FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Digital ID and Sunak
Digital ID and Sunak
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service." Why is the date so important in regards to Infosys? | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service." A couple of questions... What is digital ID in this reference? How is a contract awarded for something not yet agreed? Your post has confused me greatly | |||
| |||
| |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service." Is this not something that Mr Starmer is also interested in? He was on the Trilateral commission, and they are also big digital ID advocates. We should be more concerned when we find that SKS is a member of an organisation that believes we, the people, have too much freedom, too much democracy! | |||
| |||
"Interesting how many of you zoned in on the Digital ID rather than the conflict of interest? Maybe the fault of my OP? I do not know enough about Digital ID to have a strong opinion yet. My interest is Ministers and the Prime Minister having the ability to instigate policy and legislation that will ultimately benefit them financially. IMHO Infosys should not be allowed to bid for any UK Government contracts as long as Sunak is a Minister in any capacity. Call me old fashioned but I would say that is a clear conflict of interest. Now I am not talking about a Minister having a share portfolio that includes some elements in sectors that benefit. That is just a diversified investment portfolio. But a direct (and I include spouse/spouse’s family in this) financial interest should be a big no! " I can't say I know too much about this... A couple of questions for you. What does the date mean? Where do we draw the line? I ask about the line as the Murthy family have no officers at infosys and own just over 3% of shares. This is according to a very quick search so I may be very wrong here. | |||
"Interesting how many of you zoned in on the Digital ID rather than the conflict of interest? Maybe the fault of my OP? I do not know enough about Digital ID to have a strong opinion yet. My interest is Ministers and the Prime Minister having the ability to instigate policy and legislation that will ultimately benefit them financially. IMHO Infosys should not be allowed to bid for any UK Government contracts as long as Sunak is a Minister in any capacity. Call me old fashioned but I would say that is a clear conflict of interest. Now I am not talking about a Minister having a share portfolio that includes some elements in sectors that benefit. That is just a diversified investment portfolio. But a direct (and I include spouse/spouse’s family in this) financial interest should be a big no! " Why ? Don’t you trust gov procurement gateway ? Have you seen the criteria to even be on gateway. It’s about capacity , capability and track record - aren’t these the right things target than who holds the shares ? When you implement systems of that size the procurement process is pretty impossible to get around. Even if you wanted to choose the best company in your opinion the processes and policies make it impossible. | |||
"Interesting how many of you zoned in on the Digital ID rather than the conflict of interest? Maybe the fault of my OP? I do not know enough about Digital ID to have a strong opinion yet. My interest is Ministers and the Prime Minister having the ability to instigate policy and legislation that will ultimately benefit them financially. IMHO Infosys should not be allowed to bid for any UK Government contracts as long as Sunak is a Minister in any capacity. Call me old fashioned but I would say that is a clear conflict of interest. Now I am not talking about a Minister having a share portfolio that includes some elements in sectors that benefit. That is just a diversified investment portfolio. But a direct (and I include spouse/spouse’s family in this) financial interest should be a big no! I can't say I know too much about this... A couple of questions for you. What does the date mean? Where do we draw the line? I ask about the line as the Murthy family have no officers at infosys and own just over 3% of shares. This is according to a very quick search so I may be very wrong here." Info sys is listed , it’s owned correctly by company’s like Vanguard and investment banks who know what they are doing and can raise bonds when needed. Rishi probably doesn’t even know who info sys are | |||
| |||
"As this Bill isn't even law yet, I'm not clear where this information on Infosys has come from? Anyone know?" I think it's just people making stuff up to fit their political agenda. | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service." Settlement of tax fraud in the US 2019, Accusation of visa fraud in the US, 2011, Allegations of financial irregularities 2019, Malfunctioning income tax, GST and MCA portal 2016. just a quick search brought this. Another dodgy company track record which fits in with the current government views. | |||
"Interesting how many of you zoned in on the Digital ID rather than the conflict of interest? Maybe the fault of my OP? I do not know enough about Digital ID to have a strong opinion yet. My interest is Ministers and the Prime Minister having the ability to instigate policy and legislation that will ultimately benefit them financially. IMHO Infosys should not be allowed to bid for any UK Government contracts as long as Sunak is a Minister in any capacity. Call me old fashioned but I would say that is a clear conflict of interest. Now I am not talking about a Minister having a share portfolio that includes some elements in sectors that benefit. That is just a diversified investment portfolio. But a direct (and I include spouse/spouse’s family in this) financial interest should be a big no! I can't say I know too much about this... A couple of questions for you. What does the date mean? Where do we draw the line? I ask about the line as the Murthy family have no officers at infosys and own just over 3% of shares. This is according to a very quick search so I may be very wrong here. Info sys is listed , it’s owned correctly by company’s like Vanguard and investment banks who know what they are doing and can raise bonds when needed. Rishi probably doesn’t even know who info sys are " Are you seriously saying Sunak doesn’t know about the company his father-in-law started and his wife is a major shareholder in 
His father-in-law as a result is a multi-billionaire and one of the richest people in India.
His wife’s shares generated over £230m in the past several years but because of her “non-dom” status (until revealed) she paid no tax on that. Nor did she pay tax on it in India (where she claims to be domiciled) as her shares are held in trust in Mauritius (a tax haven).
3% sounds such a small number doesn’t it! 3% of a huge number is still a very big amount! And that is current share ownership not what they sold to investers.
But sure, Sunak has no idea!
