage Party.
There is much evidence, but Farage's recent time in Washington is one piece.
But that isn't happening.
We have researched Farage's fiasco in Congress. The mainstream media and Farage fans won't be reporting that Farage was f*****' beasted and owned by Jamie Raskin. He was humiliated. But you won't see that on a TV screen near you.
Angela Rayner having her pants pulled down is far more newsworthy than Farage's modesty being exposed.
If Farage was 'beasted' by a US politician I am not sure that reflects particularly well on the politician or particularly badly on Farage.
He was there to give his views on the political situation in the UK. I don't know why the committee particularly wanted to know this, but apparently they did. As far as I'm aware he didn't wade into US politics, so what was the US politician's angle? That he knew UK politics better than a British politician?
I suspect the Dems saw Farage not as an objective analyst from a foreign land but as a Trump sycophant there to boost MAGA by contrasting the US under Trump favourable against Britain. If so, I can't see that they were mistaken.
[Sen] Cassidy: Do you agree that the president deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed?
RFK: Absolutely.
Cassidy: But you just said that the COVID vaccine killed more people than COVID.
America is so screwed. Essentially every normal country in the world thinks they have gone mad and no longer trusts them. The only countries that favour Trump and his government are places like Russia and China, and not because he is Making America Great Again.
The damage done to the US will outlast most of us here.
China doesn't given the big tariffs he has imposed on their exports
The US is driving all kinds of countries into the arms of China. Not to mention the economic damage that the US is doing to itself, that will hand dominance of many key economic sectors to China. The US has done a ludicrously bad job of containing China, and not just by Trump's administration, rather than slowing China down they have spurred China on. There won't be many measures by which the US is number one for much longer.
Russia and North Korea were already allied to China before Trump.
China was also undercutting US manufacturing jobs with cheap dumped goods on the US market, Trump's election victory is a reaction to China's economic growth not its cause
It's a lot more than Russia and North Korea. All sorts of countries in Asia and further afield are having to evaluate the worth of American promises and how close they should be to China.
As for manufacturing there has been a US effort to try to prevent China encroaching on areas where the US has technological and engineering leadership. The sanctions, export controls, and basically harassment don't appear to have worked at all. China is either catching up fast or caught up in many areas now. The growth of a Chinese middle-class means that China alone will likely take the lead purely to service internal demand and growth, export markets will be a bonus, and the US having driven many countries closer to China there will be a lot of trade to be done.
About ID cards. Put me down as pro based on the premise that one of the factors driving illegal immigration is the size of the black market (sic) in jobs.
I’ve been travelling the south of Europe in the past few years and immigration stands out in the agricultural sector in southern Spain, southern Italy and widespread in Greece.
Coming through the north of France there is not the same visibility as the agricultural sector here is highly mechanise with a couple of workers able to collect a harvest efficiently. There doesn’t seem to be the demand for unskilled labour between the south of France and the Channel so they move north. Are they economic migrants. Probably a lot of them. So how do you control the ‘entrepreneurs’ who take advantage of this travelling labour pool?
More effective deterrence when we know this is not happening in most areas. Or make it more difficult for the economic migrants?
It is understood the Deputy Prime Minister is arguing that she received at least three pieces of legal advice, including from the trust overseeing her son’s affairs and a conveyancer, supporting her initial position.
Two other law firms that have been involved in the trust or the sale of Ms Rayner’s properties have both publicly stated that they did not advise her on the stamp duty.
Shoosmiths, which set up a trust for her son in 2020, said: “We did not act for the Rt Hon Angela Rayner in relation to the purchase of her Hove property and/or the SDLT aspects of that property. Ms Rayner is not a current client of the firm and has not been for some time.”
A spokesman for mfg Solicitors LLP, which was involved in conveyancing on the Ashton-under-Lyne property, said: “We can confirm that we did not act for Ms Rayner in the purchase of her property in Hove, nor did we provide any tax-related advice in relation to it”.
Apparently Angela Rayner's lawyers say they never gave her tax advice and she is 'scapegoating' them !!
Which ones? Shoosmiths said yesterday it was nowt to do with them
Telegraph is reporting:
Angela Rayner’s lawyers claim they have been made “scapegoats” and did not give her tax advice, the Telegraph can disclose.
The conveyancing firm that handled the purchase of her £800,000 flat in Hove insisted that it had done nothing wrong.
The comments are a major blow for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has blamed “legal advice that I received” for her failure to pay a £40,000 stamp duty bill on the purchase of her seaside holiday home.
