Rachel Reeves let out house unlawfully

Maremia

Naw, don't think you're wrong Romolo.

Isn’t that what a free press does? Or do you want the press censored? The report isn’t untrue and RR owned up when this became public knowledge. Yes, the press digs around for dirt, but I’m sorryif you’re in politics you have to be like Caesar’s wife, beyond reproach. It’s not so long ago that AR was calling out Tory sleaze and demanding the sacking of ministers. Well what goes around comes around! Blaming incorrect advice doesn’t hack it if you’re the Chancellor. It’s of a question of any dishonesty, it’s the careless incompetence that undermines her and the government.

* not a question of dishonesty.

The Press choses whose dirt it digs for though, doesn't it?
The Press Barons are not public servants working for the common good, are they?
They have an agenda, and it is not pro-Labour, is it?

GrannyGravy13

vegansrock

Im guessing she doesn't do all the family life admin herself. She has a husband. Let’s criticise him.

Whether it is his her husband’s mistake , hers or the letting agents, it happened.

As someone pointed out upthread ignorance is no defence under the law

An apology wouldn’t wash for Jo Bloggs.

Given there is no national rules, I would expect a local letting agent to point these things out. In both cases the weasely professionals did not do their job properly (getting more common these days) and the customer takes the blame.

An apology would be acceptable for Joe Bloggs, but it would may be accompanied by paying a fine, I guess. Planning infringements are not treated as serious, just fixed retrospectively.

Is the Tory or Reform party paying for this digging into personal finances/lives of the cabinet members??

Why are we witch hunting to detract from letting otherwise extremely busy (swamped) people from getting on with their job?

Maremia

The Press choses whose dirt it digs for though, doesn't it?
The Press Barons are not public servants working for the common good, are they?
They have an agenda, and it is not pro-Labour, is it?

You are probably right on all three.

Well we always have the BBC and the Guardian to set matters straight and give a balanced view 🤭

If the property needed a license, then surely the letting agents shouldn't have let it out without one. I'm no fan of RR but this out-cry is just ridiculous.

More trivia. Of more interest is the rip off attitude of local Councils making money from landlords.

Allira

Oh dear.

I do hope it's not a long-term let. She may be needing it back before long.

If only!!!

If RR can't be bothered to check details about letting her house wonder what else she doesn't bother to check. £3,200 a month rent, not bad at all.

Borris had birthday cake with people he worked with in lockdown personally I think this avoidance by Rachel is more serious How much rent does she pay on the home she has on downing street or is that another MP perk maybe ?

I think it is escalating, 'new information' apparently.

M0nica

MaizieD

Has it occurred to anyone that it might have been Reeves' husband who dealt with letting their house?

Doesn't make any difference. They are both members of the same household and in any situationwhen one of the responsible adults in a household may have special circumstances surrounding their job the other adults should be completely up to speed on this and know when things need to be drawn to their attention, or passed through checking procedures.

You check up on everything your husband does to make sure he's got it right?

I trust my DH to be a perfectly competent individual...

Galaxy

I think it is escalating, 'new information' apparently.

Who is escalating it, Galaxy?

Yes, there is. From Sky News:

‘We've just heard from Downing Street that they have more information in the saga of Rachel Reeves and her rented out house.
It seems like this might actually help the chancellor, as Sky News deputy political editor Sam Coates explains.
"What does this tell us?
"That when these emails are disclosed - and the fact that Number 10 have said that they're coming suggests that they'll come pretty soon - it will probably be good news for the chancellor.
"It will probably, reading between the lines, mean that those emails in some way vindicate the account of the chancellor, that she wasn't told, was misled, or wasn't informed that she needed to apply for this licence by the lettings agency.
"That is entirely my surmise from the fact that Number 10 is saying that it has full confidence in Rachel Reeves."’

We will know shortly I guess.

MaizieD

Galaxy

I think it is escalating, 'new information' apparently.

Who is escalating it, Galaxy?

Oh, don't bother. I've found it on the BBC

The BBC said it's emails sent and received by her husband...

windmill1

Rosie51

I thought it was 'ignorance is no defence under the law"? If that goes for the ordinary man/woman why would it be different for an MP? I'm not suggesting she should be hung drawn and quartered or even sacked, but why should she get more sympathy or leeway than Joe Bloggs who was similarly ignorant?

Well, allow moi to suggest she should be hung, drawn and quartered plus get the sack.

Thank you.

If you are hung , drawn and quartered, giving you the sack is somewhat superfluous, surely.

Witzend, the answer to your question is a resounding no. They have special rules for everything, they make their rules up.

You need the sack to put the body in ….

You'd think so Casdon.

Rachel Reeves seems to be very forgetful...She forgot to disclose that a benefactor had paid for her clothes; she forgot to disclose the free tickets for various venues and now this! Very worrying that she's "in charge" of the country's finances!

I am always amazed that these people who make laws on our behalf .Do not seem to know the laws themselves.

They also seem to have hoardes of highly paid advisors. So why were they not informed!

If Rachael Reeves rewlly wants to make money she should have let her house as an unregistered Air BnB.

Al the rage near me with Social Housing tenants.

Or sub let it as a house of multiple occupancy to Asylum Seekers.

Always one rule for them and another rule for us I would like to know if there are any politicians that are not just out for themselves and what they can financially benefit from us