CornwallFox

If you mean the woman that has just got out of jail, she broke a law passed by Thatcher and was sentenced under sentencing guidelines introduced by Boris Johnson. Labour had zero to do with any sentences. And when it comes to the broader point about allowing protest, the Tories introduced a law that essentially made it illegal to protest and illegal to offend anybody. Labour, like everybody else on the left, voted against and warned of it's dangers. But the Tories and their fans cheered it through to deal with left wing protest. And now look, you don't like it when it's also illegal for right wingers to do the same things. It's a Tory law, a bad one the left warned everybody about.

i could but I suspect you've made up your mind so I won't waste my time

The economy hasn't tanked at all. It's no better, granted, but also pretty much the same as before. Aren't we the fastest growing economy in the g7? In terms of good things: - set up national wealth fund - set up GB energy which is the only way to get around privatised energy contracts that allow charging based on most expensive energy source (gas) - finally released compensation to those affected by the infected blood scandal - national mental health 111 helpline - free breakfast clubs in schools - introduced plans to remove hereditary peers - renter's rights bill - great British railways - Hillsborough law so those responsible for public disasters can't avoid justice. - acted upon grooming gang recommendations the Tories sat on for years - veterans, care leavers and abuse victims have improved access to social housing - warm homes grants - laws to combat fire and rehire and abuse of zero hours contracts - crackdown on online knife sales - foundation apprenticeships - women's justice board - NHS dentistry recovery plan - scrapped onshore wind ban (with it being the cheapest energy source) - law to support small businesses struggling with late payments from other companies - planning reforms introduced - Floods resilience taskforce - measures to penalise water company bosses for pollution - £63bn in additional private investment - £10bn worth of warships being purchased by I think it's Norway

Don't be daft. You just don't know who they have. Which is fine, they've been in two minutes. The state of the nation when they got in was terrible. It still is. They haven't turned it around yet. But they certainly are doing better than the Tories were, even if you never hear about any if the good initiatives they have going on.

Same as stopping the boats in two weeks. Complete and utter nonsense.

The elected official determines the direction of travel and overall policy but it's the civil servants who then enact that. Despite claims to the contrary, you do need expertise.

An immediate removal of income tax to 20k cost tens of billions of pounds. It's not going to happen. And if people suddenly had a load of extra money what would happen? Inflation would increase.

Re the last bit, no chance. He's the puppet being put up to keep oil and gas profitable. That's all. I'm sure they'd take a tough line on immigration but most of the ideas they have are illegal nonsense. And you kinda have to act within international law if you want other countries to help with your plans. At home, the income tax threshold rise is currently massively unaffordable. I'd imagine that will get watered down to an ambition within five minutes of being PM, potentially with some smaller threshold increases in-term to say least argue they're heading that way. Massive use of free ports. These are essentially locations where national law doesn't apply. They'll be used to money launder huge sums to keep the rich extra rich. And of course those rich people will be able to buy pretty cheap visas to never pay tax in this country. They're a joke of a party. Basically nothing they offer helps anybody except the elite. But they hate immigrants which seems to be enough for about 30% of the population.

So she made declarations she believed to be true. The ethics advisor has clarified there is significant complexity around the rules and the type of trust they have for the other property, that she owns no part of. It was a mistake. She's gone because such a mistake isn't tolerable in that position, even though harsh given her openness and transparency.

There better not be, I've based on mortgage decisions on avoiding my term ending during any possible reform government.

Tbh you can't win whatever you do with the anti immigration crowd. They want everybody deported immediately. You plan that. Then they come up with something else to complain about.

The idea is deport immediately for most crimes. For things like murder you'd do time then be deported.

Of course it is. You can come up with whatever clever argument you like, it's just an ordinary business, subject to the same employment laws as an other business. Harry Winks has a contract of employment that sets out his terms and conditions. Clearly overnight stays doesn't form part of that given he'd never had to do that before, and he's absolutely right to push back on it suddenly being imposed by a manager with no regard to his T&C's.

A business is a business

Okay decent mid to top half team, but a team on the up when MON left. With a record transfer budget to use to improve it. And he wrecked everything in a year.

What a load of dross. Living locally implies absolutely nothing about intention. As if any player doesn't sign for a club wanting to give their best. Where they live has zero impact on that. If he's performing it makes no difference. If he's not performing that's the issue, not his address. It sounds like you don't have much experience of running anything tbh.

RVN had a crap team and no ability to change it. Taylor took a great team, entirely dismantled it, signing utter dross in its place. He took a transfer budget we thought we'd never see and used it to buy players that were out of place in the championship.

I remember from Pleat onwards. It's Peter Taylor. It's not even close.

I often think what we're currently going through over vaccines, climate change and other forms of anti-science rhetoric, is like a fall into the dark ages (accepting that term isn't really used now).

The question here is did she intentionally lie. Ie is it potentially fraudulent, or was it an error, so not fraudulent. She's likely to have to give more information but her initial explanation doesn't sound unreasonable.

Wish I'd stuck more than £300 on this now 😂

I suppose I look at taxation a bit differently. If we're going to tax then we have to tax someone for something. Nobody likes any tax in theory, but also nobody suggests tax shouldn't exist at all. Stamp duty is at least a progressive tax - those that have more money pay more. If you get rid of it, fine, but what are you replacing it with? If reports are true Labour are possibly looking at replacing it with a different form of property tax, but I guarantee the same commentators (I don't mean you here, I mean paid for online/TV commentators) that complain about stamp duty will complain even louder about the new version - whatever it ends up being - as they're basically paid to complain about any progressive taxation.

She doesn't part own the first property. The trust owns the property. The issue is if her child died before her, technically she could end up a beneficiary of the trust. So she's bought the new house and says she doesn't own a house - which is true - but not advised about the trust situation.

Jon the hat set out the AR position perfectly and it's fairly obviously a complicated set up. I don't doubt it was an honest mistake though yes any previous government minister would probably have gotten pelters for it. The facts around the trust and situation with the child probably has made it more complicated and I'm inclined to think she's got the wrong advice rather than intentionally evading the tax.

You appear to have read, but not understood, what I've written.