Verrico & Associates, a family company based in Herne Bay, Kent, confirmed that it advised her on the purchase of the flat.
Joanna Verrico, managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
“That’s what we used and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”
A spokesman for the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which regulates such firms, said: “We have asked them for a full account of events. They are not licensed to provide tax advice. What they are licensed to do is to provide conveyancing advice, and they are regulated to the highest standards.”
Ms Rayner admitted on Wednesday that she underpaid £40,000 of stamp duty on the seafront flat. She insisted that she had relied on “legal advice that I received that said that I was liable to pay the standard stamp duty.”
Her own lawyers are now briefing the media.
She’s Donald Ducked.
The Telegraph has also been talking to local estate agents and is suggesting that the house may have been overvalued:
Now that would be funny, if she ends up underwater on the mortgage.
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
It's the Ashton-under-Lyne that Angela sold and the Trust bought a part share of which that the Telegraph is saying was seriously overpriced.
I.e. she's taken more money from the trust that she shouldn't have - and that is way more damning than the stamp duty...
I’m guessing that UK trusts are like offshore trusts where the trustees are liable to legal action from beneficiaries for any actions they take that can be considered damaging to the trust.
If they paid over the odds then the Trustees would be in a potential pickle, even from the current beneficiary’s children, if future beneficiaries, if they have overpaid for an asset to the detriment of the Trust so I would imagine the trustees will have ensured they paid market rate or less. If not, well.
I'd think that's true of almost any trust. Even the Little Snoring annual pancake day race charity. Though oddly executors of probate estates seem to be exempted in the standard legal boilerplate.
Comments
'The jobs of thousands of Lloyds Banking Group staff are at risk as part of a performance shake-up at the financial firm.
The banking group is set to tell those it deems are among the weakest performing 5% that they could be made redundant unless their work improves.
The policy applies across the organisation - from branch staff to senior directors - and marks the second time in less than two years that thousands of Lloyds' employees have faced job losses, after it cut 1,600 roles in January last year...att Britzman, an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said Lloyds had been "forced to take a more aggressive approach to weed out the lower performers".
"This seems like sensible business and aligns with the bank's quiet push to offshore more roles, aiming to hire 4,000 people in its India tech hub by year-end," he added.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx209gzg71wo
The Conveyancer says they did not give advice on that issue.
We have not yet heard from the others as you say
The minority Labour administration survived a vote of no confidence in June winning that 32-26. Those bringing the motion included Peterborough First, the Liberal Democrats and Greens but it looks as though the Conservatives backed the minority Labour administration which may take some explaining.
My daughter has just agreed to buy a home and is only seeking a 25% morgage so no survey or valuation needed
“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator, based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner.
They can all feck off.
#HilllToDieOn
Both Rayner's conveyancers and her Trust advisors have been publicly named
So the next political question: who was the seller, and was the apartment sold specifically to Ms Rayner at that price…?
(PS, while I think this has come from briefings rather than from AR herself, the unravelling of the “advice from conveyancers” line tonight is enough in itself to feel a little problematic for her).
The absence of her stating 'i received written advice that i have of course passed to the ethics investigator' suggests Malcolm Buggeridge
No lighty, no likely.
This could end up with all kinds of litigation
In essence, they are suggesting the trust may have overpaid Rayner.
Starmer would surely have asked her if she could categorically prove she was given bad advice .
They are quite correctly protecting their reputation.
She gave them incorrect information it seems amd must now prove she had direct advice to do so to have even the thinnest veneer of a defence
"An NHS vascular surgeon who had his own legs removed has been jailed for two years and eight months for insurance fraud and possessing extreme pornography.
Neil Hopper, 49, of Truro, Cornwall, carried out hundreds of amputation operations before having his own legs removed in 2019.
Truro Crown Court heard he lied to insurers by claiming that injuries to his legs were the result of sepsis and not self-inflicted.
It heard that in May 2019 Hopper had below knee amputations after a "mysterious illness". In fact he had used ice and dry ice to freeze his own legs so they had to be removed, said prosecutor Nicholas Lee."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvpx20le2o
I.e. she's taken more money from the trust that she shouldn't have - and that is way more damning than the stamp duty...
Body dysphoria it says. Messed up.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/why-angela-rayner-house-more-expensive-neighbours/
Experts said Ms Rayner’s choice of firm cast serious doubt over whether she had sought appropriate legal advice.