Same as when as Chancellor following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine he issued strongly worded guidance against British firms continuing to operate in Russia (ie they should cease). Guess what? Indian registered Infosys continued to operate in Russia and actually grew their business hoovering up the contracts vacated by British firms. | |||
"As this Bill isn't even law yet, I'm not clear where this information on Infosys has come from? Anyone know? I think it's just people making stuff up to fit their political agenda." It isn’t but you can continue to believe whatever you like  | |||
"Interesting how many of you zoned in on the Digital ID rather than the conflict of interest? Maybe the fault of my OP? I do not know enough about Digital ID to have a strong opinion yet. My interest is Ministers and the Prime Minister having the ability to instigate policy and legislation that will ultimately benefit them financially. IMHO Infosys should not be allowed to bid for any UK Government contracts as long as Sunak is a Minister in any capacity. Call me old fashioned but I would say that is a clear conflict of interest. Now I am not talking about a Minister having a share portfolio that includes some elements in sectors that benefit. That is just a diversified investment portfolio. But a direct (and I include spouse/spouse’s family in this) financial interest should be a big no! Why ? Don’t you trust gov procurement gateway ? Have you seen the criteria to even be on gateway. It’s about capacity , capability and track record - aren’t these the right things target than who holds the shares ? When you implement systems of that size the procurement process is pretty impossible to get around. Even if you wanted to choose the best company in your opinion the processes and policies make it impossible. " 1. I am very familiar with Govt procurement (but there is little reason for you to know that unless you have read a lot of my posts). 2. The current Govt circumvented established procurement routes and even fast track routes established by the Crown Commercial Service during the pandemic and instead facilitated the “VIP lane” for things like PPE. It is well documented how corrupt this has turned out to be. 3. If you honestly think Ministers have no influence (or access to inside information to support tenders) over procurement, then I’m afraid you are very naive. | |||
"Interesting how many of you zoned in on the Digital ID rather than the conflict of interest? Maybe the fault of my OP? I do not know enough about Digital ID to have a strong opinion yet. My interest is Ministers and the Prime Minister having the ability to instigate policy and legislation that will ultimately benefit them financially. IMHO Infosys should not be allowed to bid for any UK Government contracts as long as Sunak is a Minister in any capacity. Call me old fashioned but I would say that is a clear conflict of interest. Now I am not talking about a Minister having a share portfolio that includes some elements in sectors that benefit. That is just a diversified investment portfolio. But a direct (and I include spouse/spouse’s family in this) financial interest should be a big no! I can't say I know too much about this... A couple of questions for you. What does the date mean? Where do we draw the line? I ask about the line as the Murthy family have no officers at infosys and own just over 3% of shares. This is according to a very quick search so I may be very wrong here. Info sys is listed , it’s owned correctly by company’s like Vanguard and investment banks who know what they are doing and can raise bonds when needed. Rishi probably doesn’t even know who info sys are Are you seriously saying Sunak doesn’t know about the company his father-in-law started and his wife is a major shareholder in
His father-in-law as a result is a multi-billionaire and one of the richest people in India.
His wife’s shares generated over £230m in the past several years but because of her “non-dom” status (until revealed) she paid no tax on that. Nor did she pay tax on it in India (where she claims to be domiciled) as her shares are held in trust in Mauritius (a tax haven).
3% sounds such a small number doesn’t it! 3% of a huge number is still a very big amount! And that is current share ownership not what they sold to investers.
But sure, Sunak has no idea!
Same as when as Chancellor following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine he issued strongly worded guidance against British firms continuing to operate in Russia (ie they should cease). Guess what? Indian registered Infosys continued to operate in Russia and actually grew their business hoovering up the contracts vacated by British firms."But the date? I don't disagree that even 3% is still a large number. Do we draw a line at a financial value or a share %? I think it's a bit disingenuous to call Ms Murthy a 'major shareholder' at 0.93% | |||
"Interesting how many of you zoned in on the Digital ID rather than the conflict of interest? Maybe the fault of my OP? I do not know enough about Digital ID to have a strong opinion yet. My interest is Ministers and the Prime Minister having the ability to instigate policy and legislation that will ultimately benefit them financially. IMHO Infosys should not be allowed to bid for any UK Government contracts as long as Sunak is a Minister in any capacity. Call me old fashioned but I would say that is a clear conflict of interest. Now I am not talking about a Minister having a share portfolio that includes some elements in sectors that benefit. That is just a diversified investment portfolio. But a direct (and I include spouse/spouse’s family in this) financial interest should be a big no! Why ? Don’t you trust gov procurement gateway ? Have you seen the criteria to even be on gateway. It’s about capacity , capability and track record - aren’t these the right things target than who holds the shares ? When you implement systems of that size the procurement process is pretty impossible to get around. Even if you wanted to choose the best company in your opinion the processes and policies make it impossible. 1. I am very familiar with Govt procurement (but there is little reason for you to know that unless you have read a lot of my posts). 2. The current Govt circumvented established procurement routes and even fast track routes established by the Crown Commercial Service during the pandemic and instead facilitated the “VIP lane” for things like PPE. It is well documented how corrupt this has turned out to be. 3. If you honestly think Ministers have no influence (or access to inside information to support tenders) over procurement, then I’m afraid you are very naive." This all seems a little 'off" to me. How has infosys been awarded a contract for something yet to be agreed? What is the Digital ID for, is it to support the roll out of Identity checks for voting, those that haven't got ID will be provided it? Help me out here  | |||
| |||
"Digital ID is a process, where you have a unique number that stores all your details.....think of an electronic identity card. It will, in time, replace other ID schemes, such as Goverment Gateway. " GG is a piece of work. Im all for scrapping that | |||
"Interesting how many of you zoned in on the Digital ID rather than the conflict of interest? Maybe the fault of my OP? I do not know enough about Digital ID to have a strong opinion yet. My interest is Ministers and the Prime Minister having the ability to instigate policy and legislation that will ultimately benefit them financially. IMHO Infosys should not be allowed to bid for any UK Government contracts as long as Sunak is a Minister in any capacity. Call me old fashioned but I would say that is a clear conflict of interest. Now I am not talking about a Minister having a share portfolio that includes some elements in sectors that benefit. That is just a diversified investment portfolio. But a direct (and I include spouse/spouse’s family in this) financial interest should be a big no! I can't say I know too much about this... A couple of questions for you. What does the date mean? Where do we draw the line? I ask about the line as the Murthy family have no officers at infosys and own just over 3% of shares. This is according to a very quick search so I may be very wrong here. Info sys is listed , it’s owned correctly by company’s like Vanguard and investment banks who know what they are doing and can raise bonds when needed. Rishi probably doesn’t even know who info sys are Are you seriously saying Sunak doesn’t know about the company his father-in-law started and his wife is a major shareholder in
His father-in-law as a result is a multi-billionaire and one of the richest people in India.
His wife’s shares generated over £230m in the past several years but because of her “non-dom” status (until revealed) she paid no tax on that. Nor did she pay tax on it in India (where she claims to be domiciled) as her shares are held in trust in Mauritius (a tax haven).
