Angela Rayner
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,447
- Reaction score
- 2,787
- Country
As everyone with half a brain is aware Angela Rayner's commitment to step down is tightly scoped. She has not committed to step down if she is shown to be a liar. I wonder why.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 13,526
- Reaction score
- 1,074
- Country
What does the word "allegedly " in those links mean ?
This goes back to the point I made earlier. You were a huge supporter of Boris Johnson, a man whom many have called an habitual liar. When did you become such a puritan. Also, how do we judge what scale of lying meets the threshold for stepping down. And what do you mean by "shown to be a liar"; by an official body, or by a newspaper.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
I am interested in the following legal point, if anyone cares to opine. If, after their investigations, the police/CPS come to the conclusion that AR did deliberately take steps to mislead the authorities as to where she was living. And they believe AR did this with the intention to avoid CGT. But also they discover that, as a matter of fact, no CGT was actually payable because of the home improvements. Is that a criminal offence. If so, which offences would that be?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,447
- Reaction score
- 2,787
- Country
I would suggest your research should take you in the direction of Fraud. The Mens Rea: Dishonestly; Knowing the representation is untrue or misleading, and; Intending to make a gain, cause a loss, or cause a risk of loss.
I remind you that even BJ realised his number was up, because of his mistakes. I remember his successes as well as his failures and see the futility of arguing blue vs Red, in any situation where people tend to be entrenched.
I would love to vote for someone who could win and not screw up the country. Sadly Rishi and Keir are not the answer, so we hold our nose and pick the least worse or let others decided for us.
I remind you that even BJ realised his number was up, because of his mistakes. I remember his successes as well as his failures and see the futility of arguing blue vs Red, in any situation where people tend to be entrenched.
I would love to vote for someone who could win and not screw up the country. Sadly Rishi and Keir are not the answer, so we hold our nose and pick the least worse or let others decided for us.
Wrong.
The investigation by the competent authority.
Not some rabid rumour-monger like yourself, hammering his keyboard to generate unsubstantiated attacks from a position of deliberate ignorance.
But you can't stop yourself.
I've been through all that, but I still can't work out the answer for this specific type of scenario. I'm sure I heard a legal brain teaser once about stabbing a dead person and whether that could be attempted murder (it wasn't based on UK law.)
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,447
- Reaction score
- 2,787
- Country
I think that would go in a number of directions depending on the case.
1. did they think the person was dead?
2. were they part of a group who actually did kill the person?
1. did they think the person was dead?
2. were they part of a group who actually did kill the person?
The important point to clarify in my hypothetical scenario, is that AR didn't realise at the time that the home improvements wiped out any CGT liability. So as far as she was concerned, she thought she had been evading CGT (hypothetically) by misleading the authorities.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,447
- Reaction score
- 2,787
- Country
Your other example is more interesting.
But its the guilty mind, that creates the crime.
But its the guilty mind, that creates the crime.
Or she may have thought (correctly) that no tax was due and she was not evading anything, as motorbiking has repeatedly (and probably falsely) alleged.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,447
- Reaction score
- 2,787
- Country
because she sold her home, that wasn't her home that she pretended to be her home?
I'm only doing this to game out all possible outcomes.
So, another hypothetical scenario. Say the police/CPS decide that no prosecutable crime has been committed. But they do believe that AR has deliberately misled the authorities (for reasons unknown or unspecified). Is their only option to say "No further action". Or could they say, for instance, something along the lines of "We have found evidence of a pattern of deception, but no charges will/can be brought".
So, another hypothetical scenario. Say the police/CPS decide that no prosecutable crime has been committed. But they do believe that AR has deliberately misled the authorities (for reasons unknown or unspecified). Is their only option to say "No further action". Or could they say, for instance, something along the lines of "We have found evidence of a pattern of deception, but no charges will/can be brought".
Sponsored Links
