O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[BanjoPie]

Well that's one of the many issues in allowing foreigners into the country isn't it? She was already domiciled (look it up if you are unsure as to its meaning) and wealthy before arriving here. Now through no fault of her own she has folk like you breathing down her neck.

Maybe the "British test" should be stricter, like which international cricket team do you support when England are playing?

I like you OP as you talk common sense

[Elite_Pie]

Well that's one of the many issues in allowing foreigners into the country isn't it? She was already domiciled (look it up if you are unsure as to its meaning) and wealthy before arriving here. Now through no fault of her own she has folk like you breathing down her neck.

At least having "folk like me" breathing down her neck caused the U-turn.

Folk like you can keep tugging your forelock if that's your choice.

[Elite_Pie]

My comment is not ‘sick’ as you put it, it is based on fact. He has not been found guilty of being involved with a p aedophile ring nor was he even accused or taken to court for that - there was no evidence to suggest he was involved with the known Epstien p aedophile ring - the only thing that is a fact is that Andrew was a so-called friend of Epstien, that does not make Andrew a p aedophile.

I think it's a bit easier not to be found guilty if you can get mummy to pay several million pounds to silence your victim.

[the_anticlough]

For the record as my work involves writing law, I base my comments on known facts not tickle tackle

Didn't know he had his tackle tickled, that was a detail that escaped me

[Old_pie]

At least having "folk like me" breathing down her neck caused the U-turn.

Folk like you can keep tugging your forelock if that's your choice.

I notice how you brag on when you've seen a "betting" opportunity where you can't loose. Well I don't call that gambling, it's theft. The only reason you get away with it is that if you put more money in it would be spotted, but of course you'll claim that you are simply operating within the rules. The only difference between you and Mrs Sunak is scale, oh, and she's now reluctantly in the public eye. (Dominic plying his remaining aces again?)

And sorry, I'd love to have some forelock left to tug, and even when I did I never tugged it for anyone.

I recall once an Australian Treasurer state that it was every citizen's duty to pay the minimum tax that the law required, no more and no less. You'd be better suited living in nanny state New Zealand.

Why should a woman have to bend by virtue of the man she marries? I thought we'd moved on from that, but no, you'd like to keep them in their place and then cry bigotry if anyone else did the same. There's a word for that but I can't be bothered to look it up.

[Elite_Pie]

I notice how you brag on when you've seen a "betting" opportunity where you can't loose. Well I don't call that gambling, it's theft. The only reason you get away with it is that if you put more money in it would be spotted, but of course you'll claim that you are simply operating within the rules. The only difference between you and Mrs Sunak is scale, oh, and she's now reluctantly in the public eye. (Dominic plying his remaining aces again?)

And sorry, I'd love to have some forelock left to tug, and even when I did I never tugged it for anyone.

I recall once an Australian Treasurer state that it was every citizen's duty to pay the minimum tax that the law required, no more and no less. You'd be better suited living in nanny state New Zealand.

Why should a woman have to bend by virtue of the man she marries? I thought we'd moved on from that, but no, you'd like to keep them in their place and then cry bigotry if anyone else did the same. There's a word for that but I can't be bothered to look it up.

Wow, so taking advantage of an offer from a bookie is "theft", and I want women kept in their place.

Either you have a very vivid imagination, or someone has slipped an illegal substance in your tea mug!

[BanjoPie]

I notice how you brag on when you've seen a "betting" opportunity where you can't loose. Well I don't call that gambling, it's theft. The only reason you get away with it is that if you put more money in it would be spotted, but of course you'll claim that you are simply operating within the rules. The only difference between you and Mrs Sunak is scale, oh, and she's now reluctantly in the public eye. (Dominic plying his remaining aces again?)

And sorry, I'd love to have some forelock left to tug, and even when I did I never tugged it for anyone.

I recall once an Australian Treasurer state that it was every citizen's duty to pay the minimum tax that the law required, no more and no less. You'd be better suited living in nanny state New Zealand.

Why should a woman have to bend by virtue of the man she marries? I thought we'd moved on from that, but no, you'd like to keep them in their place and then cry bigotry if anyone else did the same. There's a word for that but I can't be bothered to look it up.

Well said OP

[OchPie]

The only difference between you and Mrs Sunak is scale, oh, and she's now reluctantly in the public eye. (Dominic plying his remaining aces again?)

