General News Thread

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

As far as I can work out, they’re just anti immigration but I’m not sure what the solution is! 

They're anti renewable energy

They're anti net zero

They're anti doing anything to combat climate change

They're anti investment in infrastructure

They're anti house building developments

They're anti abortion

They're anti assisted dying

They're anti Trans

They're anti same sex marriage

They're anti human rights

They're anti NHS

They're anti disability benefits

They're anti SEND diagnoses

They're anti diversity

They're anti equality

They're anti unions

They're anti paying their fair share of tax

They're anti arts funding and education

They're anti regulation

They're anti accountability

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

They're anti renewable energy

They're anti net zero

They're anti doing anything to combat climate change

They're anti investment in infrastructure

They're anti house building developments

They're anti abortion

They're anti assisted dying

They're anti Trans

They're anti same sex marriage

They're anti human rights

They're anti NHS

They're anti disability benefits

They're anti SEND diagnoses

They're anti diversity

They're anti equality

They're anti unions

They're anti paying their fair share of tax

They're anti arts funding and education

They're anti regulation

They're anti accountability

 

Anti future of the biosphere, with all that entails. 

[Zear0]

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

They're anti renewable energy

They're anti net zero

They're anti doing anything to combat climate change

They're anti investment in infrastructure

They're anti house building developments

They're anti abortion

They're anti assisted dying

They're anti Trans

They're anti same sex marriage

They're anti human rights

They're anti NHS

They're anti disability benefits

They're anti SEND diagnoses

They're anti diversity

They're anti equality

They're anti unions

They're anti paying their fair share of tax

They're anti arts funding and education

They're anti regulation

They're anti accountability

 

Football kit they launched with the Union Jack on upside down looked decent though.

[MC Prussian]

Nelvana animation studio is closing after 50+ years.

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/corus-halts-production-at-nelvana-canada-253760.html

 

[Guest Bilo]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

 Ooo

What an absolute legend. Get that frog-faced cvnt told.

[Wymsey]

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jzlgj915no.amp

 

[Sly]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

They're anti renewable energy

They're anti net zero

They're anti doing anything to combat climate change

They're anti investment in infrastructure

They're anti house building developments

They're anti abortion

They're anti assisted dying

They're anti Trans

They're anti same sex marriage

They're anti human rights

They're anti NHS

They're anti disability benefits

They're anti SEND diagnoses

They're anti diversity

They're anti equality

They're anti unions

They're anti paying their fair share of tax

They're anti arts funding and education

They're anti regulation

They're anti accountability

 

Any positives? 

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jzlgj915no.amp

 

Sympathy to those affected .

 

Terrible .

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

Any positives? 

The one and only benefit of Brexit: VAT on private school fees. He’s managed to create a situation where the only way to overturn it while Labour are in power is to take the government to the ECHR. Which he wants to leave. 

[Jon the Hat]

6 hours ago, kenny said:

I wonder why she decided to put the remainder of the stake in her house into a trust.

 

I'm no expert but don't people often use trusts as a way of avoiding inheritance tax?

 

A couple of quotes:

 

“Don’t preach to us if you’re not paying your taxes and not doing the right thing.”

 

“If people are going to be wealthy, it’s about sharing that wealth and understanding where that wealth comes from.”

A trust was set up a few years ago to handle a compensation award for her disabled son.  When they divorced, as their home is modified to provide a safe environment for their son, they decided to transfer ownership of the home to the trust so the children could continue to live there, with the parents sharing carer arrangements at different times.  She took her money out and used it as a deposit on the flat in Hove.  As they trust is now the owner of the house, she doesn't own the house, or have any financial investment in the house.  However, as it appears she is a trustee of that trust, she is still named on the deeds of the house, and technically she might - in the event of the death of the trust beneficiaries, benefit herself.  As a result, a senior tax expert has advised her the safest route is to pay the higher rate of stamp duty.  I suspect in most cases the advice would be to pay the standard rate unless HMRC determined otherwise, but as she is a public figure this doesn't really work for her.

