www.prospectmagazine.co.uk
That‘s a really good article and bang on the money, imho. I tend to think there’s a certain level of sexism involved too - a lot of the discussion I’ve seen on more male-dominated platforms use some rather misogynistic language about her in a way that they don’t about male politicians.This is a very good read and explains what is happening and why for those interested.
![]()
No wonder the Tories are out to get Angela Rayner
Setting the attack dogs on Angela Rayner shows us just how much she is feared—and if she resigns, it will only be a victory for cowardly conservative ...www.prospectmagazine.co.uk
Oh I agree I don't know the ins and outs but the NHS wouldn't have paid out unless they were found to have made a mistake contributing to whatever the disabilities are.Obviously none of us know the ins and outs of her son's disability, but in fairness, he was born at 23 weeks; even if he'd had the best nurses, doctors and medical care in the world, it would be unavoidable that being born that early wouldn't impact on his long-term health.
Obviously none of us know the ins and outs of her son's disability, but in fairness, he was born at 23 weeks; even if he'd had the best nurses, doctors and medical care in the world, it would be unavoidable that being born that early wouldn't impact on his long-term health.From my understanding, her son was born with disabilities due to a fuck up during his birth and the NHS paid a settlement to him which she and her ex are the trustees of. They used some trust money to adapt the home for the son.
She and husband then split up and she sold her half of the family home to the trust. She was still a legal owner of the property as she and her ex are the trustees of the trust but she personally has no equitable interest in the property.
Under HMRC rules she is still classed as not having replaced her main residence as she is a legal owner of the marital home. In my opinion whilst I understand why she has been made to pay the higher rate of SDLT I don’t necessarily agree with the law as it stands in this specific situation. She has acted in her son's interest by ensuring he can stay in an environment adapted for his needs.
I’m not sure what exactly she’s done with the marital home. Sold some of her share to her sons trust fund bla bla bla but she obviously still owns part in legal documents and that means the new flat is a second owned home. She been cleared or deliberate wrong doing but still had to pay the 40k. Funny she was still arguing with HMRC the other week & now it suits her she clears it.Even better time now!! Can’t believe she’s been cleared of that tax evasion..I mean how convenient!! One law for us poor suckers & quite another for them!!