|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 29, 2024 20:28:20 GMT
I was listening to Sir unKleir today saying that he would not be looking at Rayner's legal advice and that he accepted her word for it. Well he would say that, wouldn't he? Especially if he didn't believe a word she said...  Or knowing that no matter what was said Right wing childish garbage was waiting to attack. Starmer is/was a KC. He would, in other words, know exactly what Rayners legal advice meant.
But he is employing "Strategic ignorance" because clearly doesn't want to know.
And there's only two reasons for that: He either knows she's guilty or he suspects that she might be.
Either way, he doesn't trust her and isn't willing to stand behind her.
Says it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 29, 2024 20:47:34 GMT
Or knowing that no matter what was said Right wing childish garbage was waiting to attack. Starmer is/was a KC. He would, in other words, know exactly what Rayners legal advice meant.
But he is employing "Strategic ignorance" because clearly doesn't want to know.
And there's only two reasons for that: He either knows she's guilty or he suspects that she might be.
Either way, he doesn't trust her and isn't willing to stand behind her.
Says it all.
Same as Cherie Blair is s KC. lefty lawyers, to be honest given the track record of both of them is it any surprise Jimmy Savile walked freed, the UK is flooded with illegal migrants, the PAIR of them are a testimony why lefty lawyers are the SCOURGE on the UK. ........... GET RID OF THEM. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Mar 30, 2024 2:57:11 GMT
Of course people are interested as to whether the potential deputy leader of the UK is telling the truth.......She's not being defiant, she's being evasive......First, Labour had two-Jags Prescott and now we have two-homes Rayner. How hard can it be to say where you lived Angela? What Tories are asking as Labour says it is proud of Rayner's defiant stance in 'two-homes' row..... Rayner has been accused of hypocrisy over her refusal to publish the tax advice on her controversial property dealings. Labour Party chairman Anneliese Dodds yesterday said she was 'proud' of its deputy leader for her defiant stance – and claimed voters were not interested in claims that she may have dodged tax and even broken the law when she sold her former council house a decade ago. But critics point out that Ms Rayner has been quick to accuse Tories over allegations in the past – often calling for resignations before anything had been proven. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13253977/Angela-Rayner-Tories-asking-Labour-says-proud-Rayners-defiant-stance-two-homes-row.html |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 30, 2024 5:14:28 GMT
...Rayner has been accused of hypocrisy over her refusal to publish the tax advice on her controversial property dealings... If she had nothing to hide then she'd simply publish the advice. That she refuses to do so, well... |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 30, 2024 8:43:41 GMT
...Rayner has been accused of hypocrisy over her refusal to publish the tax advice on her controversial property dealings... If she had nothing to hide then she'd simply publish the advice. That she refuses to do so, well... How about a much simpler solution? ALL MPs and Lords to fully disclose their income and tax agreements annually, as part of the contract of being paid from the Public Purse. Norway has it for everyone, and consistently scores higher than the UK in happiness and wellbeing surveys; oh, and tends to have better public services etc. Funny how well a country can be run when no one can hide their income from the tax-man. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Mar 30, 2024 8:48:33 GMT
...Rayner has been accused of hypocrisy over her refusal to publish the tax advice on her controversial property dealings... If she had nothing to hide then she'd simply publish the advice. That she refuses to do so, well... Can you please post publicly a full register of all your financial assets, incomes and taxes paid. I mean if you have nothing to hide from the Tax-Man it won't be a problem, right? Refusing to do so, well... Being damned by unsubstantiated innuendo is not how things are done. Nor, when accused of such is it the accused's job to do the work of the accuser for them; the accuser MUST PROVE the accused is guilty, there is no imperative for the accused to prove their innocence. Rayner is, like everyone else, Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 30, 2024 9:05:54 GMT
If she had nothing to hide then she'd simply publish the advice. That she refuses to do so, well... Can you please post publicly a full register of all your financial assets, incomes and taxes paid. I mean if you have nothing to hide from the Tax-Man it won't be a problem, right? Refusing to do so, well... Being damned by unsubstantiated innuendo is not how things are done. Nor, when accused of such is it the accused's job to do the work of the accuser for them; the accuser MUST PROVE the accused is guilty, there is no imperative for the accused to prove their innocence. Rayner is, like everyone else, Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty. All The Best But I'm not standing for public office, dear. Subtle difference.🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 30, 2024 9:12:16 GMT
Starmer is/was a KC. He would, in other words, know exactly what Rayners legal advice meant.
