Keir Starmer at it again..

[lemonjelly]

I’ve given you the reasons for my focus of attention on her. Not commenting about wrongdoings from people in positions and areas I’ve less interest in doesn’t excuse their behaviour. We’d all be here all night and all day if we attempted to do that.

As for the mainstream media, you’ll have to ask them. Anyway, I’ll leave it to others to continue that loop if they want to.

No doubt there will be others sweating now as the mob that brought down Angela drives a backlash mob against them. For what it’s worth I hope they’re equally successful and those in the firing line get what’s coming, but if it’s allowed I’ll cherry pick which of those to bother commenting on too.

You've been silent on the actions of Hunt, Zawahi, and farage, but vocal on your view on Rayner.
The silence is effectively collusion. It enables these others to get away with it, and the dialogue is framed as purely being about Rayner (look at the news stories today). This means the debate is about this woman doing one thing wrong, when numerous men have repeatedly (and continue) to engage in wrongdoing, without commentary, or judgment.
Moderates who stand by without condemning abhorrent behaviour are as bad, if not worse as active colluders.

 

[jlo]

I’ve given you the reasons for my focus of attention on her. Not commenting about wrongdoings from people in positions and areas I’ve less interest in doesn’t excuse their behaviour. We’d all be here all night and all day if we attempted to do that.

As for the mainstream media, you’ll have to ask them. Anyway, I’ll leave it to others to continue that loop if they want to.

No doubt there will be others sweating now as the mob that brought down Angela drives a backlash mob against them. For what it’s worth I hope they’re equally successful and those in the firing line get what’s coming, but if it’s allowed I’ll cherry pick which of those to bother commenting on too.

I don't particularly like the onslaught you're getting on this Epsom, you have set out clearly why you are commenting on Rayner's case. I also doubt I share your politics more generally but can accept your position.

Genuinely though, I would be interested particularly on your view of Farage's case, much more so than any much older examples because a) it's more timely than those and only a few months before Rayner's case, b) it's looking likely this is the next Prime Minster we are talking about c) you've got more expert knowledge on this area than many of us

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I found this (and many of his videos) interesting.

 

[nimrod]

I don't particularly like the onslaught you're getting on this Epsom, you have set out clearly why you are commenting on Rayner's case. I also doubt I share your politics more generally but can accept your position.

Genuinely though, I would be interested particularly on your view of Farage's case, much more so than any much older examples because a) it's more timely than those and only a few months before Rayner's case, b) it's looking likely this is the next Prime Minster we are talking about c) you've got more expert knowledge on this area than many of us

there are in any case some notable differences in the older case of zahawi, in particular:
a) it was for a much larger amount (£3m vs £40k?)
b) iirc he initially paid no tax whatsoever on the sale of the shares
c) he took out injunctions to prevent reporting on it
d) his party seemingly after the fact made him chancellor, a pretty strong position to 'discuss/negotiate' matters with hmrc, though I'm sure that would be 'refuted'
e) his settlement included a 30% penalty for being careless rather than deliberate where the penalty could have been up to 100% of the tax unpaid. i presume careless could include forgetting you sold a business for £27m and that you paid no tax on it but is a stance that could still qualify you to becoming Chancellor, if you're a member of a particular party.

 

[EpsomWolf]

I don't particularly like the onslaught you're getting on this Epsom, you have set out clearly why you are commenting on Rayner's case. I also doubt I share your politics more generally but can accept your position.

Genuinely though, I would be interested particularly on your view of Farage's case, much more so than any much older examples because a) it's more timely than those and only a few months before Rayner's case, b) it's looking likely this is the next Prime Minster we are talking about c) you've got more expert knowledge on this area than many of us

Fair comments.

At risk of sounding like a cop-out I am on holiday at the moment and will get both barrels and then some if I spend any more time fiddling with my phone, but will endeavour to reply asap.

 

[jlo]

Fair comments.

At risk of sounding like a cop-out I am on holiday at the moment and will get both barrels and then some if I spend any more time fiddling with my phone, but will endeavour to reply asap.

All good, enjoy your holiday!

 

[lemonjelly]

All good, enjoy your holiday!

@EpsomWolf agree with jlo. Hope also that you know we're debating the point, not yourself!

 

[Wilf Wolf]

Yvette Cooper to Foreign Secretary, Lammy to Deputy PM. Shabana Mamood to Home Secretary. Starmer rolling the dice. Putting a Muslim in charge of sorting out the Channel crossings is a big gamble as the Neanderthals will be only to happy to say she has no intention of sorting things out if she fails which is likely.

 

[AndyWolves]

I found this (and many of his videos) interesting.

He's ace, assume he's talking about fiscal drag?

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

He's ace, assume he's talking about fiscal drag?

He is.

 

[Tredman]

Top trolling by Starmer to replace Rayner by another hated figure hated by the media and RW

 

[Tredman]

I found this (and many of his videos) interesting.

Would have thought you'd have been in favour of people paying more tax?

 

[Keef]

Most important news from the reshuffle

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Would have thought you'd have been in favour of people paying more tax?

Yesterday you thought I wanted public school boys as ministers, I'm not sure you know what you think, let alone what i think.

 

[Tredman]

Yesterday you thought I wanted public school boys as ministers, I'm not sure you know what you think, let alone what i think.

You were implying that people having careers and earning money before becoming MPs was bad - you then end up with MPs coming only from a wealthy background and having no life experience. Plenty of those and that's not a good thing.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

You were implying that people having careers and earning money before becoming MPs was bad - you then end up with MPs coming only from a wealthy background and having no life experience. Plenty of those and that's not a good thing.

No i wasnt - I suggest you go back and read again.

I was disagreeing with the notion that MPs don't earn good money, particularly with all the perks that come with their role and the fact they can have multiple jobs.

Rayner as a former minister can do that again now of course...

 

[Tredman]

No i wasnt - I suggest you go back and read again.

I was disagreeing with the notion that MPs don't earn good money, particularly with all the perks that come with their role and the fact they can have multiple jobs.

Rayner as a former minister can do that again now of course...

Again?

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Again?

Well you got it so wrong the first time

 

[Tredman]

Well you got it so wrong the first time

You said Rayner could get a second job again...

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Yes. If she wants to, she can.