More Tory lies

[Unknown user]

22 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

It's nothing to do with liberals.  He's calling the situation as it is.  Indian law says that if she becomes a citizen of a foreign country, her Indian citizenship is automatically revoked.  She's not willing to do that.  He hasn't said she should be required to give up her citizenship; his point is that her foreign citizenship should not of itself allow her to to pretend - for tax purposes - that she isn't domiciled in the United Kingdom.

 

It's bad enough for countries to have liberal rules about residency to make life easier for the rich.  Most modern economies do it, and their rules should be a lot tighter.  But this is way worse.  It is literally taking the piss and chucking it down the throats of British voters, workers and small businesses when the actual sodding Chancellor of the Exchequer's family is offshore for tax purposes.

 

She isn't domiciled in the UK, yet he talks about how she lives in Downing Street, talks about her arrangements "before she moved to this country"

 

Sounds pretty bloody domiciled to me

[dobmisterdobster]

13 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

She isn't domiciled in the UK, yet he talks about how she lives in Downing Street, talks about her arrangements "before she moved to this country"

 

Sounds pretty bloody domiciled to me

 

It's called being a resident. That's not a loophole, that's the status-quo set by different Labour and Tory governments.

 

I noticed tax-dodging multi-millionaire socialist Gary Lineker isn't happy about this one bit. Somebody needs to give him some chocolate milk to cheer him up.

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

It's called being a resident. That's not a loophole, that's the status-quo set by different Labour and Tory governments.

 

I noticed tax-dodging multi-millionaire socialist Gary Lineker isn't happy about this one bit. Somebody needs to give him some chocolate milk to cheer him up.

 

I'm well aware of what it is, I'm well aware that she's domiciled, or resident, in the UK, and I'm well aware that the rich can be both domiciled and legally non domiciled to their benefit.

 

It's absolute ****ing bullshit is what I'm saying, although I also note that he seems to know some things about his wife's finances after all.

[Ulysses]

8 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

It's called being a resident. That's not a loophole, that's the status-quo set by different Labour and Tory governments.

 

I noticed tax-dodging multi-millionaire socialist Gary Lineker isn't happy about this one bit. Somebody needs to give him some chocolate milk to cheer him up.

 

A resident of where?  Betelgeuse Five?

 

Go on then.  Tax dodging?  That's potentially defamatory.  Care to share?

 

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

She isn't domiciled in the UK, yet he talks about how she lives in Downing Street, talks about her arrangements "before she moved to this country"

 

Sounds pretty bloody domiciled to me

 

Either she is domiciled in the UK and should be paying tax (and she can do that while continuing to be an Indian citizen), or else she isn't, and the Chancellor is being economical with the truth when he says she is.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

It's nothing to do with liberals.  He's calling the situation as it is.  Indian law says that if she becomes a citizen of a foreign country, her Indian citizenship is automatically revoked.  She's not willing to do that.  He hasn't said she should be required to give up her citizenship; his point is that her foreign citizenship should not of itself allow her to to pretend - for tax purposes - that she isn't domiciled in the United Kingdom.

 

It's bad enough for countries to have liberal rules about residency to make life easier for the rich.  Most modern economies do it, and their rules should be a lot tighter.  But this is way worse.  It is literally taking the piss and chucking it down the throats of British voters, workers and small businesses when the actual sodding Chancellor of the Exchequer's family is offshore for tax purposes.

 

 

I'm going to say that second paragraph again, but this time in bold.

 

It's bad enough for countries to have liberal rules about residency to make life easier for the rich.  Most modern economies do it, and their rules should be a lot tighter.  But this is way worse.  It is literally taking the piss and chucking it down the throats of British voters, workers and small businesses when the actual sodding Chancellor of the Exchequer's family is offshore for tax purposes.

[dobmisterdobster]

39 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

A resident of where?  Betelgeuse Five?

 

Go on then.  Tax dodging?  That's potentially defamatory.  Care to share?