3% sounds such a small number doesn’t it! 3% of a huge number is still a very big amount! And that is current share ownership not what they sold to investers.
But sure, Sunak has no idea!
Same as when as Chancellor following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine he issued strongly worded guidance against British firms continuing to operate in Russia (ie they should cease). Guess what? Indian registered Infosys continued to operate in Russia and actually grew their business hoovering up the contracts vacated by British firms.
But the date?
I don't disagree that even 3% is still a large number. Do we draw a line at a financial value or a share %?
I think it's a bit disingenuous to call Ms Murthy a 'major shareholder' at 0.93%"Trying to get clarity before I respond re date. God forbid I mislead anyone
I suspect the date is less important than the conflict of interest though. | |||
| |||
"Digital ID is a process, where you have a unique number that stores all your details.....think of an electronic identity card. It will, in time, replace other ID schemes, such as Goverment Gateway. " Thanks
This makes it even more confusing that a supplier would already be agreed. It is going to take sometime to get approval for such a far reaching ID and there would be no way of knowing what is in or out of scope of delivery. | |||
"Digital ID is a process, where you have a unique number that stores all your details.....think of an electronic identity card. It will, in time, replace other ID schemes, such as Goverment Gateway. Thanks
This makes it even more confusing that a supplier would already be agreed. It is going to take sometime to get approval for such a far reaching ID and there would be no way of knowing what is in or out of scope of delivery."There is a Goverment briefing paper from last year, detailing everything. It's a good read...if you like that sort of thing! | |||
"P.S. market cap for Infosys means an individual (rather than an institution) owning 0.9% would make her a major shareholder. However, this starts to feel like semantics to me. She (and therefore her husband our PM) will benefit financially from Govt policy and legislation that he has influence over. It is a conflict of interest." So we're basing 'major' shareholding on share value, rather than share %. This gets a bit confusing 
I will put this out there now, I agree that if infosys were awarded the contract there would be a conflict. is anyone better placed where there aren't any 'mates of ministers' involved? | |||
"P.S. market cap for Infosys means an individual (rather than an institution) owning 0.9% would make her a major shareholder. However, this starts to feel like semantics to me. She (and therefore her husband our PM) will benefit financially from Govt policy and legislation that he has influence over. It is a conflict of interest. So we're basing 'major' shareholding on share value, rather than share %. This gets a bit confusing
I will put this out there now, I agree that if infosys were awarded the contract there would be a conflict. is anyone better placed where there aren't any 'mates of ministers' involved?"Plenty of companies where a Minister or their family will not directly benefit. As I said above, I believe Infosys should be barred from bidding for UK Govt contracts for as long as Sunak is a minister in any capacity. If this gets more widely reported (probably won’t) it will be interesting to see if Infosys continues to be involved. | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service." I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable " What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around "Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both. | |||
| |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both."Hateful Gold right there Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'. You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK. Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries. Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away. She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal. Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation! How irresponsible. | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
"Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little. The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense. But you keep defending tax avoiders. | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders."How many people did she employ in the UK? How much tax, not personal did she pay to the UK through employment, corporation, stamp duty and any others? If she contributes or contributed nothing, I’m with you | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders."I will because we are all able to avoid tax and stay legal. It's like saying 'keep defending people doing 38mph in a 40mph zone'.
As for 'a lot of words to say very little', I have read too many of your jealous, and hitherto increasingly hateful, posts so the verbosity must have rubbed off.
It's disturbing that you're comfortable trying to blacken Mrs Sunak's name. Have a look at the Stephen Kinnock case. No doubt, you'll return declaring him and his Danish wife whiter than white, which many lefties did as well, after South Wales Police gave him a ticking off in lockdown for dad's red birthday cake visit.
Now, the blue birthday cake in lockdown over 150 miles away in London, action had to be taken!
Curry and beer in Durham? "Nothing to see there. Not even Angela Rayner. Oh wait, is that a photo you've got of her there? Err yes, she was there. Internal admin error" .
It should be in the Labour manifesto that you can always rely on them to deliver breathtaking hypocrisy.
Then deny it, admit it when proof emerges and then get off with it! | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders.
I will because we are all able to avoid tax and stay legal. It's like saying 'keep defending people doing 38mph in a 40mph zone'.
As for 'a lot of words to say very little', I have read too many of your jealous, and hitherto increasingly hateful, posts so the verbosity must have rubbed off.
It's disturbing that you're comfortable trying to blacken Mrs Sunak's name. Have a look at the Stephen Kinnock case. No doubt, you'll return declaring him and his Danish wife whiter than white, which many lefties did as well, after South Wales Police gave him a ticking off in lockdown for dad's red birthday cake visit.
Now, the blue birthday cake in lockdown over 150 miles away in London, action had to be taken!
Curry and beer in Durham? "Nothing to see there. Not even Angela Rayner. Oh wait, is that a photo you've got of her there? Err yes, she was there. Internal admin error" .
It should be in the Labour manifesto that you can always rely on them to deliver breathtaking hypocrisy.
Then deny it, admit it when proof emerges and then get off with it! "You really should change your username to "what about Labour". | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders.
I will because we are all able to avoid tax and stay legal. It's like saying 'keep defending people doing 38mph in a 40mph zone'.
As for 'a lot of words to say very little', I have read too many of your jealous, and hitherto increasingly hateful, posts so the verbosity must have rubbed off.
It's disturbing that you're comfortable trying to blacken Mrs Sunak's name. Have a look at the Stephen Kinnock case. No doubt, you'll return declaring him and his Danish wife whiter than white, which many lefties did as well, after South Wales Police gave him a ticking off in lockdown for dad's red birthday cake visit.
Now, the blue birthday cake in lockdown over 150 miles away in London, action had to be taken!
Curry and beer in Durham? "Nothing to see there. Not even Angela Rayner. Oh wait, is that a photo you've got of her there? Err yes, she was there. Internal admin error" .
It should be in the Labour manifesto that you can always rely on them to deliver breathtaking hypocrisy.
