|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 17, 2024 14:15:29 GMT
Illegal and unlawful are not the same thing, NullaVeritas. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 17, 2024 14:16:54 GMT
Illegal and unlawful are not the same thing, NullaVeritas. But it is fair to label people engaged in either as crooks. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 17, 2024 14:20:55 GMT
Illegal and unlawful are not the same thing, NullaVeritas. But it is fair to label people engaged in either as crooks. All The Best I disagree. But then I understand the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Apr 17, 2024 14:22:06 GMT
Illegal and unlawful are not the same thing, NullaVeritas. But it is fair to label people engaged in either as crooks. All The Best What's that example got to do with swindling the tax payers?
Here's another update, looks like she's being investigated for multiple reasons apart from tax dodging, dating back 2007, Starmer and his mates have their work cut out trying to 'fix' this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 17, 2024 14:29:23 GMT
Try again You stated that BJ was personally convicted of a criminal offence and is personally a ''crook'' - he was not and does not have a criminal record You stated that he personally committed an ''illegal'' act , the court , in a questionable civil judgment ,held the government action to be ''unlawful'' - completely different from a criminal judgment. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that BJ is in the same criminal category as the ginger growler , a suspected tax evader, possible council tax fraudster and suspected fraudulent completer of official electoral documentation all of which carries criminal penalties . |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 17, 2024 14:31:01 GMT
Illegal and unlawful are not the same thing, NullaVeritas. It's all the same to lefties , they pretend they don't understand basics but like chucking mud around hoping some might stick. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 17, 2024 14:34:39 GMT
Illegal and unlawful are not the same thing, NullaVeritas. But it is fair to label people engaged in either as crooks. All The Best How so? You have a civil dispute with a shop and go to court - neither the claimant nor defendant are ''crooks'' Those who understand the difference between civil and criminal law knows that you are posting from a level of ignorance known only to lefties |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Apr 17, 2024 19:31:08 GMT
I am now 100% convinced that this campaign of sheer spite is doing the Tories harm, and has mustered a lot of popular support for Angela Rayner.
In another article, once again in The Times, this time by ex Tory Mp Matthew Paris, he lays into those Tories who once again, have indulged in a campaign of hate and spite. Mr Paris asks several very relevant questions, such as where was the same sense of outrage at Millionaire Nadhim Zahawi and his (so he says) "mistaken" tax declarations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2024 19:35:30 GMT
Illegal and unlawful are not the same thing, NullaVeritas. It's all the same to lefties , they pretend they don't understand basics but like chucking mud around hoping some might stick. Why there's no point engaging with them. Extreme hypocrisy and lies is all you'll get. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 17, 2024 21:31:11 GMT
I am now 100% convinced that this campaign of sheer spite is doing the Tories harm, and has mustered a lot of popular support for Angela Rayner. In another article, once again in The Times, this time by ex Tory Mp Matthew Paris, he lays into those Tories who once again, have indulged in a campaign of hate and spite. Mr Paris asks several very relevant questions, such as where was the same sense of outrage at Millionaire Nadhim Zahawi and his (so he says) "mistaken" tax declarations. Zahawi accepted that he had not paid the correct amount of tax and immediately paid up. You need better excuses. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 17, 2024 23:07:11 GMT
But it is fair to label people engaged in either as crooks. All The Best How so? You have a civil dispute with a shop and go to court - neither the claimant nor defendant are ''crooks'' Those who understand the difference between civil and criminal law knows that you are posting from a level of ignorance known only to lefties I think your use of "knows" should actually be "know". That shows the level of ignorance of the English language some people have. And anyone who thinks ignorance only belongs to one political demographic is merely demonstrating their own ignorance. Boris Johnson was (if anyone is actually stupid enough to believe him) ignorant of the meaning of laws he himself imposed on the rest of us. Clear demonstration that ignorance of the law can also be present on the right side of the (outdated) political spectrum. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 17, 2024 23:08:15 GMT
I am now 100% convinced that this campaign of sheer spite is doing the Tories harm, and has mustered a lot of popular support for Angela Rayner. In another article, once again in The Times, this time by ex Tory Mp Matthew Paris, he lays into those Tories who once again, have indulged in a campaign of hate and spite. Mr Paris asks several very relevant questions, such as where was the same sense of outrage at Millionaire Nadhim Zahawi and his (so he says) "mistaken" tax declarations. Zahawi accepted that he had not paid the correct amount of tax and immediately paid up. You need better excuses. But does anyone actually believe it was a genuine mistake, rather than a mistake being used as the excuse once he had been busted? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 18, 2024 4:36:54 GMT
How so? You have a civil dispute with a shop and go to court - neither the claimant nor defendant are ''crooks'' Those who understand the difference between civil and criminal law knows that you are posting from a level of ignorance known only to lefties I thin your use of "knows" should actually be "know". That shows the level of ignorance of the English language some people have. And anyone who thinks ignorance only belongs to one political demographic is merely demonstrating their own ignorance. Boris Johnson was (if anyone is actually stupid enough to believe him) ignorant of the meaning of laws he himself imposed on the rest of us. Clear demonstration that ignorance of the law can also be present on the right side of the (outdated) political spectrum. All The Best Champion level whataboutery there, Nulla.
You sound more like AGL every time.  |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 18, 2024 6:44:57 GMT
I thin your use of "knows" should actually be "know". That shows the level of ignorance of the English language some people have. And anyone who thinks ignorance only belongs to one political demographic is merely demonstrating their own ignorance. Boris Johnson was (if anyone is actually stupid enough to believe him) ignorant of the meaning of laws he himself imposed on the rest of us. Clear demonstration that ignorance of the law can also be present on the right side of the (outdated) political spectrum. All The Best Champion level whataboutery there, Nulla.
You sound more like AGL every time. Ah, The Squeezed Pimple, always too quick to misunderstand another's post, and so always wrong in how you respond - it is like the sun rising in the morning isn't it, almost perfectly predictable. Whataboutery would be using a counter example to try and pretend that what Rayner was doing is OK. I have NOT done that. I HAVE said Rayner is a hypocrite. The example I used of Boris Johnson was there to demonstrate that ignorance of the law is not confined to "lefties" as ratcliff suggested. The post you quoted is not about defending Rayner, heck it is not even whataboutery. If that is how you read it may I suggest picking up a few Peter & Jane books to help improve your English comprehension skill. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 18, 2024 6:53:45 GMT
Zahawi accepted that he had not paid the correct amount of tax and immediately paid up. You need better excuses. But does anyone actually believe it was a genuine mistake, rather than a mistake being used as the excuse once he had been busted? All The Best It was not a mistake at all - it was an attempt to minimise taxes by operating in the grey areas of regulation. His accountant thought it legal - HMRC disagreed. On the subject of Raynor I see the investigation has now expanded into looking at her husbands sale of his property - HMRC regulations are clear that married couples can only have one prime residence. So one of them avoided CGT - this gets murkier by the day. |
|
