Comments by "Iazzaboyce" (@Iazzaboyce) on "‘They’re wasting police time’: should the police be investigating Angela Rayner? | LBC opinion" video.

I doubt it's 'impossible to prosecute' - probably has to do with whether a prosecution would be 'in the public interest' and the police are not able to make that decision.
2
It's looks like she (with the help of her husband to be) bought a council house they did not need just to get it at a knock down price and sell it soon as for profit. So, now she wants to make it harder for people to buy their council homes, because there's not enough council houses for people in need of housing...
2
It's in the 'public interest' to find out whether she did make a false declaration, because there's a lot of uncertainty and people should be in no doubt about what the law requires them to do. This is particularly the case when failure to provide correct information could result in not paying lawful taxation. Some of these callers seem to think it's clever giving out the message you can break the law providing you don't get caught for 12 months.
1
This is 'election gold' for the Tories, because they know millions of young people are really angry they can't get a council house and can't buy a home.
1
@petermartin4142 When Tony Blair became prime minister the nominall UK house price was £50K - when Tony Blair left office the nominall UK house price was £180K...
1
@annepoitrineau5650 Please tell, what foreign land whence you came did not know class prejudice?
1
@annepoitrineau5650 Not sure a UK private education would 'entitle' a person to be in UK government. Yes, privately educated people get into politics, but this is true in most countries. The leader of the Swiss government went to Spiritus Sanctus College in Brig which is a prestigious and expensive private school.
1
She's probably correct about Tory supporters lying to polls and not voting in by-elections. It's how these people show dissatisfaction with government policy - doesn't mean they want a Labour government instead. Reform is a problem, but the Tories get this - so will likely make a pact not to stand against each other in any seat and both run on leaving the ECHR to 'stop the boats'.
1
Say, a Tory voting woman living in a council house begins a relationship with a Tory voting man who owns his own house and they decide to live together in the man's house and marry and have children - should the Tory couple give up the council house or buy the council house to rent it out and sell for profit as soon as the conditions allow?
1
@davidcolin6519 Well, not declaring the house you are living in as being your principal residence and then claiming principal residence tax relief on the sale of a house you are not living in - is not permitted. I think the selling of council homes was wrong for many reasons, if it was up to me I would have built new private housing estates, and offered council tenants an incentive discount for giving up their council houses. Not saying I have a problem with anyone buying their council house, because it's natural to take advantage of a beneficial (legal) opportunity. However, It is different for Ms Rayner MP, because she has taken a moral stand against tax avoidance/evasion and has blamed council house sales for reducing much needed social housing. So, as an elected MP she is looking a tad hypocritical and voters have a right to know the facts.
1
If she cannot be trusted with such a trivial amount how can she be trusted with a government office?
1
@perrymason866 She married in 2010 so, assuming she'd been in a relationship for a few years prior and planning marriage, they might have thought to buy the council house in 2007 (end of?) rather than give it up. It was bought for around 70k which is a hefty mortgage to get on a single unskilled wage. 50k is a sizable amount of return and she had hoped to sell for more, as the house was on the market for some time (2 years?) and the asking price reduced. There is a time limit imposed on selling a council house and keeping all of any profit, which I think is 5 years, so it all adds up.
1
@perrymason866 End of 2007 to beginning 2015 taking 1+ years to sell = 'soon as', but in using the term I didn't mean to the day. Not seeing anything 'falling apart' here. Looks like an obvious scenario to me. The picture is that of a hypocrite pointing the finger at people for not paying wealth tax and not paying wealth tax at the first occasion she should've done so. Also, buying a council house she did not need just to sell for profit and trying to stop others owning just one home: Ms Rayner said: "that as things stand, the balance isn’t quite right in terms of how long a council or social housing tenant has been in their home before they can use Right to Buy, how much of a discount they can get and the state’s ability to replace the homes that are sold off through the scheme." Ms Rayner noted that: “in recent years there have been years where we have sold off more social and council homes than we have built”.
1
@perrymason866 I was saying she put it on the market 'as soon as' she could sell and keep all the profit - obviously it takes time to find a buyer and it appears she had to drop her high asking price. The thing about it 'only being £1500' - at what point do you think she would have declared the tax liability?
1
@perrymason866 Personally, I have some sympathy for her as it was most likely all her husband's idea. The thing is this notion the Tories are worse, because they have more money and dodge bigger amounts doesn't really work. If it is shown to be the case she bought the house when she did not need it and then lied about where she was living to dodge paying tax on the profit - she's going to look like a hypocrite.
1
It's possible the police have not used a prosecution time bar as reason to not conduct an investigation, because the justification used when prosecutions are time barred is not being in the public interest. An elected serving politician not complying with electoral law and consequently evading tax might be seen to be in the public interest and any decision as to prosecution would be above the police.
1
Interesting those saying she's not guilty also say it was only £1500 - surely if she's not guilty the tax evasion amount is £0.
1