Angela Rayner is a scrounger, grifter and shameless hypocrite.

So it would have put her up a level to have returned the money.she didn't read the room which doesn't bode well for her.

This is very black and white. I have already explained what the rules are. Where is the grey area?

The fiasco was the media circus.

She did not make an error of judgement. Her counsel have provided documentary evidence to HMRC that she was given definitive (albeit wrong) advice to pay only the standard rate of SDLT. HMRC say she was not careless. She has now paid the additional tax due.

What more do you want? She was legally entitled to severance pay and she is legally entitled to keep it whatever anyone out to discredit her says.

There is a grey area, as there’s a difference in something being legally right and something being ethically right, as am sure that you know already.

It’s depressing that so many political snouts are in the trough as soon as they make it to high office.
Starmer did it from day one with his designer suits and specs.

Oreo

There is a grey area, as there’s a difference in something being legally right and something being ethically right, as am sure that you know already.

The difference between something being legally right and ethically right is not a grey area. That’s a complete misunderstanding of what a grey area is.

Legally yes. Morally no. That's the grey area.

Plevey08

Legally yes. Morally no. That's the grey area.

I don’t think Tuliptree gets that.

Or is there going to be a pedants corner reprimand about the use of ‘grey area’ 🤔

I would love to be surprised by a politician doing the right thing, what a rarity.
No wonder many people say they’re all the same.

I get it all right - it’s some others that don’t

Well they might choose to look up the difference between legality and morality 😉

Maybe it would have pleased a section of society if AR had been humbled/humiliated/debased. Many of those will be the ones who tried to humble/humiliate/debase her because she wore an unfortunate trouser suit/had a baby out of wedlock/speaks with a Northern accent, and there isn't much that can be done about that sort of attitude when we have the free speech that many of them claim to support.

If I were suddenly catapulted into public scrutiny, I don't know how I would cope. Whether I would wear the 'right' things, whether my voice, figure, family would withstand close scrutiny, and I consider myself a reasonably respectable person.

Would you put you and yours through that in all honesty? It's easy to present ourselves as respectable articulate fashion icons when we are anonymous, nobody can hear our voices, see our exam results or see us wearing whatever we wear, and we can type responses and edit them to remove signs of irritation before making them public; but if everything we did ended up being filmed and recorded I'm not sure that many people would come out of it consistently well.

Anyway. My understanding is that politicians get payoffs because they (well, most of them!) give up other jobs to take office, and many will have relocated, so they need some money to tide them over until they find another role or are re-elected. A redundancy payment, basically.

Maybe it is more than someone leaving a minimum wage job would get, and maybe that's not fair, but the reason is probably that higher earners have higher outgoings.

The over 65s don't get such payments as they are/were eligible for pensions, in the same way that people can't claim other benefits when claiming the state pension, so Dorries' claims are spurious to say the least, and malicious at worst.

I will leave everyone reading this to assess the claims of those trying to attack AR. There is no point in trying to change people's minds, I think.

What a wise post.
Any doubts as to the first paragraph, check the trouser thread out.

Well said, Doodledog. I may have no time for AR's politics, but I think I know a witch hunt when I see one.

DD There is no point in trying to change people's minds, I think.

Probably not.

It seems to me that people are passing judgement based on nothing more than political bias and irrational dislike. That isn’t ethical. In fact, ethics and bias are opposing forces in human decision-making.

If morality is a system of rules and values that guide people to tell the difference between right and wrong, what exactly do people think Rayner has done wrong?

A private transaction was made public knowledge by the media. Rayner referred herself to Laurie Magnus and resigned two days later, which she said she would do if found to have breached the ministerial code. She received severance pay which was her right as she had been in post for over six months and the breach was not considered serious. She has been out of office for over ten months which means she does not have to return the money. HMRC found she had not been careless. She has paid the extra tax. She was given wrong tax advice and resigned her job as a result.

What exactly has she done that was morally or ethically wrong?

Given the draconian punishment meted out to GSM for little more than venturing an opinion on AR’s trouser suit after the last election, my heart was in my mouth when I read this thread title.

Have a look at what Zarah Sultana and Corbyn say about taking lobbying money and restoring trust.
AB is part of this morally bankrupt system and has not denounced genocide
Seems leaving no one behind doesn’t include Palestinians. And he’ll still commit us to partnership with the Orange Lump

MawsRosie

Given the draconian punishment meted out to GSM for little more than venturing an opinion on AR’s trouser suit after the last election, my heart was in my mouth when I read this thread title.

No. It was more than ‘venturing an opinion’. It was calling another woman a ‘tart’ for having a child out if wedlock, and the opinion made the national press. The judgement of AR on that thread was way beyond draconian - it was disgraceful.

I don’t think that GSM should have been banned, as I think most opinions are valid and can be argued against, but it would be obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse why she was, so the continued calls for her reinstatement lose credibility when that is not acknowledged.

Realistically I doubt that GSM herself doesn’t understand why she can no longer post. I would like to see her back - not for the ‘free advice’ that so many seem to value her for, (which seems to me very self-serving of those who keep bringing it up) - but because I think she is a decent person underneath the brusque exterior, and different viewpoints make discussion boards interesting.

All the same, as GSM knows better than most of us, laws are there for a reason, and she was well on the wrong side of GN laws on more than one occasion.

Plevey08

It's not just about rules though. Not everything is black or white, there are grey areasn

It is "just about the rules", exactly that. If we resort to sentencing by gossip how can we expect the protection of law were we to be wrongly accused of something.

We are teetering on the edge of breakdown of law and order already. We have seen it in America where a President seems to chose to ignore the restrictions on his powers. Is lawlessness what we want here?

I never actually knew about what led to GSM's being banned Doodledog. Thank you for the explanation.

Plevey08

As MOnica says it would have faired better for her regardless of her being exonerated, if she had been humbled by the fiasco. Been gracious and acknowledged that she had made an error of judgement To regain a sense of trust especially in high office would have served her better. She appeared smug and entitled, not a good look and the electorate deserves better.

She might have faired better amongst those who want to make others smaller in an effort to feel they have influence and power. We have something more powerful than that - the law. Thankfully those wishing others to be treated as the small but loud group in the country suggest are not above the law.

Personally, I dont think thst however "gracious" she had been it would have made a blind bit of difference to those trying to humble her and "put her in her place".

Banning posters seems very extreme to me, reminds me of school prefects. I have no clue why they ban some, seems they ‘listen’ in to private messages which shouldn’t happen. Sometimes they ban people and I feel happy because they have extreme views totally opposed to mine but then I think, hey, wait a minute, aren’t we supposed to be adult here ? If you never hear these extreme views complacency can take over and apart from anything else it is good to know what I am up against.

I'm looking forward to the much needed social/affordable housing across the country.
Feeling humble is not the same as being humiliated or debased.

I actually rather like AR, even if I don't like her politics!
Sadly in this instance, she has sunk a bit in my estimation because here was a chance for her to surprise everyone and earn Brownie points, by showing a more humble side.
However, she is entitled to the payment.

It reminds me more of a business nanna8, probably because that is what GN is. A shop, pub etc., can ban customers, private businesses can ban or refuse customers. This seems an adult decision to me, not one replicating some people's childhood dislike of authority.

Where businesses cannot lawfully ban would if the ban was based on a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. I imagine this would apply to GN too, so, for example, banning someone because they are Black or because they are disabled would generally be unlawful discrimination.