Then deny it, admit it when proof emerges and then get off with it! "Interesting. Can you show me where I have defended Labour MPs when they have done something wrong? I hold all MPs to a higher standard than a member of the general public. I hold all Ministers to an even higher standard than MPs. They are public servants. They are supposed to serve us and our best interests, not serve themselves. On another thread I was told I detested the Conservatives. I don’t. However, I do detest the current executive and have done since Johnson. And as per the other thread, I don’t even think the current batch are “Conservatives”. They are almost unrecognisable compared to past generations and ideology. I find this binary tribalism approach many seem to have to be both reductive and highly juvenile. I don’t (and wouldn’t) wear a blue or res tie. I want what is beet for the country, society, my neighbours and me, not what is best for the ministers, their families and cronies. I think we are currently being governed by a batch of corrupt self serving crooks and if they were Labour I would say so too! It seems you don’t hold them to the same standards because they are your “team”! | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders.
How many people did she employ in the UK? How much tax, not personal did she pay to the UK through employment, corporation, stamp duty and any others?
If she contributes or contributed nothing, I’m with you "Not 100% sure of the point you are making (still early and need tea) but I think you implying that someone who creates businesses and employment in the UK and then those companies pay corp tax, employer NI and the staff pay IC and NI, then that makes it ok for that business founder to play the system and avoid paying personal taxes? I say no! Her non-dom status was questionable and only tackled when found out. I see a pattern of behaviour of questionable activity only being addressed when found out (caught). It’s as if being Chancellor with ultimate influence over HMRC and tax policy gives you some kind of exemption? | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders.
I will because we are all able to avoid tax and stay legal. It's like saying 'keep defending people doing 38mph in a 40mph zone'.
As for 'a lot of words to say very little', I have read too many of your jealous, and hitherto increasingly hateful, posts so the verbosity must have rubbed off.
It's disturbing that you're comfortable trying to blacken Mrs Sunak's name. Have a look at the Stephen Kinnock case. No doubt, you'll return declaring him and his Danish wife whiter than white, which many lefties did as well, after South Wales Police gave him a ticking off in lockdown for dad's red birthday cake visit.
Now, the blue birthday cake in lockdown over 150 miles away in London, action had to be taken!
Curry and beer in Durham? "Nothing to see there. Not even Angela Rayner. Oh wait, is that a photo you've got of her there? Err yes, she was there. Internal admin error" .
It should be in the Labour manifesto that you can always rely on them to deliver breathtaking hypocrisy.
Then deny it, admit it when proof emerges and then get off with it!
Interesting. Can you show me where I have defended Labour MPs when they have done something wrong? I hold all MPs to a higher standard than a member of the general public. I hold all Ministers to an even higher standard than MPs. They are public servants. They are supposed to serve us and our best interests, not serve themselves.
On another thread I was told I detested the Conservatives. I don’t. However, I do detest the current executive and have done since Johnson. And as per the other thread, I don’t even think the current batch are “Conservatives”. They are almost unrecognisable compared to past generations and ideology.
I find this binary tribalism approach many seem to have to be both reductive and highly juvenile. I don’t (and wouldn’t) wear a blue or res tie. I want what is beet for the country, society, my neighbours and me, not what is best for the ministers, their families and cronies. I think we are currently being governed by a batch of corrupt self serving crooks and if they were Labour I would say so too! It seems you don’t hold them to the same standards because they are your “team”!"Hmm no response? BTW I did obviously notice your deliberate use of the words “blacken” and “whiter than white”. Implying racism is really poor behaviour and is neither big nor clever! | |||
| |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it." Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it. | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders.
I will because we are all able to avoid tax and stay legal. It's like saying 'keep defending people doing 38mph in a 40mph zone'.
As for 'a lot of words to say very little', I have read too many of your jealous, and hitherto increasingly hateful, posts so the verbosity must have rubbed off.
It's disturbing that you're comfortable trying to blacken Mrs Sunak's name. Have a look at the Stephen Kinnock case. No doubt, you'll return declaring him and his Danish wife whiter than white, which many lefties did as well, after South Wales Police gave him a ticking off in lockdown for dad's red birthday cake visit.
Now, the blue birthday cake in lockdown over 150 miles away in London, action had to be taken!
Curry and beer in Durham? "Nothing to see there. Not even Angela Rayner. Oh wait, is that a photo you've got of her there? Err yes, she was there. Internal admin error" .
It should be in the Labour manifesto that you can always rely on them to deliver breathtaking hypocrisy.
Then deny it, admit it when proof emerges and then get off with it!
Interesting. Can you show me where I have defended Labour MPs when they have done something wrong? I hold all MPs to a higher standard than a member of the general public. I hold all Ministers to an even higher standard than MPs. They are public servants. They are supposed to serve us and our best interests, not serve themselves.
On another thread I was told I detested the Conservatives. I don’t. However, I do detest the current executive and have done since Johnson. And as per the other thread, I don’t even think the current batch are “Conservatives”. They are almost unrecognisable compared to past generations and ideology.
I find this binary tribalism approach many seem to have to be both reductive and highly juvenile. I don’t (and wouldn’t) wear a blue or res tie. I want what is beet for the country, society, my neighbours and me, not what is best for the ministers, their families and cronies. I think we are currently being governed by a batch of corrupt self serving crooks and if they were Labour I would say so too! It seems you don’t hold them to the same standards because they are your “team”!
Hmm no response? BTW I did obviously notice your deliberate use of the words “blacken” and “whiter than white”. Implying racism is really poor behaviour and is neither big nor clever!"No response? Some of us have jobs to do & cannot constantly patrol the forums throughout the more usual working morning hours. Unlike some, whose ultra Tory-like business deals & wealth creation tactics allow them to do so, whilst simultaneously strutting around in a nauseating & hypocritical self righteous manner. You say you're not left wing /snowflake but there you go trying I assume to ban perfectly innocuous phrases like 'whiter than white' ! Comedy gold. Only the left want to rename Blackpool, man hole cover etc. As author of those phrases, I can assure you, as no other can do, that there was no intent to imply you're racist. There, does that satisfy you? Probably not, as being left leaning, you'll have the final judgement on this, no due process, all very Zahawi and Raab-like. You do realise that your intolerant, 'I'm always right cos I'm left', approach is what results in Trump? All the more reason to use the banned words and phrases vigorously and without apologies! I will consider further but right now, back to work | |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it. "If you applied this logic to everything, HS2 would never have begun | |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it.
