Angela rayner

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must be a democracy too then right? It’s right there in the name.

Socialism and National Socialism could not be further apart.

 

I assume this is bait... but sod it!

The Nazi party, may have started as a populist movement combining aspects of both socialism and Nationalism (thus the name), designed to garner rapid support by casting the widest possible net to a desperate society. The much smaller group of far left members were forced out by a number of key power grabs by Hitler and the dominant right of the party during the mid 30s, ending with the night of the long knives in 1934 where Ernst Rohm and Gregor Strasser, the last major left wingers in power, were captured and executed along with most of the SA stormtroopers who had originally enforced Nazi rule. That was done by the newly formed SS. Not to mention the abolition of the communist party, Social democrat party and trade unions in the years leading up to that night where the far right unmasked and took permanent, unopposed power.

The only actual policies that could be remotely associated with socialism that the party ever enacted was the building of the military machine that eventually lead to the invasion of Europe and construction of the concentration camps.

So yes pre 1934 a percentage of the original leadership of the party were far left, allied with a much larger group from the far right, mostly through the desperation caused by global reparations from WW1 crippling the country. Hitler and all those who held senior positions under his rule were far right, as demonstrated by their ideologies and actions.

The word "socialist" being in the name just doesn't cut it as an argument they were even remotely left wing.

 

Aye you're right, the usual delaying tactics while they tried to work out whether there was any possible way she might yet weasel out of it - so much for integrity. Bet Keir was wishing he could have got another of those superinjunctions in place, like he did when his Ukranian rent boys wee torching his cars, all completely randomly of course.

Reeves' defence yesterday was embarrassingly bad, she's as much skill for lying as she has for finance.

 

Just that then, and the political ideologies that would enable this monstrous machine to flourish. Bringing it down to the macro level, the only folks on the BBS who ever defend or support the idea of people being arrested/harassed by the state for their words/communications, are the idiot lefties. You're two cheeks of the same arse Adolf. By the way, your first post on this thread was just after 7am today, and you're still going strong, hope that imaginary family are ok with your absence.

 

Openly posting homophobic abuse on the bbs now? Not even trying to hide your bigotry these days?

 

Nice way to show us all you don't have anything relevant to say (what's new)?

Anyway are rent boys not a thing anymore? What were they, his bedroom interpreters?

 

The crown prosecution service considercwhat you posted to be a homophobic slur and potentially a hate crime. Think about that before posting on an internet site that a good man is responsible for the moderation and content of.

 

No they didn't, and grow up. Aside from making my point re idiot lefties like you trying to shut down debate through making certain thoughts/opinions illegal, you're making a fool of yourself, and not for the first time.

 

I'll be off to bed in the next ten minutes so if you lefty asswipes post any more garbage I'll need to deal with it tomorrow, or whenever I can next be ars£d.

 

" She's already highlighted her error to HMRC. Given she's admitted it"

This is at the heart of the problem...she didn't highlight the error to HMRC or admit to it at the time .
She bought the place in Hove in May, and the Mail on Sunday broke the story on Aug 24th. The Tories then wrote to Sir Lawrie Magnus asking him to investigate her on the 29th.
I don't think she intended to save herself £40k, I don't believe it's a question of dishonesty, but after the story broke she should have referred herself immediately to Sir Lawrie Magnus, but I suspect they were collectively looking for reasons to justify it, or prove the MoS wrong, and the 'badly advised' comments were an attempt to buy time, which in hindsight served her case badly.

 

Nah mate. You've shown your true colours now.

You're a Nazi revisionist. You called the whole party far left. Trying to pivot by jumping on one minor point that far right parties often control public funds to use socialism to deliver key outcomes of their fascist ideology (not benefitting the people) just confirms your total ignorance. Everything about Hitler and the WW2 Nazi party was far right.

As for the only lefties support arrests for speech.. 2 words.. Palestine Action... Not to mention the literal subject I was responding to Wuz about - the fact that the right to protest on armistice day is ingrained in free speech and our right to protest, yet the right want to ban it, despite regularly taking advantage of it for decades.

And yeah buddy, having two kids under 5 does tend to leave you awake a lot of hours..

I wonder how all.those folks who were liking your original posts on this thread feel about you turning it around to Nazi revisionism? Where the hell did you learn that propaganda bulls**t anyway?

 

14 years of Tory chaos. Short memory here.

 

This is how easy it is. Divide and rule's a real hoot innit. Can't even have an internet forum about football without political rot setting in. While we see people banned here, the elite is laughing all the way to the bank/Dubai.

 

I’m no fan of sell out Raynor but to be fair to her there’s a tax expert writing in the Telegraph saying he didn’t know of the rule relating to tax and trusts in this situation

 

This thread proves to me how people get emboldened after a minor victory. It’s scary

 

Minor victory? Someone who over the years has gone on about others avoiding tax, gets caught avoiding 40k worth of tax. Hypocrite. Funny how some still defend it or try.

 

I wonder if Shabana Mahmood has had her morals altered by the lobbyists yet.

 

She had to go. The reason she gets some sympathy is because of the circumstances. She has a disabled son. As part of the divorce she put her share in the property into a trust for his benefit to enable a "nesting" arrangement where the son can stay at the house permanently and the parents alternate living there. You will appreciate that this is reasonable, and preferable to having to shuttle him between houses, particularly if adaptations for his care are needed.

Now whilst this trust was set up with legitimate aims, it appears that the tax legislation treats her as still having an interest in the property (presumably to stop people setting up these trusts as deliberate tax avoidance). She absolutely should have taken specialist advice on the point, and failing to do so shows a naivete/negligence that is incompatible with being a government minister. But I don't think there's necessarily hypocrisy (although of course if any of the above is untrue and it was a deliberate avoidance attempt then I agree she is absolutely a hypocrite).

How do you feel about Farage buying a house in his wife's name to avoid £44k of stamp duty (and his plans for asylum seekers)?

 

That's not actually what the independent ethics report said. It said she failed to seek out the correct level of advice and therefore made a fundamental error to in how much she believed she owed. The issue she resigned for was not meeting the "highest possible standards of proper conduct" thus breaching the ministerial code. She also self referred herself to the ethics committee and HMRC upon realising there might be a problem, and resigned within two days.