But he is employing "Strategic ignorance" because clearly doesn't want to know.
And there's only two reasons for that: He either knows she's guilty or he suspects that she might be.
Either way, he doesn't trust her and isn't willing to stand behind her.
Says it all.
Same as Cherie Blair is s KC. lefty lawyers, to be honest given the track record of both of them is it any surprise Jimmy Savile walked freed, the UK is flooded with illegal migrants, the PAIR of them are a testimony why lefty lawyers are the SCOURGE on the UK. ........... GET RID OF THEM. Both of them worked mainly on Human Rights issues and made an awful lot of money, their fees probably paid by the Taxpayers " Legal Aid " as for Saville he was never prosecuted because no Victim would give evidence against him in Court |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 30, 2024 11:02:24 GMT
If there is any evidence of her committing a criminal offence then of course prosecute her. The problem so far is that there doesn't appear to be any evidence, just hearsay, insinuation and biased suspicion. What she may or may not have done is not really the problem. It is the hypocrisy of her behaviour when faced with scrutiny. She is well known for shit-stirring, writing countless letters attempting to sniff out the smallest scandal. She even said Boris should resign because he was being "investigated". She also called out Tory MPs and said they publish their full tax records. It is Sturgeon all over again, if you consistently point your finger at others, people will be falling over themselves to point them back. You didn't answer my previous questions, would you like another go? 1) Do you think she got married, they lived apart from her husband for FIVE YEARS? 2) Do you think her neigbours, who have GONE ON THE RECORD and risk libel action, are lying? 3) Do you think it's likely that her brother lived with her husband for FIVE YEARS? I am not interested in your biased approaches. IF she is guilty she will face the problem sooner or later whether she chooses to or not. Meanwhile evil bigoted and or biased witch-hunts are for the lesser intelligent individuals to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 30, 2024 11:07:53 GMT
Can you please post publicly a full register of all your financial assets, incomes and taxes paid. I mean if you have nothing to hide from the Tax-Man it won't be a problem, right? Refusing to do so, well... Being damned by unsubstantiated innuendo is not how things are done. Nor, when accused of such is it the accused's job to do the work of the accuser for them; the accuser MUST PROVE the accused is guilty, there is no imperative for the accused to prove their innocence. Rayner is, like everyone else, Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty. All The Best But I'm not standing for public office, dear. Subtle difference.🙄 Avoidance, ^^^ the hiding place of the coward. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 30, 2024 11:11:29 GMT
Starmer is/was a KC. He would, in other words, know exactly what Rayners legal advice meant.
But he is employing "Strategic ignorance" because clearly doesn't want to know.
And there's only two reasons for that: He either knows she's guilty or he suspects that she might be.
Either way, he doesn't trust her and isn't willing to stand behind her.
Says it all.
Same as Cherie Blair is s KC. lefty lawyers, to be honest given the track record of both of them is it any surprise Jimmy Savile walked freed, the UK is flooded with illegal migrants, the PAIR of them are a testimony why lefty lawyers are the SCOURGE on the UK. ........... GET RID OF THEM. Posts offering dishonest opinions such as yours are no doubt damaging to society. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 30, 2024 11:12:25 GMT
But I'm not standing for public office, dear. Subtle difference.🙄 Avoidance, ^^^ the hiding place of the coward. Post yours then. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 30, 2024 11:12:46 GMT
Same as Cherie Blair is s KC. lefty lawyers, to be honest given the track record of both of them is it any surprise Jimmy Savile walked freed, the UK is flooded with illegal migrants, the PAIR of them are a testimony why lefty lawyers are the SCOURGE on the UK. ........... GET RID OF THEM. Posts offering dishonest opinions such as yours are no doubt damaging to society. Fool. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 30, 2024 22:02:09 GMT
Avoidance, ^^^ the hiding place of the coward. Post yours then. You are obviously referring to the non-disputable part of the post. I'm not surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 30, 2024 22:03:00 GMT
Posts offering dishonest opinions such as yours are no doubt damaging to society. Fool. I know you are. |
|