If you applied this logic to everything, HS2 would never have begun"And...? | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders.
I will because we are all able to avoid tax and stay legal. It's like saying 'keep defending people doing 38mph in a 40mph zone'.
As for 'a lot of words to say very little', I have read too many of your jealous, and hitherto increasingly hateful, posts so the verbosity must have rubbed off.
It's disturbing that you're comfortable trying to blacken Mrs Sunak's name. Have a look at the Stephen Kinnock case. No doubt, you'll return declaring him and his Danish wife whiter than white, which many lefties did as well, after South Wales Police gave him a ticking off in lockdown for dad's red birthday cake visit.
Now, the blue birthday cake in lockdown over 150 miles away in London, action had to be taken!
Curry and beer in Durham? "Nothing to see there. Not even Angela Rayner. Oh wait, is that a photo you've got of her there? Err yes, she was there. Internal admin error" .
It should be in the Labour manifesto that you can always rely on them to deliver breathtaking hypocrisy.
Then deny it, admit it when proof emerges and then get off with it!
Interesting. Can you show me where I have defended Labour MPs when they have done something wrong? I hold all MPs to a higher standard than a member of the general public. I hold all Ministers to an even higher standard than MPs. They are public servants. They are supposed to serve us and our best interests, not serve themselves.
On another thread I was told I detested the Conservatives. I don’t. However, I do detest the current executive and have done since Johnson. And as per the other thread, I don’t even think the current batch are “Conservatives”. They are almost unrecognisable compared to past generations and ideology.
I find this binary tribalism approach many seem to have to be both reductive and highly juvenile. I don’t (and wouldn’t) wear a blue or res tie. I want what is beet for the country, society, my neighbours and me, not what is best for the ministers, their families and cronies. I think we are currently being governed by a batch of corrupt self serving crooks and if they were Labour I would say so too! It seems you don’t hold them to the same standards because they are your “team”!
Hmm no response? BTW I did obviously notice your deliberate use of the words “blacken” and “whiter than white”. Implying racism is really poor behaviour and is neither big nor clever!
No response? Some of us have jobs to do & cannot constantly patrol the forums throughout the more usual working morning hours. Unlike some, whose ultra Tory-like business deals & wealth creation tactics allow them to do so, whilst simultaneously strutting around in a nauseating & hypocritical self righteous manner.
You say you're not left wing /snowflake but there you go trying I assume to ban perfectly innocuous phrases like 'whiter than white' ! Comedy gold. Only the left want to rename Blackpool, man hole cover etc.
As author of those phrases, I can assure you, as no other can do, that there was no intent to imply you're racist. There, does that satisfy you? Probably not, as being left leaning, you'll have the final judgement on this, no due process, all very Zahawi and Raab-like.
You do realise that your intolerant, 'I'm always right cos I'm left', approach is what results in Trump?
All the more reason to use the banned words and phrases vigorously and without apologies!
I will consider further but right now, back to work "Apology accepted. I guess I see that your posts are always carefully considered and your words chosen very carefully (and your pedantry around grammar etc), hence me seeing your use of “blackened” in reference to Mrs Sunak and “whiter than white” in reference to Kinnock (and his Danish wife that you felt compelled to mention for some reason) as having some implied meaning! Perhaps not? By the way, is it only lefties who are snowflakes? Is it only lefties that care about corruption or manipulating public office to financially reward oneself and family? As I said in the earlier post, I really do find this binary tribalist politics reductive and juvenile! | |||
"Interesting how many of you zoned in on the Digital ID rather than the conflict of interest? Maybe the fault of my OP? I do not know enough about Digital ID to have a strong opinion yet. My interest is Ministers and the Prime Minister having the ability to instigate policy and legislation that will ultimately benefit them financially. IMHO Infosys should not be allowed to bid for any UK Government contracts as long as Sunak is a Minister in any capacity. Call me old fashioned but I would say that is a clear conflict of interest. Now I am not talking about a Minister having a share portfolio that includes some elements in sectors that benefit. That is just a diversified investment portfolio. But a direct (and I include spouse/spouse’s family in this) financial interest should be a big no! " Its a politician thing, conflict of interest only applies to any one but a politician. | |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it. "This is the same as my question. Personally I think the contact should go to the company that's best for the country / tax payer. It should certainly be declared that certain people have an interest in the company but I don't think that should prevent the tax payer over paying. | |||
| |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it.
This is the same as my question. Personally I think the contact should go to the company that's best for the country / tax payer. It should certainly be declared that certain people have an interest in the company but I don't think that should prevent the tax payer over paying."Nailed it | |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it.
This is the same as my question. Personally I think the contact should go to the company that's best for the country / tax payer. It should certainly be declared that certain people have an interest in the company but I don't think that should prevent the tax payer over paying."I disagree. It is similar to insider trading which is illegal. Ministers have access to privileged information that can give competitive edge in the tendering process. They also have the ability to put into motion policy and legislation that can benefit these companies and therefore themselves. It is a clear conflict of interest and not good for the tax payer. In this case, Infosys secured a place on the framework/roster before Sunak became a minister. What will be interesting to look into will be whether Infosys have won more Govt contracts since that point. | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders.
I will because we are all able to avoid tax and stay legal. It's like saying 'keep defending people doing 38mph in a 40mph zone'.
As for 'a lot of words to say very little', I have read too many of your jealous, and hitherto increasingly hateful, posts so the verbosity must have rubbed off.
It's disturbing that you're comfortable trying to blacken Mrs Sunak's name. Have a look at the Stephen Kinnock case. No doubt, you'll return declaring him and his Danish wife whiter than white, which many lefties did as well, after South Wales Police gave him a ticking off in lockdown for dad's red birthday cake visit.
Now, the blue birthday cake in lockdown over 150 miles away in London, action had to be taken!
Curry and beer in Durham? "Nothing to see there. Not even Angela Rayner. Oh wait, is that a photo you've got of her there? Err yes, she was there. Internal admin error" .
It should be in the Labour manifesto that you can always rely on them to deliver breathtaking hypocrisy.
Then deny it, admit it when proof emerges and then get off with it!
