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

[Old_pie]

So now Rishi Sunak is pretending to be the injured party:

"Rishi Sunak has said he finds it "very upsetting" that his wife has faced criticism over shares she owns in a tech company operating in Russia. The chancellor compared his feelings to those of film star Will Smith, whose own wife was mocked at the Oscars. But he joked: "At least I didn't get up and slap anybody, which is good." Mr Sunak's wife Akshata Murty owns shares thought to be worth more than £400m in Indian firm Infosys, founded by her father, Narayana".

So Rishi, we want to hit the Russians hard, unless your wife happens to have a massive fortune operating from there. You must be devastated, maybe someone can start a crowdfunder page to help you through this trauma.

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?

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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.