Angela Rayner is a scrounger, grifter and shameless hypocrite.

GSM was banned on the thread about electric hair tongs appearing in Downton Abbey.

MartavTaurus

DaisyAnneReturns

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

Erm. But it could well be the wrong explanation!
It's a grey area to think you know.

doodledog’s explanation does sound correct though. I can remember GSM’s posts and was shocked at the time.

If they made the national press, and more than one she posted could well have done, then she indeed break the rules.

'says Nadine Dorries' sets the tone for this Thread.

"How many times do I have to say that HMRC has seen the documents and found that she was not careless?"
🤷‍♀️
Graphite
You are SO patient!
I would have given up.

Thank you.

The thread on the green trousers was used to demean and discredit Angela Rayner as this one has tried to do.

I don't know why somebody's dress or trousers are of relevance.

This country is in such a mess one way and another.

Still, the OP got what they wanted I suppose.

I'm hoping the Bin can win.

Wyllow3

I f you want to view the trouser suit thread just enter

Angela Raynor Trouser Suit

into the gransnet search engine.

It must be time for a new wooden spoon. The old one must be worn out by now.

Leelaylo

Sometimes its about what is morally right , in a time when many are struggling to pay their fuel, water and food bills . The government that she is a part of are discussing abolishing the triple lock. It is not a good look , politicians generally need to learn to read the room.

No, it isn't. This was a complex legal problem solved legally. Whose morals would you uphold? Yours? The man next doors? Mine?. The person who shouts the loudest? This was about the law and it was dealt with by the law.

Plevey08

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.

Feeling anything is not the same as being humiliated or debased, Plevey08. That person has autonomy and it's their feelings.

Belittling or demeaning someone in the way some newspapers and some Internet users do is an attempt to delegitimising opponents by attacking their identity rather than their arguments.

AR would be a good laugh and good fun I am sure. Not sure she will make a reliable and trustworthy minister but then, who would, these days ?

Sometimes its about what is morally right , in a time when many are struggling to pay their fuel, water and food bills . The government that she is a part of are discussing abolishing the triple lock. It is not a good look , politicians generally need to learn to read the room.

DaisyAnneReturns

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

Erm. But it could well be the wrong explanation!
It's a grey area to think you know.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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