Angela Rayner

Wibbles
Wibbles Online Community Member Posts: 2,834 Championing
in Current affairs

What do people think about what Rayner did ?

Should she lose her job or get away with it ?

«13

Comments

  • onmylonesome
    onmylonesome Online Community Member Posts: 118 Contributor

    Who cares!

  • MW123
    MW123 Scope Member Posts: 1,512 Championing

    I feel sympathy for Angela Rayner, though I do not know all the facts. If she knowingly broke the rules, that would be serious. But from what has been shared, it is easy to see how someone could be caught out.

    She set up a trust for her disabled son and described a nesting arrangement, where the children stay in one home and the parents take turns living there. While this makes emotional sense, tax law does not recognise it.

    HMRC applied deeming provisions, treating certain trusts as if the parent still owns another property. This can create tax liability even when the home is held in trust.

    It highlights risks for disabled families, especially around trusts and property. The system needs review to better reflect real-life care, not just technical ownership. Life is hard enough for families trying to secure a future for disabled children, and the rules should be simpler.

    I give her the benefit of the doubt. Trust law is complex, and HMRC’s approach can be harsh.

  • Stellar
    Stellar Online Community Member Posts: 342 Pioneering
    edited September 5

    I don't care, and nor should you. This circus with Rayner is a distractino from the {removed by moderator - uncivil} government's democide of marginalised Brits (such as disabled people, trans people and asylum seekers) {removed by moderator - uncivil}

    {removed by moderator - again, see house rules}

  • Chris75_
    Chris75_ Online Community Member Posts: 3,416 Championing
    edited September 4

    All this 'ee ba gum' , she's one of us rhetoric, Prescott was the same.

    They are no better than the posh boys, just were later to getting their snouts in the trough.

  • Albus_Scope
    Albus_Scope Posts: 11,215 Scope Online Community Coordinator

    Can I please just remind everyone that name calling and uncivil language is not allowed on the community. Opinions are fine (facts are better,) name calling is not. If you're unsure, please see the updated house rules. Thanks. 😊

  • Santosha12
    Santosha12 Online Community Member Posts: 2,617 Championing

    Couldn't see beyond the end of her nose - too firmly stuck in the trough.

  • Passerby
    Passerby Online Community Member Posts: 887 Championing
    edited September 5

    {Link removed by moderator - uncivil language used}

    "Tax avoidance costs lives" - Angela Rayner.

  • ricky1040
    ricky1040 Online Community Member Posts: 222 Empowering

    Yanno. It's crazy to be so out for blood with this. If they do the enquiry and she's purposely broken laws then of course she cannot remain. But untill then I guess innocent untill proven guilty.

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 7,737 Championing

    She should be sacked we get questioned for uber eats and minor purchases its not acceptable and we will face more misery in months to come

  • Girl_No1
    Girl_No1 Online Community Member Posts: 412 Trailblazing

    Given her position she needs to be scrupulous in every transaction, and it appears she may not have been scrupulous.

    This BBC article outlines the timeline.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2jl43400jo

    My view is if she was given incorrect advice, she should publicly sue the lawyer/financial advisor.

    If she was given correct advice, and then proceeded illegally, then she should pay the same price as anyone else who has committed fraud.

  • Girl_No1
    Girl_No1 Online Community Member Posts: 412 Trailblazing
    edited September 5

    Deleted: duplicate post

  • 66Mustang
    66Mustang Online Community Member Posts: 15,228 Championing

    She was given incorrect advice, but she asked advice from a firm who was not qualified to give formal advice

    You're allowed to ask a financial advisor for informal advice outside of their remit but they have to be very explicit that they are not giving formal advice

    If they didn't make it clear that they're not experts and their answer didn't constitute formal advice, they would be liable

    If they did make it clear, it's up to her to scrutinise the advise - if she acts on it without doing any more diligence then it's on her

    To make it more complicated it's been suggested she gave incorrect information to the company and so was given correct advice based on the information she chose to disclose, so that would shake things up a bit as well

  • Albus_Scope
    Albus_Scope Posts: 11,215 Scope Online Community Coordinator

    Personally, it doesn't matter what I think, it's up to the independent enquiry to decide on the outcome and I trust they'll be fair. I think we should all be focusing on other things in the news.

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 7,737 Championing

    She's resigned probley sent off with good package

  • Albus_Scope
    Albus_Scope Posts: 11,215 Scope Online Community Coordinator

    No @Catherine21 MPs who resign receive no extra pay outs.

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 7,737 Championing

    GGood to know still some justice on this country

  • Albus_Scope
    Albus_Scope Posts: 11,215 Scope Online Community Coordinator

    The ethics report said she "breached the ministerial code and did not heed the caution in legal advice received" I'll be reading the enquiry later for sure. It's certainly be a loss for the Labour party.

  • Zipz
    Zipz Online Community Member Posts: 3,690 Championing
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1065233#Comment_1065233

    She hasn't resigned as an MP. She's resigned from Cabinet and as Deputy PM.

  • Albus_Scope
    Albus_Scope Posts: 11,215 Scope Online Community Coordinator

    She's still resigned @Zipz and thus would be entitled to no benefit packages.

Categories