Interesting. Can you show me where I have defended Labour MPs when they have done something wrong? I hold all MPs to a higher standard than a member of the general public. I hold all Ministers to an even higher standard than MPs. They are public servants. They are supposed to serve us and our best interests, not serve themselves.
On another thread I was told I detested the Conservatives. I don’t. However, I do detest the current executive and have done since Johnson. And as per the other thread, I don’t even think the current batch are “Conservatives”. They are almost unrecognisable compared to past generations and ideology.
I find this binary tribalism approach many seem to have to be both reductive and highly juvenile. I don’t (and wouldn’t) wear a blue or res tie. I want what is beet for the country, society, my neighbours and me, not what is best for the ministers, their families and cronies. I think we are currently being governed by a batch of corrupt self serving crooks and if they were Labour I would say so too! It seems you don’t hold them to the same standards because they are your “team”!
Hmm no response? BTW I did obviously notice your deliberate use of the words “blacken” and “whiter than white”. Implying racism is really poor behaviour and is neither big nor clever!
No response? Some of us have jobs to do & cannot constantly patrol the forums throughout the more usual working morning hours. Unlike some, whose ultra Tory-like business deals & wealth creation tactics allow them to do so, whilst simultaneously strutting around in a nauseating & hypocritical self righteous manner.
You say you're not left wing /snowflake but there you go trying I assume to ban perfectly innocuous phrases like 'whiter than white' ! Comedy gold. Only the left want to rename Blackpool, man hole cover etc.
As author of those phrases, I can assure you, as no other can do, that there was no intent to imply you're racist. There, does that satisfy you? Probably not, as being left leaning, you'll have the final judgement on this, no due process, all very Zahawi and Raab-like.
You do realise that your intolerant, 'I'm always right cos I'm left', approach is what results in Trump?
All the more reason to use the banned words and phrases vigorously and without apologies!
I will consider further but right now, back to work
Apology accepted. I guess I see that your posts are always carefully considered and your words chosen very carefully (and your pedantry around grammar etc), hence me seeing your use of “blackened” in reference to Mrs Sunak and “whiter than white” in reference to Kinnock (and his Danish wife that you felt compelled to mention for some reason) as having some implied meaning! Perhaps not?
By the way, is it only lefties who are snowflakes? Is it only lefties that care about corruption or manipulating public office to financially reward oneself and family?
As I said in the earlier post, I really do find this binary tribalist politics reductive and juvenile!"You misspelt 'offered' as 'accepted' Nowt to apologise for here. Just setting out what I meant and that there was no implied racism. Too many people these days go looking for offence, when innocent phrases like 'black economy' and 'whiter than' white' are used. My point is that "whiter than white" refers to moral purity. It has nothing to so with skin colour. How on earth you referred to Black Wednesday in 1992 is anyone's guess. And refer to it copiously, you'd have had to! Come to think of it, what do you do about Black Friday each year? Of course all reasonable people are concerned about corruption. But Mrs Sunak was not being corrupt, she was acting entirely legally. | |||
"So Mr Sunak foes seem awfully keen to get Digital ID into law by 30th April. I wonder why? Dig under the surface and one finds a minor little detail... His wife's family's company, InfoSys will be awarded the contract to provide the service. I get the conflict of interest and agree it's not a good situation. As another poster mentioned, where do you draw the line. I have zero on or of this company or any possible competing companies but as an example: if infosys have an excellent track record of this type of work and do it for a very good price, in fact the cheapest available and renowned for staying in budget. Now imagine the other companies have a poor track record, charge much higher and are renowned for going over budget. Do we dismiss infosys because the PM wife will benifit or do we does the contact go to the company that is best for the tax payer. Obviously this is totally hypothetical and I do understand your criticism. I just wonder if it's ever acceptable What an excellent post, but none of that will have occurred to the OP who simply exhibits blind spot bias when it comes to the Sunak family. It's why there's a Register of Interests rather than a Register of Conflicts, as sensible, even handed people can see that not everything like this ultimately means 'jobs for the boys'. As long as everything is declared and checked along the way, then if Infosys are the best for the job, they get the job. Green eyed lefties are quite happy making their own money so they can while away the hours on golf courses or forums all day long, but if a Tory dares to create wealth, all hell breaks loose and allegations of nepotism and corruption perpetually fly around
Comedy Gold right there
I have absolutely no problem with Mr & Mrs Sunak making money. Seriously good luck to them. I care if they are enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but not paying their correct or fair share of tax (ie a very spurious non-dom status). I also care if someone is in a senior public office and is able to influence and steer policy and legislation that will result in a personal benefit. It creates a clear conflict of interest.
If (big if actually if you know this industry) Infosys were the best company for the job, then Sunak should not be in a position to aid them securing the contract. So choose. (Prime) Ministerial position or lucrative govt contracts but not both.
Hateful Gold right there
Here we go, you race on here to open up gaslighting threads about Mrs Sunak and then add fuel to the fire with daft comments like 'a very spurious non-dom status'.
You know perfectly well non-domicile status is perfectly legal, with around a quarter of a million non-doms living in the UK.
Moreover, non dom tax reliefs have been a part of the country’s history for centuries.
Mrs Sunak was absolutely well within her legal rights to continue to claim non dom status. She's been here around 10 years and anyway when she’s lived here for 15 years, the non-domicile status falls away.
She's given up the status anyway, so as not to be a distraction to her husband. But of course, you prefer to continue to distract. But you know full well Rishi could never have been PM if there was anything remotely 'spurious' about this, let alone illegal.
Sounds like you're on a permanent hate campaign. The thing is your gaslighting gets people, who don't understand how the tax system in different countries work, all worked up because they think it is something illegal when it is not. It's the same with those on here who don't understand the difference between civil law and criminal law. They get so worked up, they start calling for prison and deportation!
How irresponsible.
Ha ha you used a lot of words to say very little.
The spurious nature of her non-dom status was that she had clearly made her life here. She lived here the majority of the time. Ran her businesses from here. Her kids go to school here. Escaped paying tax by paying £30k fee per year. Not illegal (and I did not say so) but clearly not operating in the real spirit of the rules. Has it all been completely above board, she would not have backed down. The excuse of “not being a distraction” was utter nonsense.
But you keep defending tax avoiders.
I will because we are all able to avoid tax and stay legal. It's like saying 'keep defending people doing 38mph in a 40mph zone'.