 

Now, I think most people would use a conveyancing solicitor to acquire the house, and they would be asked if they own another home.  I assume she has then said no to that question, however she should have revealed the trust and then taken further advice from an expert.  That is her responsibility, and really whoever setup the trust in the first place should have advised her of this.

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

They're anti renewable energy

They're anti net zero

They're anti doing anything to combat climate change

They're anti investment in infrastructure

They're anti house building developments

They're anti abortion

They're anti assisted dying

They're anti Trans

They're anti same sex marriage

They're anti human rights

They're anti NHS

They're anti disability benefits

They're anti SEND diagnoses

They're anti diversity

They're anti equality

They're anti unions

They're anti paying their fair share of tax

They're anti arts funding and education

They're anti regulation

They're anti accountability

 

Anti quated?

[kenny]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

A trust was set up a few years ago to handle a compensation award for her disabled son.  When they divorced, as their home is modified to provide a safe environment for their son, they decided to transfer ownership of the home to the trust so the children could continue to live there, with the parents sharing carer arrangements at different times.  She took her money out and used it as a deposit on the flat in Hove.  As they trust is now the owner of the house, she doesn't own the house, or have any financial investment in the house.  However, as it appears she is a trustee of that trust, she is still named on the deeds of the house, and technically she might - in the event of the death of the trust beneficiaries, benefit herself.  As a result, a senior tax expert has advised her the safest route is to pay the higher rate of stamp duty.  I suspect in most cases the advice would be to pay the standard rate unless HMRC determined otherwise, but as she is a public figure this doesn't really work for her.

 

Now, I think most people would use a conveyancing solicitor to acquire the house, and they would be asked if they own another home.  I assume she has then said no to that question, however she should have revealed the trust and then taken further advice from an expert.  That is her responsibility, and really whoever setup the trust in the first place should have advised her of this.

 

Our son isn't disabled, but at some point we will also put property into a trust for him. It's a sensible way of protecting assets from IHT until RR changes the law.

 

I'm not any type of solicitor, but it's obvious the higher rate applies, I would only try it on if there was no fine involved and there were no consequences.

[Sly]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

A trust was set up a few years ago to handle a compensation award for her disabled son.  When they divorced, as their home is modified to provide a safe environment for their son, they decided to transfer ownership of the home to the trust so the children could continue to live there, with the parents sharing carer arrangements at different times.  She took her money out and used it as a deposit on the flat in Hove.  As they trust is now the owner of the house, she doesn't own the house, or have any financial investment in the house.  However, as it appears she is a trustee of that trust, she is still named on the deeds of the house, and technically she might - in the event of the death of the trust beneficiaries, benefit herself.  As a result, a senior tax expert has advised her the safest route is to pay the higher rate of stamp duty.  I suspect in most cases the advice would be to pay the standard rate unless HMRC determined otherwise, but as she is a public figure this doesn't really work for her.

 

Now, I think most people would use a conveyancing solicitor to acquire the house, and they would be asked if they own another home.  I assume she has then said no to that question, however she should have revealed the trust and then taken further advice from an expert.  That is her responsibility, and really whoever setup the trust in the first place should have advised her of this.

 

She’s just made a bit of a mess of the entire situation in all honest.

 

She isn’t the first, she isn”t the last. 
 

What people need to remember, and I type this without trying to be offensive and harsh, that she didn’t come from a background of wealth and won’t have been surrounded by very money suave people for 95% of her life.
 

She will however resonate with a demographic within this country that the likes of Starmer, Sunak, Cameron etc never will.

 

I’ve said before I’m maybe more central / right, I’m not a fan of her, however I can sort of see how she has got herself into this situation. 

[Tommy G]

24 minutes ago, Sly said:

She’s just made a bit of a mess of the entire situation in all honest.