That and she has a husband who works to set the rules and decides how they are enforced. Feels like a pretty big difference to me.

And this is a government that will absolutely take into account your partner's income if you're on benefits, for example. They don't get to have this both ways.

[Old_pie]

That and she has a husband who works to set the rules and decides how they are enforced. Feels like a pretty big difference to me.

And this is a government that will absolutely take into account your partner's income if you're on benefits, for example. They don't get to have this both ways.

The domicile rules for instance with India, which will affect Inheritance Tax, were set out in agreement with the Indian Government on 3rd April 1956.

You can't just go around saying things should be different.

Come on you Reds!

[BigFatPie]

I shall answer both questions in a statement that I believe to be true:

Of course Andrew had xes with that girl - there were even messages sent by her to her friends saying that she went to bed with him. The photo is genuine, that cannot be denied but just think about it, at the time he had xes with her, he was a fairly young single guy (separated or divorced) - he met a very attractive young girl who to be fair looked a lot older than 17 so he probably didn’t give a thought about her being under age so, without any doubt I as far as I believe he did have xes with her.

What he did was no more than most of the men on this board would have done (if they are honest - did they check the girls birth certificate) the biggest mistake he made was following the instructions of the lawyers who advised him “you never even met this girl - deny it at all cost”. Had he have come clean and told the truth (despite his so-called legal advice) and said “yes, I did have xes with her, it never even occurred to me she was under age (only in that US state or perhaps a few others?)

Had he have ignored the stupid advice from his lawyers, he would have been able to use the ‘evidence’ of her friend receiving messages saying ‘I got prince Andrew into bed’. Had this have been the case, most people would just have called him ‘Randy Andy” and that would have been the end of the matter. In the end he had to pay the £9m to make the episode go away as it was taking centre stage over the Queens Jubilee year.

Regards Her Majesty having Andrew as her escort, why shouldn’t she, he was her son, Prince Philip was his dad and she probably knows the truth and also about the bad advice.

Thats my take on it. “Long live the Queen and the Monarchy”

Jesus, what a pile of sh!t. Blame the advisers, the same old tune from Tories and the royals and the arselickers who support them. What sort of thick tw@t claims they’ve not met someone when there’s a photo doing the rounds with their arm literally around that person?

As for Sunak, these ridiculous claims that his missus’s finance have nothing to do with him? Try that argument to claim any means tested benefits when your partner(not even your wife) earns over a certain amount. (Edit sorry Ochpie, just saw you’ve said the same thing)

Honestly, the right wing lads on here need to do better, the bollox they talk is getting too easy to point out, it’s getting boring. Up the Republic.

[Elite_Pie]

The domicile rules for instance with India, which will affect Inheritance Tax, were set out in agreement with the Indian Government on 3rd April 1956.

I'm not saying what she did is illegal, I'm saying it's immoral.

But what would a thief like me know about morals?

[BanjoPie]

Jesus, what a pile of sh!t. Blame the advisers, the same old tune from Tories and the royals and the arselickers who support them. What sort of thick tw@t claims they’ve not met someone when there’s a photo doing the rounds with their arm literally around that person?

As for Sunak, these ridiculous claims that his missus’s finance have nothing to do with him? Try that argument to claim any means tested benefits when your partner(not even your wife) earns over a certain amount. (Edit sorry Ochpie, just saw you’ve said the same thing)

Honestly, the right wing lads on here need to do better, the bollox they talk is getting too easy to point out, it’s getting boring. Up the Republic.

“Up yours”

[OchPie]

The domicile rules for instance with India, which will affect Inheritance Tax, were set out in agreement with the Indian Government on 3rd April 1956.

You can't just go around saying things should be different.

No they weren't. The way IHT is dealt with depending on domicile is set out there, but the rules for domicile are not.

And yes you can. For example, you can certainly increase the cost of being non-dom while longer-term resident in the UK. The government made a huge change to the rules just five years ago, in 2017.

[Mapperleypie]

Still not impressed.

The first sitting PM in the history of this country to have been found to have broken the law.

He’s lied to parliament, he’s lied to all of us. He needs to go now.

[BigFatPie]

Still not impressed.

The first sitting PM in the history of this country to have been found to have broken the law.

He’s lied to parliament, he’s lied to all of us. He needs to go now.

That would require the parliamentary Tory party having some morals or a backbone.

So he and his chinless wonder mate Sunak won’t be going anywhere.