Angela Rayner

foxie48

I haven't seen much in the press about Badenoch's "seemingly" lying about her educational achievements. tbh I do think there's a bit of biased reporting by the media. I have The Telegraph, Times and Guardian currently online and it's very interesting to see how the same issue is reported.Can you guess which paper had these headings?
"No tears or cheers for Angela Rayner’s ashen day in the house"
"Rayner used disabled son’s NHS compensation to buy second home"
"Rayner battling for political survival after referring herself to ethics adviser"

TBH I'm suspicious about the timing of Badenoch's claim to be accepted by medical school in America. There have been rumblings in her constituency for years, especially after people realised that she had - er - embellished - other parts of her CV.

I used to be much more involved in local politics than I am now and I remember sitting in a group discussing Badenoch's claims about education. She claimed that she had been accepted at the age of 16 to some kind of "pre-med" course at Stamford, but such a course didn't exist.

Badenoch had been at a fee-paying school in Lagos - one of the most prestigious in Nigeria. She was then sent at the age of 16 to the UK. Her mother came to the UK to give birth to Kemi, which meant she had a British passport and could come to the UK with no problem. She went to a local further education college, which she has always claimed was "bad" and the reason she didn't achieve good A levels, so couldn't study medicine. Ironically, she used to claim that she was looked down on because she was black, yet more recently claims that there is no systemic racism in the UK (despite having allegedly been a victim of it).

Anyway, I was surprised to read in a handful of media about the alleged lie and I wondered "why now?" It's certainly been overshadowed by the Angela Rayner issue.

Primrose, it’s my understanding that the Family Court made the NDA. It’s possible to make an emergency application which is heard that day. I assume that’s what happened here.
It seems you didn’t know this and again, assumed dodgy dealings

Jane43

janeainsworth

Primrose Regarding her son, of course she regrets everything but she must have had that Court Order put on because she was able to very quickly get it removed. We all know how slowly legal wheels move yet she was able to lift it in a day!

I don’t know what you mean by ‘regarding her son, of course she regrets everything’ , but how do you know what were the circumstances surrounding the court order?

I doubt very much that AR instigated it herself. It could have been part of the conditions of the award to her son, that the parties were not to disclose the details of the award or the circumstances that led to its being paid to AR’s son.

Apparently a NDA was a condition of the settlement she received, quite common I believe.

Angela Rayner's son has a father, who would also have been involved in any deal. For all any of us know, he could have been responsible for the NDA to protect his son.

The whole point of a NDA is that information isn't disclosed, so of course the public isn't going to be told the whole story behind the reason - and it doesn't need to be told.

The civil service would not have been involved with the purchase of the flat. If they were, Rayner could quite rightly be accused of getting public servants to do her personal business.

Allira

^AR is not a lawyer^

As I pointed out a while ago, her boss is!

Of course, that is what civil servants are for but I doubt that they were involved, she would have gone to an independent solicitor just as any of us would if involved in house sale and purchase.

Keir Starmer is a human rights lawyer. He won't know much about complicated trust law.

I haven't seen much in the press about Badenoch's "seemingly" lying about her educational achievements. tbh I do think there's a bit of biased reporting by the media. I have The Telegraph, Times and Guardian currently online and it's very interesting to see how the same issue is reported.Can you guess which paper had these headings?
"No tears or cheers for Angela Rayner’s ashen day in the house"
"Rayner used disabled son’s NHS compensation to buy second home"
"Rayner battling for political survival after referring herself to ethics adviser"

AR is not a lawyer

As I pointed out a while ago, her boss is!

Of course, that is what civil servants are for but I doubt that they were involved, she would have gone to an independent solicitor just as any of us would if involved in house sale and purchase.

In the end the decision is Starmer's as he can overrule Magnus's report just as that paragon Prime Minister Johnson did in the Patel case which led to ethics advisor Lord Geidt's resignation.

MayBee70

Can’t have too many threads bad mouthing her, can we…

She would be the first to badmouth if it happened to be a Tory ‘ for sure’

I watched the interview and it seems she was wrongly advised. If this is the case, then shouldn't her advisor be brought to account?

Thank you jane43

Very common Jane. There have been threads on here, I think, about the use and misuse of NDAs.

janeainsworth

Primrose Regarding her son, of course she regrets everything but she must have had that Court Order put on because she was able to very quickly get it removed. We all know how slowly legal wheels move yet she was able to lift it in a day!

I don’t know what you mean by ‘regarding her son, of course she regrets everything’ , but how do you know what were the circumstances surrounding the court order?

I doubt very much that AR instigated it herself. It could have been part of the conditions of the award to her son, that the parties were not to disclose the details of the award or the circumstances that led to its being paid to AR’s son.

Apparently a NDA was a condition of the settlement she received, quite common I believe.

Primrose "She is either incompetent or very devious. She must know everything about housing and tax because it’s her job."

