|
|
Post by ratcliff on Mar 15, 2024 16:39:04 GMT
You don't think that apparent tax evasion by a prospective deputy PM is a serious matter? 'Apparent' requires back up evidence, otherwise it is only opinion. If there is any unequivocal evidence then yes it would be due serious concern. Eh? Ange the growler bought a council house Mr Ange bought an ex council house Ange the growler and Mr Ange got hitched and lived in his house Growler Ange eventually sold hers and reckons no CGT payable as they each maintained their own abodes (reckons she asked a bloke in the pub) but made a substantial profit Timelines and her denials have been widely publicised Issue is that tax wise a married couple can only claim no CGT on one permanent residence between them so HMRC will be adding up the interest , penalties and evaded taxes due - they could also prosecute . Yet you still don't agree that tax evasion by a prospective deputy PM is a serious matter? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 16, 2024 14:48:29 GMT
'Apparent' requires back up evidence, otherwise it is only opinion. If there is any unequivocal evidence then yes it would be due serious concern. Eh? Ange the growler bought a council house Mr Ange bought an ex council house Ange the growler and Mr Ange got hitched and lived in his house Growler Ange eventually sold hers and reckons no CGT payable as they each maintained their own abodes (reckons she asked a bloke in the pub) but made a substantial profit Timelines and her denials have been widely publicised Issue is that tax wise a married couple can only claim no CGT on one permanent residence between them so HMRC will be adding up the interest , penalties and evaded taxes due - they could also prosecute . Yet you still don't agree that tax evasion by a prospective deputy PM is a serious matter? I know the popular story, but you like myself have not seen any unequivocal evidence to back the story up. If such was available there would be no dispute. Until such unequivocal evidence is available all we have is gossip and insinuation. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 16, 2024 15:06:31 GMT
Eh? Ange the growler bought a council house Mr Ange bought an ex council house Ange the growler and Mr Ange got hitched and lived in his house Growler Ange eventually sold hers and reckons no CGT payable as they each maintained their own abodes (reckons she asked a bloke in the pub) but made a substantial profit Timelines and her denials have been widely publicised Issue is that tax wise a married couple can only claim no CGT on one permanent residence between them so HMRC will be adding up the interest , penalties and evaded taxes due - they could also prosecute . Yet you still don't agree that tax evasion by a prospective deputy PM is a serious matter? I know the popular story, but you like myself have not seen any unequivocal evidence to back the story up. If such was available there would be no dispute. Until such unequivocal evidence is available all we have is gossip and insinuation. There’s unequivocal evidence that you don’t want people to point out the hypocrisy of Rayner. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 16, 2024 17:39:17 GMT
I know the popular story, but you like myself have not seen any unequivocal evidence to back the story up. If such was available there would be no dispute. Until such unequivocal evidence is available all we have is gossip and insinuation. There’s unequivocal evidence that you don’t want people to point out the hypocrisy of Rayner. Please post the unequivocal evidence you refer to. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 16, 2024 17:47:59 GMT
There’s unequivocal evidence that you don’t want people to point out the hypocrisy of Rayner. Please post the unequivocal evidence you refer to. Just read your own posts . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2024 17:53:38 GMT
I know the popular story, but you like myself have not seen any unequivocal evidence to back the story up. If such was available there would be no dispute. Until such unequivocal evidence is available all we have is gossip and insinuation. There’s unequivocal evidence that you don’t want people to point out the hypocrisy of Rayner. What sort of deranged insecure lunatic would spend their life on an obscure forum trying to shut down all criticism toward Rayner? What a pitiful creature would be my first thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 16, 2024 18:04:51 GMT
There’s unequivocal evidence that you don’t want people to point out the hypocrisy of Rayner. What sort of deranged insecure lunatic would spend their life on an obscure forum trying to shut down all criticism toward Rayner? What a pitiful creature would be my first thought.
Maybe he should see a psychologist 😎 |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 17, 2024 9:14:49 GMT
Please post the unequivocal evidence you refer to. Just read your own posts . In other words you can't post that which you claim is unequivocal evidence, actually exists. That just makes you someone who lies in an attempt to prove his own politically biased nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 17, 2024 9:16:56 GMT
Just read your own posts . In other words you can't post that which you claim is unequivocal evidence, actually exists. That just makes you someone who lies in an attempt to prove his own politically biased nonsense. Nope. Just read your own posts . They are unequivocal evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 17, 2024 9:17:24 GMT
There’s unequivocal evidence that you don’t want people to point out the hypocrisy of Rayner. What sort of deranged insecure lunatic would spend their life on an obscure forum trying to shut down all criticism toward Rayner? What a pitiful creature would be my first thought. Probably someone who only exists in your twisted thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 17, 2024 9:22:35 GMT
What sort of deranged insecure lunatic would spend their life on an obscure forum trying to shut down all criticism toward Rayner? What a pitiful creature would be my first thought. Probably someone who only exists in your twisted thinking. You are probably an old fraud who pretends to be a psychologist . |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 17, 2024 9:26:08 GMT
In other words you can't post that which you claim is unequivocal evidence, actually exists. That just makes you someone who lies in an attempt to prove his own politically biased nonsense. Nope. Just read your own posts . They are unequivocal evidence. Yes distorted by your devious mind. Anyway, I'll ignore your deviation and get back to the real point, there is no unequivocal evidence that Rayner is guilty of wrong doing. All that exists is hearsay, insinuations and politically motivated bias which is the Rightist trade mark. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 17, 2024 9:27:36 GMT
Probably someone who only exists in your twisted thinking. You are probably an old fraud who pretends to be a psychologist . You are definitely a silly immature WUM. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 17, 2024 9:32:53 GMT
Nope. Just read your own posts . They are unequivocal evidence. Yes distorted by your devious mind. Anyway, I'll ignore your deviation and get back to the real point, there is no unequivocal evidence that Rayner is guilty of wrong doing. All that exists is hearsay, insinuations and politically motivated bias which is the Rightist trade mark. There is no unequivocal evidence that you are not a 20 stone lorry driver living with your parents with delusions of being a psychologist. There is enough evidence to suspect that Rayner is guilty of wrong doing and unequivocal evidence of being a complete an utter hypocrite. Imo Rayner has benefited from Thatchers policies and every time she opens gob about greedy Tories she needs to be reminded of it ..and so does her fawning simps ….like you . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 17, 2024 9:33:32 GMT
You are probably an old fraud who pretends to be a psychologist . You are definitely a silly immature WUM. You are definitely projecting . |
|