I have given you my general view of Linehan in the header.
The complainant is factually and legally male. I am not going to call him something he isn't. He goes by the name Sophie Brooks.
She was purchasing from herself with the child's trust, so must have taken a valuation to work out how much the 25% would cost. This would never have been tested against any sort of market.
As a trustee and a beneficiary of the sale that does create a conflict of interest.
But it has also been claimed 3 different sets of lawyers have been working on this, so have to see who they were.
Nationalism as the increasingly main force on the right of western politics is not going away, nor is anti immigration and anti free market globalisation sentiment (even Polievre backs tariffs on Chinese electrical car imports). Especially if borders are not controlled and companies like Lloyds seemingly more interested in shipping jobs abroad than their own domestic workforce
They probably asked her this question. I doubt they were involved in working out whether the answer was Yes or No.
She's silly to have mentioned these people at all.
Starmer admitted such today, so Starmer would not have prejudged that advice
If they paid over the odds then the Trustees would be in a potential pickle, even from the current beneficiary’s children, if future beneficiaries, if they have overpaid for an asset to the detriment of the Trust so I would imagine the trustees will have ensured they paid market rate or less. If not, well.
China was also undercutting US manufacturing jobs with cheap dumped goods on the US market, Trump's election victory is a reaction to China's economic growth not its cause
The answer to the question Will the purchase of the property result in owning two or more properties - is No, this is the only property I own.
Unless by own the question is own* where * leads to a footnote with the x00 variations that exist.
However, she was dealing with lawyers over her Ashton home so I really do not see why she didn't use them as they would know all the details
What you are then left with is the difficult question of how do you value a property especially adapted for the needs of someone who needs a property to be adapted. Which if £80,000 of adaptions would be required to your typical £550,000 home may make a £630,000 valuation reasonable under the circumstances...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/36563330/nigel-farage-trump-oval-office-white-house-washington/
Normal buyers won't want it as it would be an expense to have them removed.
Now if you can get those quickly and you have the time and resources to read everything, prepare the interviews, do them, get an accurate record of them written up, consider the evidence, get any tax advice needed, consider the Ministerial Code, assess whether this was cock up or deliberate and any mitigating circumstances and then write your report and you're prepared to work pretty much round the clock etc etc, you can probably do this in a couple of days or so. A stretch but doable.
But does the Ethics advisor have those resources and will he in fact do this? And if he doesn't read and review all the evidence what value will his report actually have?
DEAR GOVERNMENT - GET INVESTIGATORS IN WHO KNOW HOW TO DO THE FUCKING JOB. THAT SUE GRAY WOMAN WAS USELESS.
As for manufacturing there has been a US effort to try to prevent China encroaching on areas where the US has technological and engineering leadership. The sanctions, export controls, and basically harassment don't appear to have worked at all. China is either catching up fast or caught up in many areas now. The growth of a Chinese middle-class means that China alone will likely take the lead purely to service internal demand and growth, export markets will be a bonus, and the US having driven many countries closer to China there will be a lot of trade to be done.
I’ve been travelling the south of Europe in the past few years and immigration stands out in the agricultural sector in southern Spain, southern Italy and widespread in Greece.
Coming through the north of France there is not the same visibility as the agricultural sector here is highly mechanise with a couple of workers able to collect a harvest efficiently. There doesn’t seem to be the demand for unskilled labour between the south of France and the Channel so they move north. Are they economic migrants. Probably a lot of them. So how do you control the ‘entrepreneurs’ who take advantage of this travelling labour pool?
More effective deterrence when we know this is not happening in most areas. Or make it more difficult for the economic migrants?
It is understood the Deputy Prime Minister is arguing that she received at least three pieces of legal advice, including from the trust overseeing her son’s affairs and a conveyancer, supporting her initial position.
Two other law firms that have been involved in the trust or the sale of Ms Rayner’s properties have both publicly stated that they did not advise her on the stamp duty.
Shoosmiths, which set up a trust for her son in 2020, said: “We did not act for the Rt Hon Angela Rayner in relation to the purchase of her Hove property and/or the SDLT aspects of that property. Ms Rayner is not a current client of the firm and has not been for some time.”
A spokesman for mfg Solicitors LLP, which was involved in conveyancing on the Ashton-under-Lyne property, said: “We can confirm that we did not act for Ms Rayner in the purchase of her property in Hove, nor did we provide any tax-related advice in relation to it”.
Mail