As for 'a lot of words to say very little', I have read too many of your jealous, and hitherto increasingly hateful, posts so the verbosity must have rubbed off.
It's disturbing that you're comfortable trying to blacken Mrs Sunak's name. Have a look at the Stephen Kinnock case. No doubt, you'll return declaring him and his Danish wife whiter than white, which many lefties did as well, after South Wales Police gave him a ticking off in lockdown for dad's red birthday cake visit.
Now, the blue birthday cake in lockdown over 150 miles away in London, action had to be taken!
Curry and beer in Durham? "Nothing to see there. Not even Angela Rayner. Oh wait, is that a photo you've got of her there? Err yes, she was there. Internal admin error" .
It should be in the Labour manifesto that you can always rely on them to deliver breathtaking hypocrisy.
Then deny it, admit it when proof emerges and then get off with it!
Interesting. Can you show me where I have defended Labour MPs when they have done something wrong? I hold all MPs to a higher standard than a member of the general public. I hold all Ministers to an even higher standard than MPs. They are public servants. They are supposed to serve us and our best interests, not serve themselves.
On another thread I was told I detested the Conservatives. I don’t. However, I do detest the current executive and have done since Johnson. And as per the other thread, I don’t even think the current batch are “Conservatives”. They are almost unrecognisable compared to past generations and ideology.
I find this binary tribalism approach many seem to have to be both reductive and highly juvenile. I don’t (and wouldn’t) wear a blue or res tie. I want what is beet for the country, society, my neighbours and me, not what is best for the ministers, their families and cronies. I think we are currently being governed by a batch of corrupt self serving crooks and if they were Labour I would say so too! It seems you don’t hold them to the same standards because they are your “team”!
Hmm no response? BTW I did obviously notice your deliberate use of the words “blacken” and “whiter than white”. Implying racism is really poor behaviour and is neither big nor clever!
No response? Some of us have jobs to do & cannot constantly patrol the forums throughout the more usual working morning hours. Unlike some, whose ultra Tory-like business deals & wealth creation tactics allow them to do so, whilst simultaneously strutting around in a nauseating & hypocritical self righteous manner.
You say you're not left wing /snowflake but there you go trying I assume to ban perfectly innocuous phrases like 'whiter than white' ! Comedy gold. Only the left want to rename Blackpool, man hole cover etc.
As author of those phrases, I can assure you, as no other can do, that there was no intent to imply you're racist. There, does that satisfy you? Probably not, as being left leaning, you'll have the final judgement on this, no due process, all very Zahawi and Raab-like.
You do realise that your intolerant, 'I'm always right cos I'm left', approach is what results in Trump?
All the more reason to use the banned words and phrases vigorously and without apologies!
I will consider further but right now, back to work
Apology accepted. I guess I see that your posts are always carefully considered and your words chosen very carefully (and your pedantry around grammar etc), hence me seeing your use of “blackened” in reference to Mrs Sunak and “whiter than white” in reference to Kinnock (and his Danish wife that you felt compelled to mention for some reason) as having some implied meaning! Perhaps not?
By the way, is it only lefties who are snowflakes? Is it only lefties that care about corruption or manipulating public office to financially reward oneself and family?
As I said in the earlier post, I really do find this binary tribalist politics reductive and juvenile!
You misspelt 'offered' as 'accepted'
Nowt to apologise for here. Just setting out what I meant and that there was no implied racism. Too many people these days go looking for offence, when innocent phrases like 'black economy' and 'whiter than' white' are used. My point is that "whiter than white" refers to moral purity. It has nothing to so with skin colour.
How on earth you referred to Black Wednesday in 1992 is anyone's guess. And refer to it copiously, you'd have had to!
Come to think of it, what do you do about Black Friday each year?
Of course all reasonable people are concerned about corruption. But Mrs Sunak was not being corrupt, she was acting entirely legally."I still accept your apology though, glad to know you were not trying to imply any racism on my part. I have zero problem referring to “black” anything. It was you who conjoined “blackened” in relation to a person of colour and “whiter than white” in relation to a caucasian person and his Scandinavian wife (which I still fail to see the relevance of). You also said my actions were “disturbing” followed by colour references. I still have to wonder whether that was deliberate. As I said, you choose words very carefully and invoke grammar policing at every opportunity. So I am not convinced it was just a coincidental use of colloquialisms! Anyway that aside. Mrs Sunak’s tax affairs are hardly squeaky clean, and I think that is why she was advised to drop her non-dom status to make the story go away. She claimed non-dom status and paid a £30k a year fee to not have to declare foreign earnings. That is indeed legal currently (it will be a practice that is stopped under Labour). However, it requires that the individual IS paying tax on their international earnings in their stated domicile. In this case India. Except on her Infosys shares dividends she wasn’t. That is because they are held in an offshore trust in Mauritius, a tax haven. So no tax in the UK where she obviously lives and makes her home and no tax in India where she claims she lives and makes her home AND she was the Chancellor’s wife AND she only changed status when caught! Imagine your outrage if she was Mrs Starmer! | |||
| |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it.
This is the same as my question. Personally I think the contact should go to the company that's best for the country / tax payer. It should certainly be declared that certain people have an interest in the company but I don't think that should prevent the tax payer over paying.
I disagree. It is similar to insider trading which is illegal. Ministers have access to privileged information that can give competitive edge in the tendering process. They also have the ability to put into motion policy and legislation that can benefit these companies and therefore themselves. It is a clear conflict of interest and not good for the tax payer.
In this case, Infosys secured a place on the framework/roster before Sunak became a minister. What will be interesting to look into will be whether Infosys have won more Govt contracts since that point."Which is your right (to disagree). I disagree myself with your view. I don't see a problem with the tax payer getting the best deal in this hypothetical scenario. Personally I don't want the tax payer being fleeced just because the best deal by far has links to a politician. If in my scenario the company in question was only about the same as the competitors or worse then I would agree with you. However the scenario is about a company that is clearly better and clearly the best value for money | |||
"Typical leftie. Determined to be correct. And to take offence. As author of the comments, nobody is better placed than me to know what the intent was. To be clear, it wasn't to imply you're racist and I do not apologise to you. You can carry on accepting apologies where they haven't been offered until you're blue in the face. If that phrase is OK to you? "Oh the irony. | |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it.
