If he has a beneficial interest in the property, which seems very likely, then it must be stated. If it is not, then it is tax evasion.
There is huge confusion on tax evasion and tax avoidance here which is a bit embarrassing.
Angela Rayner evaded tax by completing her return incorrectly and non declaration. Nigel Farage has avoided tax by using legitimate HMRC legislation regarding property purchase.
He is the Lord and he reigns on highWhat do you reckon Pete? Will he beat the Lord’s record and get to rest on the sixth day?
I’m sure jenrick is right naaaaat
Sadly not ...Her constituents have it in their gift to trigger a by election I suppose.
It has however struck me as odd for people, not just Farage, who claim to be patriotic but find ways of not paying their fair share to HM Treasury.
If he has a beneficial interest in the property, which seems very likely, then it must be stated. If it is not, then it is tax evasion.
What so you don’t think he’s right, if you actually say one word or phrase arguing against why it’s bad he’s being released then you need looking intoI’m sure jenrick is right naaaaat
You give me a summary of what the story isWhat so you don’t think he’s right, if you actually say one word or phrase arguing against why it’s bad he’s being released then you need looking into
On a serious level, if you defend that guy then honestly it should become serious and concerning
You actually are unbelievable, like it’s actually deeply concerning you are trying to play stupid over something so seriousYou give me a summary of what the story is
What one of the masterminds behind the London attack being released onto our streets? Are you really that thick…..oh waitI haven't read nor shall I as it won't have any contextual input, just a click -baity title designed to whip people up like yourself,you won't win any truck here,you may as well be a bot for all the disturbance you generate!
So we can't recall an MP that is mad.Sadly not ...
A recall petition will take place if an MP is:
- convicted of an offence in the UK and receives a custodial sentence (including a suspended sentence) or is ordered to be detained, other than solely under mental health legislation
- suspended from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days
- convicted of providing false or misleading information for allowance claims under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
She hasn't done any of those things.
That's right I'll find the full speech version and come to a conclusion then.maybe, but no I won't be attending your lectures surprise suprise,,you can go and join up with your storm-troopers till your heart's content.What one of the masterminds behind the London attack being released onto our streets? Are you really that thick oh wait
While it was far from a wise thing to say I'm not sure taking that one sentence out of the context of his wider comments is really benefitting anyone. From the limited part of the transcript available it appears the judge was wishing him the best with his ongoing, at present successful, treatment for schizophrenia.
What are you even waffling on about, been drinking or something?That's right I'll find the full speech version and come to a conclusion then.maybe, but no I won't be attending your lectures surprise suprise,,you can go and join up with your storm-troopers till your heart's content.
That’s why I asked and got a jumped up replyI haven't read nor shall I as it won't have any contextual input, just a click -baity title designed to whip people up like yourself,you won't win any truck here,you may as well be a bot for all the disturbance you generate!
My misunderstanding of the rules, happy to have been corrected.Sadly not ...
A recall petition will take place if an MP is:
- convicted of an offence in the UK and receives a custodial sentence (including a suspended sentence) or is ordered to be detained, other than solely under mental health legislation
- suspended from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days
- convicted of providing false or misleading information for allowance claims under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
She hasn't done any of those things.
Stop playing stupid, do you think he should be allowed to be back on our streets then? Try answer it with a simple answerThat’s why I asked and got a jumped up reply
I’ve seen chief Dave has given the mature answer you were incapable or just couldn’t be arsed to giveStop playing stupid, do you think he should be allowed to be back on our streets then? Try answer it with a simple answer
Yes or no, do you think he should be released? It’s a simple questionI’ve seen chief Dave has given the mature answer you were incapable or just couldn’t be arsed to give
Luckily I don’t have an opinion because I don’t have all the information to handStop playing stupid, do you think he should be allowed to be back on our streets then? Try answer it with a simple answer
‘Yes’ oh my god, I can’t actually believe you think someone responsible for the 7/7 terror attacks in this country should be released.Luckily I don’t have an opinion because I don’t have all the information to hand
Based on the law of the land it appears yes is the answer unless we’re fucking off law now in the post nuanced world where everything is binary good and bad ffs
The simple fact is, he was behind a terrorist attack on our country. He should have never been able to be released onto our streets, and you’ve got weirdos like @Sky Blue Pete saying he should be, some people are beyond savingThis Aswalt situation does raise an interesting question. Should a country who has demanded someone be extradited, then convicted in that country then be sent back to the country he was extradited from?
Chances are if he'd never been extradited he would have been put on trial here, found guilty and we wouldn't have this situation to deal with at all.
Also raises questions around the scope of assessments for releasing someone from a secure mental health unit. It seems that can only be done on the basis of someone being a danger due to their mental health condition. You can't, for example, assess someone for being a danger to the public on terrorism grounds while they are detained under mental health grounds. Possibly needs to be amended.
eh? How is that anything to do with Stamp Duty? can you point me to the applicable legislation please.
The only way he can have beneficial interest is on death of his partner?
what the fuck are you on about?
Just been reading the same thingThis Aswalt situation does raise an interesting question. Should a country who has demanded someone be extradited, then convicted in that country then be sent back to the country he was extradited from?
Chances are if he'd never been extradited he would have been put on trial here, found guilty and we wouldn't have this situation to deal with at all.
Also raises questions around the scope of assessments for releasing someone from a secure mental health unit. It seems that can only be done on the basis of someone being a danger due to their mental health condition. You can't, for example, assess someone for being a danger to the public on terrorism grounds while they are detained under mental health grounds. Possibly needs to be amended.
What you gonna do?‘Yes’ oh my god, I can’t actually believe you think someone responsible for the 7/7 terror attacks in this country should be released.
Definitely the worst post on this forum by a long way, seek help you strange strange man
You think someone behind a terrorist attack on our country should be released because of ‘law’ seek helpInterestingly it doesn’t say he’s been released
So this guy is quite literally criminally insane, the fact he is "out" should be the issue not what a judge did or didn't say...While it was far from a wise thing to say I'm not sure taking that one sentence out of the context of his wider comments is really benefitting anyone. From the limited part of the transcript available it appears the judge was wishing him the best with his ongoing, at present successful, treatment for schizophrenia.
Not a fan of performative politics, faux outrage and inviting pile-ons but that seems to be where we're at these days.
I can't imagine he's going to be allowed to walk away from the system and back to his old life, as soon as he is released the process to declare him a risk to the public will surely kick in.
Well that's the point. The only way he can legally have any beneficial interest is on the death of his partner.
But if they split up today and sold that house tomorrow he'd be wanting at least some of the proceeds.
That means he has a beneficial interest which has not been declared to HMRC = not paying enough stamp duty = tax evasion.
He’s not outSo this guy is quite literally criminally insane, the fact he is "out" should be the issue not what a judge did or didn't say...
You need to be looked into if you don’t think there is anything wrong with terrorists being released onto our streets, it’s actually seriousWhat you gonna do?
He’s getting released you idiotHe’s not out
Then who cares. The internet is a bag o bolocksHe’s not out
He has no beneficial interest at all. You are also making massive assumptions
even if he did he’s not evading tax and has done nothing wrong has he?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?