Would you expect the Secretary of State for Health to know everything about running a hospital, a care home, could he do an operation to remove a gall bladder or remove cataracts? Would you be happy if he turned up in your GP surgery to do a few hours of work? Ministers are not expected, nor will they, know everything about the various parts of the area that they are responsible. They rely on advice to guide them through their roles, that's why we have a civil service and government advisors. AR is not a lawyer, nor is she a housing officer, she doesn't collect council tax on behalf of local authorities, nor is she a tax expert. Really! Talk about expecting a lot from our government ministers!

Ha if we are going to worry about being careful what we say on GN then the first port of call would be the Trump threads, they cover some very weird interpretations of the truth, suggestions of killing people, and oh what was the other one 'rounding up all the people in particular states because they don't like their views'.

Primrose Regarding her son, of course she regrets everything but she must have had that Court Order put on because she was able to very quickly get it removed. We all know how slowly legal wheels move yet she was able to lift it in a day!

I don’t know what you mean by ‘regarding her son, of course she regrets everything’ , but how do you know what were the circumstances surrounding the court order?

I doubt very much that AR instigated it herself. It could have been part of the conditions of the award to her son, that the parties were not to disclose the details of the award or the circumstances that led to its being paid to AR’s son.

To those who agree with AR who says it was all a mistake because she was given wrong advice.

We are not talking about one of us who might pop along to any old high street solicitor - she is Deputy PM and HOUSING Secretary. She has all the tools and contacts and funds to seek the very best advice to make sure everything is 100% watertight. She is either incompetent or very devious. She must know everything about housing and tax because it’s her job. Remember it’s not the first time she has been in trouble over her housing situation/council tax! 😉

If she did not give her advisers the full information they needed to sort this out then it’s her fault. It’s like us ordinary folk not declaring an illness or some medication on an insurance policy. If we don’t and an accident happens then our claim is invalid!

Regarding her son, of course she regrets everything but she must have had that Court Order put on because she was able to very quickly get it removed. We all know how slowly legal wheels move yet she was able to lift it in a day!

If she had erroneous advice, that is not her fault, and the press will be a baying mob until such time the advice giver is named and shamed.

Like I posted up thread, if you (Labour) get elected on an anti sleaze ticket then you and your government must adhere to higher standards than your predecessors.

I have no thoughts as to whether she resign or not, frankly I am past caring what this or any government does. I am now in the putting my family and me first and doing everything I can to future proof what we have.

growstuff

Bixiboo

Apparently so karmalady. It was reported on the news earlier. It seems to be a total mess and to me what she has done to her sons life care is 100% worse than the issue of whether she should remain as an MP.

This is libellous. No, she hasn't. She has ensured that he has a roof over his head for life.

People really do need to be careful about what they say. I believe mumsnet has been involved in the past when a judge ordered them to hand over the names, etc., of posters someone was taking a libel case against because of posts on MN.

Tax barrister Patrick Cannon is considered to be a leading expert on SDLT.

www.patrickcannon.net/about/

In 2019 he published this paper:

www.patrickcannon.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SDLT_Analysis-and-Planning-for-Higher-Rates-Transaction-14-2-19.pdf

SDLT legislation is not easy to understand in complex cases. No estate agent, conveyancer or even general family solicitor is likely to know the law or be able to advise without taking specialist advice. Even Tax expert Dan Neidle over on BluSky is saying a tentative it sounds like para 12 Sch 4ZA Finance 2003 - rather than para 12 Sch 4ZA Finance 2003 applies.

Anybody who cares to read the Cannon link will see that it could be complicated by what court arrangements may or may not have been made to care for Rayner’s disabled son. Frankly, I don’t think it is anybody’s business outside of the family to know that or demand that it be disclosed.

The legislation says this:

The interests of a beneficiary under 18 years of age are attributed to its parents and any spouse or civil partner living together with one of the child’s parents except in relation to property held by trustees of children subject to arrangements made by the Court of Protection. [FA 2003, Sch 4ZA, para 12]

I understand that her son is now 17 and will turn 18 next April.

As Rayner is now saying she will pay the additional SDLT then one might deduce that the Court of Protection exception doesn’t apply but, if she was trying to avoid paying extra SDLT and is fully conversant with the tax law (as some here seem keen to allege), then why didn’t she wait until he turned 18 in April 2026?

I wonder how this thread would be different if it wasn't AR but one of our sons or daughters who had found themselves in this position? eg My son and his ex wife have two children, one is severely disabled, sadly their marriage ended some years ago and my son now works in London............... you get my drift. Take the politics out of it and you might find a bit more humanity in the responses!

Iam64

It’s part of the campaign to force AR out.

And a lot of it comes from within her party. She is an embarrassment to many of them and they want her out.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I still say provide full disclosure & redact all personal details. And I still think the PR department of the firm involved will want to put their side of this story as it’s casting a bad light on their competency!

Some of the personal details involve her son, who is a minor. AR has no right to disclose those, even if she wanted to.

Madmeg thank you for your considered & knowledgable post.

Iam64 those trying to force Angela out should be careful what they wish for. I think there’s no question of her resigning as an MP, only from Government, and she’d possibly be a far more formidable opponent on the back benches than as a minister!

I still say provide full disclosure & redact all personal details. And I still think the PR department of the firm involved will want to put their side of this story as it’s casting a bad light on their competency!