 

She isn’t the first, she isn”t the last. 
 

What people need to remember, and I type this without trying to be offensive and harsh, that she didn’t come from a background of wealth and won’t have been surrounded by very money suave people for 95% of her life.
 

She will however resonate with a demographic within this country that the likes of Starmer, Sunak, Cameron etc never will.

 

I’ve said before I’m maybe more central / right, I’m not a fan of her, however I can sort of see how she has got herself into this situation. 

Just imagine the uproar if this was Kemi Badenoch, Farage etc - the double standards. 
 

The only positive is this will keep her well away from any leadership role when KS has to step down. 

[leicsmac]

It's been interesting reading all of this over the past day or so. 

 

Lots of parallels when complaining on the main forum section about the LCFC manager - criticism, some of it warranted based on results, but precious little discussion of which viable alternative would be better and why.

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Just imagine the uproar if this was Kemi Badenoch, Farage etc - the double standards. 

I'm disappointed in how Labour are finding themselves in these positions, when they were basically gifted the election and power last summer. 

 

There's too much going wrong and too many negative highlights for me to be vindicated in my choice to vote for them. Their leadership has been underwhelming. The recent flag-shagging debate they seem to have taken the wrong side on, or at least not one that I relate to. They seem to have emboldened bigots with their recent statements and I think they could have been wiser and more shrewd about it. 

 

Regarding the tax thing - you're right in that Badenoch/Farage would have got pelters for it. Rightly so. But is that not because of the company they surround themselves in and their own party's  records or individuals involved in corruption and back handers? On one hand I don't agree with what Rayner did on but I also don't think she should be sacked for it. It's like any of us when it comes to loopholes - wouldn't we all want to save a bit of money where we can, if there's no illegalities involved? 

 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I'm disappointed in how Labour are finding themselves in these positions, when they were basically gifted the election and power last summer. 

 

There's too much going wrong and too many negative highlights for me to be vindicated in my choice to vote for them. Their leadership has been underwhelming. The recent flag-shagging debate they seem to have taken the wrong side on, or at least not one that I relate to. They seem to have emboldened bigots with their recent statements and I think they could have been wiser and more shrewd about it. 

 

Regarding the tax thing - you're right in that Badenoch/Farage would have got pelters for it. Rightly so. But is that not because of the company they surround themselves in and their own party's  records or individuals involved in corruption and back handers? On one hand I don't agree with what Rayner did on but I also don't think she should be sacked for it. It's like any of us when it comes to loopholes - wouldn't we all want to save a bit of money where we can, if there's no illegalities involved? 

 

 

I think this is a tricky one with few good options - there's too many people who simply do not think that the way things are being expressed right now isn't (at least from some areas) blatantly bigoted. So calling them out directly won't work, and neither appears to be the approach they've taken with "legitimate concerns".

 

Third option?

[StanSP]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think this is a tricky one with few good options - there's too many people who simply do not think that the way things are being expressed right now isn't (at least from some areas) blatantly bigoted. So calling them out directly won't work, and neither appears to be the approach they've taken with "legitimate concerns".

 

Third option?

It's fine to have flags in your house and be proud of your heritage and country you live in and are from, but also be proud of the diversity that has helped the country flourish over several decades/generations. Encourage that hate doesn't and won't ever win. 

 

Something along those lines. 

[Salisbury Fox]

26 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Regarding the tax thing - you're right in that Badenoch/Farage would have got pelters for it. Rightly so. But is that not because of the company they surround themselves in and their own party's  records or individuals involved in corruption and back handers? On one hand I don't agree with what Rayner did on but I also don't think she should be sacked for it. It's like any of us when it comes to loopholes - wouldn't we all want to save a bit of money where we can, if there's no illegalities involved? 

Doesn’t the fact that she is SoS for housing have to be considered in this? I get why people are trying to defend her on the basis of the scale in comparison to the transgressions of others, but there is no defined scale of acceptability and so this argument seems moot to me.