This is the same as my question. Personally I think the contact should go to the company that's best for the country / tax payer. It should certainly be declared that certain people have an interest in the company but I don't think that should prevent the tax payer over paying.
I disagree. It is similar to insider trading which is illegal. Ministers have access to privileged information that can give competitive edge in the tendering process. They also have the ability to put into motion policy and legislation that can benefit these companies and therefore themselves. It is a clear conflict of interest and not good for the tax payer.
In this case, Infosys secured a place on the framework/roster before Sunak became a minister. What will be interesting to look into will be whether Infosys have won more Govt contracts since that point.
Which is your right (to disagree). I disagree myself with your view. I don't see a problem with the tax payer getting the best deal in this hypothetical scenario. Personally I don't want the tax payer being fleeced just because the best deal by far has links to a politician. If in my scenario the company in question was only about the same as the competitors or worse then I would agree with you. However the scenario is about a company that is clearly better and clearly the best value for money"Fair enough I see where you are coming from but I suspect your hypothetical scenario is pure fantasy. Infosys are not the best company operating in this sector. | |||
| |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it.
This is the same as my question. Personally I think the contact should go to the company that's best for the country / tax payer. It should certainly be declared that certain people have an interest in the company but I don't think that should prevent the tax payer over paying.
I disagree. It is similar to insider trading which is illegal. Ministers have access to privileged information that can give competitive edge in the tendering process. They also have the ability to put into motion policy and legislation that can benefit these companies and therefore themselves. It is a clear conflict of interest and not good for the tax payer.
In this case, Infosys secured a place on the framework/roster before Sunak became a minister. What will be interesting to look into will be whether Infosys have won more Govt contracts since that point.
Which is your right (to disagree). I disagree myself with your view. I don't see a problem with the tax payer getting the best deal in this hypothetical scenario. Personally I don't want the tax payer being fleeced just because the best deal by far has links to a politician. If in my scenario the company in question was only about the same as the competitors or worse then I would agree with you. However the scenario is about a company that is clearly better and clearly the best value for money
Fair enough I see where you are coming from but I suspect your hypothetical scenario is pure fantasy. Infosys are not the best company operating in this sector. "Well yes it's fantasy as it's hypothetical. I thought I had been clear on that but possibly I was not. I was not referring to the actual company and situation and said I had zero knowledge of it. It was a hypothetical / fantasy question to explore my original question of 'is it ever acceptable to use a company with such links' | |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it.
This is the same as my question. Personally I think the contact should go to the company that's best for the country / tax payer. It should certainly be declared that certain people have an interest in the company but I don't think that should prevent the tax payer over paying.
I disagree. It is similar to insider trading which is illegal. Ministers have access to privileged information that can give competitive edge in the tendering process. They also have the ability to put into motion policy and legislation that can benefit these companies and therefore themselves. It is a clear conflict of interest and not good for the tax payer.
In this case, Infosys secured a place on the framework/roster before Sunak became a minister. What will be interesting to look into will be whether Infosys have won more Govt contracts since that point.
Which is your right (to disagree). I disagree myself with your view. I don't see a problem with the tax payer getting the best deal in this hypothetical scenario. Personally I don't want the tax payer being fleeced just because the best deal by far has links to a politician. If in my scenario the company in question was only about the same as the competitors or worse then I would agree with you. However the scenario is about a company that is clearly better and clearly the best value for money
Fair enough I see where you are coming from but I suspect your hypothetical scenario is pure fantasy. Infosys are not the best company operating in this sector.
Well yes it's fantasy as it's hypothetical. I thought I had been clear on that but possibly I was not. I was not referring to the actual company and situation and said I had zero knowledge of it. It was a hypothetical / fantasy question to explore my original question of 'is it ever acceptable to use a company with such links' "But the point is, you putting forward that hypothetical could be construed as trying to distract or undermine the topic being discussed. We (the world) would be in a pretty poor state if the only company who could do a job was the company that a minister had a financial interest in. The reality is that there is always more than one company who are highly capable and contracts should only be awarded to those where there is no conflict of interest. | |||
"Clear conflict of interest but you can't simply bar an option just because a person profits. So long as it is clear he profits and the option chosen in the end is the best one for the country then that's all there is to it. Obviously I disagree
If the contract is awarded to such a company then there will always be questions over the propriety of the procurement. Better to just avoid it.
This is the same as my question. Personally I think the contact should go to the company that's best for the country / tax payer. It should certainly be declared that certain people have an interest in the company but I don't think that should prevent the tax payer over paying.
I disagree. It is similar to insider trading which is illegal. Ministers have access to privileged information that can give competitive edge in the tendering process. They also have the ability to put into motion policy and legislation that can benefit these companies and therefore themselves. It is a clear conflict of interest and not good for the tax payer.
In this case, Infosys secured a place on the framework/roster before Sunak became a minister. What will be interesting to look into will be whether Infosys have won more Govt contracts since that point.
Which is your right (to disagree). I disagree myself with your view. I don't see a problem with the tax payer getting the best deal in this hypothetical scenario. Personally I don't want the tax payer being fleeced just because the best deal by far has links to a politician. If in my scenario the company in question was only about the same as the competitors or worse then I would agree with you. However the scenario is about a company that is clearly better and clearly the best value for money
Fair enough I see where you are coming from but I suspect your hypothetical scenario is pure fantasy. Infosys are not the best company operating in this sector.
Well yes it's fantasy as it's hypothetical. I thought I had been clear on that but possibly I was not. I was not referring to the actual company and situation and said I had zero knowledge of it. It was a hypothetical / fantasy question to explore my original question of 'is it ever acceptable to use a company with such links'
But the point is, you putting forward that hypothetical could be construed as trying to distract or undermine the topic being discussed.
We (the world) would be in a pretty poor state if the only company who could do a job was the company that a minister had a financial interest in. The reality is that there is always more than one company who are highly capable and contracts should only be awarded to those where there is no conflict of interest."I'm certainly not trying to distract from anything. I was simply asking a question based on previous posts on this thread. I was simply wondering if getting what's best for the country out weighs stopping politicians benefiting. Obviously in an ideal world it would not be a problem but the world is far from ideal. | |||
