Nigel Farage put his Clacton residence in his girlfriend’s name to avoid paying tax. He has a number of other properties, including three houses in Kent, which are registered to his company, again to avoid tax.
This is not to excuse what Angela Raynor did - but it does highlight the double standards. You have to really dig to find out information on Farage’s housing affair. None of the newspapers have talked about this.
Seems like a case of but but but farage…
Difference is Farage has never been in power.
Its always labour and the tories , and each time when one of these parties are in power , this always happens, especially when they try to be holier than thou.
But as usual, when the tories do shit , its always the same people demanding they get sacked and scream sleaze…
When its labour that does it, these people tend to bang on about the tories…or bring up farage, who as stated has never been in power.
I await to be corrected on how wrong i am.
I see it as a positive. Maybe instead of drifting to the right to respond to Farage, they’ll spend more time thinking about how to appeal to the left, who are deserting them in droves.
Just as an aside, while flirting in green politics as a younger man it was people like Zack Polanski who made me run a fucking mile. There are some proper weirdo’s in the Green Party. People with really out there beliefs. It’s a shame because their policies are generally sound.
I think he is just about the most powerful politician in the country.
I think you are misunderstanding the source of the frustration. The issue is not but but but Tories. It’s a call for fair and proportional coverage.
Angela Raynor made a mistake in her stamp duty. Fair enough. She deserves to catch a lot of heat for that.
But the way the press are behaving it’s like she’s had a shit on the cenotaph.
Making a mistake on your stamp duty would not move the fucking needle on the Tory scandal-o-metre, and you know it.
Hes not, the labour leader is as they are the prime minister, in regards to farages housing issues and everything else dodgy around that, Starmer has a majority and can push through any legislation to change anything that would land us normal people in trouble, but as with the tories , labour wants to be able to exploit the tax payers for their own benefits, none of them are worth trusting as their all cunts, and farage and co will just be the new boys on the block eagerly waiting to finally get to cheat the taxpayers for their own benefit…
Just like the main 2 parties .
There it is though isnt it, shes labour she says she made a mistake.
Lets cut the shit, Mascot, she is a seasoned politician, a socialist millionaire that pretty much pretends they represent working class people .
She knew what she was doing, it was not a mistake.
But because shes not a tory , its a case of compared to what the tories did it barely moves the needle…the whole system is a scam and needs knocking down and something better built as its corrupted to its core regardless of political parties.
But so is the obsession that high schools hae that going to university is the be all and end all.
I had a really rough final 18 months at school when midway through year 11 I decided I didn’t want to go straight to uni and I was pretty much ignored and banished by every teacher. No matter how much help I requested - they chose to help others as in their mental view, my deciding not to go to uni ment any help and attention I got was a waste of their time.
I know a few other students from my school in years below me that had similar stories until about 5 years after I graduated and they started a hospitality cadetship partnering with the local tafe as they realised not every students want to go into uni.
This is along the lines of what I say to my two kids, basically I tell them “you don’t “have” to go to university”. “Just be passionate about something.” If it is history and politics (I very much (really, really, really) hope not…), then yes they should study it to what end they want to up to and beyond University. If it is a trade then that’s fine, follow the path.
Easy to say but it is hard to know at 18 but I think they have to choose something and not take 5 years to find themselves trekking across South America…
Also, how soul destroy must it be trying to break into the workforce when almost every entry level wants a full uni degree with honours and 25 years experience (slight exaggeration, they might turn a blind eye to 20 years experience if you dad is the boss)
I’m not really sure what the point was in posting the graph because it doesn’t refute my original point, which was basically the country has never been some crime-free utopia.
Is it showing people just don’t bother reporting crime anymore or the authorities are just not reporting the correct figures? Either way it doesn’t prove crime has gone down under any particular party.
It entirely refutes it because it is based on actual research and not an individual anecdote.
What you are referring to is the fear of crime which doesn’t necessarily correlate to the actual crime rate.
In terms of crime going up or down under particular parties, they can increase the number of police and take other measures to discourage crime, but many of the crimes are more closely related to levels of poverty and social deprivation.
I must admit I’m a little surprised that the crime rate in that graph has shown a continual decline despite poverty increasing.
That seems a little at odds with the fact that poverty drives crime, or am I missing something?
The nature of crime changes over time. That’s also the overall figure, so it is possible that certain forms of crime are rising.
I worked with an economist who did a correlation based on the prices of VCRs and the number of burglaries where that was reported as a theft. What he found was that the number of thefts did correlate to things like unemployment levels, but it was also tied in to the levels of VCR ownership and the cost of the items (particularly second hand). There was one home secretary (it might have been Michael Howard, I can’t recall) who commented about the best deterrent to theft was having nothing worth stealing.
Anyway, this is why some of the elements that the police and Home Office introduce to reduce crime isn’t putting bobbies out to solve crime, but to make sure that crime doesn’t pay. For example, getting stolen mobile phones to brick, so they have very limited second hand value.
There was an article that touches on this in the FT recently by John Burns Murdoch that i think is worth reading (his stuff usually is!) - the great crime paradox. (He may have a link on twitter or alternative if it’s not available without subsription).
Basically he is writing about the difference in what the evidence is saying about is happening with regards to crime and people’s perceptions of it. He says that serious (the more violent crimes) have fallen significantly in US and UK since 90’s (backed by population wide surveys and hospital admissions). These crimes aren’t usually visible to people though.
However there has been a rise in minor crimes (theft, shoplifting, public nuisance offences, minor damage to property etc) that tend to be more visible to people, so even if things are better than before, they percoeve them to be worse.
Looks like Raynor has cut to the chase.
I’m not seeing the ‘either/or’ here. Say what you like about Corbyn but he mobilised people who wanted a fairer society. He increased membership from 200k to 570k making Labour the largest political party in Western Europe at the time.
Ultimately he was taken out by those currently in government.
There is a different path. Labour are choosing not to take it.
The survey does make for interesting reading
It’s interesting that Fraud has gone up so much. I’m wondering if this is related to contactless credit cards. I was in the UK last week and really surprised that I could pay contactless up to £100. The figures themselves don’t go down that far, but @Maria mentioned that she lost her card on the underground and a fraudulent payment was made with her card before she was aware of it.
Of course, the plus side of the contactless cards is that it is probably leading people to carry less cash on themselves.
I can remember a long time ago (maybe twenty years ) them saying that burglary rates , which were among the most common crimes , were right down simply by virtue of the fact that the resale value on stolen items was practically nothing because of new goods being mass produced so cheaply nowadays.
Makes sense to me. Theft is mostly worthless now while defrauding someone out of some cash is far more lucrative and possibly less risky. Very easy to be anonomous on the internet for example and selling stuff that doesnt exist on facebook.
Well at least that’s different to the last lot…