[Zear0]

3 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Doesn’t the fact that she is SoS for housing have to be considered in this? I get why people are trying to defend her on the basis of the scale in comparison to the transgressions of others, but there is no defined scale of acceptability and so this argument seems moot to me.

Don't think her paying three independent advisors who said it was fine makes it slightly mitigating to the other examples?

[Tommy G]

33 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I'm disappointed in how Labour are finding themselves in these positions, when they were basically gifted the election and power last summer. 

 

There's too much going wrong and too many negative highlights for me to be vindicated in my choice to vote for them. Their leadership has been underwhelming. The recent flag-shagging debate they seem to have taken the wrong side on, or at least not one that I relate to. They seem to have emboldened bigots with their recent statements and I think they could have been wiser and more shrewd about it. 

 

Regarding the tax thing - you're right in that Badenoch/Farage would have got pelters for it. Rightly so. But is that not because of the company they surround themselves in and their own party's  records or individuals involved in corruption and back handers? On one hand I don't agree with what Rayner did on but I also don't think she should be sacked for it. It's like any of us when it comes to loopholes - wouldn't we all want to save a bit of money where we can, if there's no illegalities involved? 

 

 

This isn't a loophole though Stan, that's the difference. The tax is due and she hasn't paid it - and we are yet to see the fall out of the advisors - Shoosmiths have already distanced themselves from it, so the next step is it should come into the public domain, one way or another, who advised her and they need to hold their hands up it - but we haven't seen this fall out yet but it's coming. 

 

I can't believe a reputable law firm will of mis-advised the deputy PM, even with its complexities - if that was the case the whole piece of work would of been checked by multiple senior people. No-one is buying it. 

 

Agree with your first bit though.

[Salisbury Fox]

9 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Don't think her paying three independent advisors who said it was fine makes it slightly mitigating to the other examples?

Has the advice and qualifications of who gave it been released yet? 

[Tommy G]

11 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Don't think her paying three independent advisors who said it was fine makes it slightly mitigating to the other examples?

It is understood the deputy prime minister consulted one individual experienced in conveyancing and two experts on the law around trusts before the purchase.

However, it is unclear if any of those people were experts in complex tax law and it is not known if they knew about the full details of the trust, which was set up to help fund care for her son.

 

''Understood'' and ''consulted'' does that mean she paid for advice or just spoke to 3 people that she thought knew what they were talking about? We are yet to see any law firm come forward and accept there was a mistake......

 

 

[Zear0]

10 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Has the advice and qualifications of who gave it been released yet? 

 

7 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

It is understood the deputy prime minister consulted one individual experienced in conveyancing and two experts on the law around trusts before the purchase.

However, it is unclear if any of those people were experts in complex tax law and it is not known if they knew about the full details of the trust, which was set up to help fund care for her son.

 

''Understood'' and ''consulted'' does that mean she paid for advice or just spoke to 3 people that she thought knew what they were talking about? We are yet to see any law firm come forward and accept there was a mistake......

 

 

And that's the point, we don't know.

 

She could be dodgy a/f, used a crap conveyancer (if such a thing exists...) or done nothing wrong.  Politics is very knee jerk and "sack them sack them sack them" rolls off the tongue so easily against politicians of parties people are partisan against.  Just wait and find out instead of making wild assumptions about what's happening without knowing the details.

 

If she did wrong, clearly she needs the boot given her role.  If they dump her without a genuine reason, it just emboldens an extremely partisan media against Labour who will then just smear people knowing it's effective.

[leicsmac]

36 minutes ago, StanSP said:

It's fine to have flags in your house and be proud of your heritage and country you live in and are from, but also be proud of the diversity that has helped the country flourish over several decades/generations. Encourage that hate doesn't and won't ever win. 

 

Something along those lines. 

That sounds ideal in principle. 

 

Given attitudes at the moment, I do wonder how it would work in practice, though.