 

 

 

 

 

Either she is domiciled in the UK and should be paying tax (and she can do that while continuing to be an Indian citizen), or else she isn't, and the Chancellor is being economical with the truth when he says she is.

 

Resident of the UK. Pays taxes on her UK operations. Domiciled in the country of her birth where she pays taxes on her Indian operations.

 

The UK has an agreement with India and many other countries not to double tax non-dom individuals. We have no business taxing income generated in India.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/game-on-as-taxman-goes-after-gary-lineker-for-5million-d9qnbg07q

Quote

The taxman claims that Lineker, 60, owes £3.62 million in income tax and £1.31 million in national insurance 👀👀👀

 

Celebs creating their own businesses to reduce their tax burden is the oldest trick in the book.

Edited April 8, 2022 by dobmisterdobster

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Resident of the UK. Pays taxes on her UK operations. Domiciled in the country of her birth where she pays taxes on her Indian operations.

 

The UK has an agreement with India and many other countries not to double tax non-dom individuals. We have no business taxing income generated in India.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/game-on-as-taxman-goes-after-gary-lineker-for-5million-d9qnbg07q

 

Celebs creating their own businesses to reduce their tax burden is the oldest trick in the book.

 

 

If that is the case, why couldn't Sunak just front up and tell the truth?  I know, I know, there's an obvious humorous answer to the question, or else we wouldn't have this thread title.   But if you can summarise it in a line, surely he can as well?  Unless, of course....

 

The point I posted twice about taking the piss by going offshore stands anyway.

 

I didn't read your link for the Lineker story, as it's behind a paywall.  But I read the story in a number of other locations including this:

 

https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/entertainment/2021/05/07/news/gary-lineker-targeted-by-hmrc-over-4-9m-tax-bill-2314866/

 

They all make the point that HMRC have tried this against a number of other presenters, most notably Lorraine Kelly, and lost.  They also all make the point that the taxpayer didn't do anything wrong - the problem is the complexity of the rules.  It's a bit of a stretch to use that to call someone a tax dodger, though if you disagree with their politics and you feel bitter enough you'd probably consider it fair game.  I see that unionist trolls play the same game regularly with Martin Compston.

 

I also saw that some poor unfortunate conservative lummox with thousands of followers make the same "tax-dodger" accusation about Lineker earlier today on Twitter and then had to delete it after Lineker suggested it might be in his best interest.  A fella would want to be careful - though if he's alt-right hit's probably waaaaay too late for that. 

 

 

[dobmisterdobster]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

If that is the case, why couldn't Sunak just front up and tell the truth?  I know, I know, there's an obvious humorous answer to the question, or else we wouldn't have this thread title.   But if you can summarise it in a line, surely he can as well?  Unless, of course....

 

The point I posted twice about taking the piss by going offshore stands anyway.

 

I didn't read your link for the Lineker story, as it's behind a paywall.  But I read the story in a number of other locations including this:

 

https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/entertainment/2021/05/07/news/gary-lineker-targeted-by-hmrc-over-4-9m-tax-bill-2314866/

 

They all make the point that HMRC have tried this against a number of other presenters, most notably Lorraine Kelly, and lost.  They also all make the point that the taxpayer didn't do anything wrong - the problem is the complexity of the rules.  It's a bit of a stretch to use that to call someone a tax dodger, though if you disagree with their politics and you feel bitter enough you'd probably consider it fair game.  I see that unionist trolls play the same game regularly with Martin Compston.

 

I also saw that some poor unfortunate conservative lummox with thousands of followers make the same "tax-dodger" accusation about Lineker earlier today on Twitter and then had to delete it after Lineker suggested it might be in his best interest.  A fella would want to be careful - though if he's alt-right hit's probably waaaaay too late for that. 

 

 

 

It's basically a case of glass houses. Designating yourself as an independent contractor through your own media company instead of an employee of the broadcaster itself in order to pay less tax isn't illegal.

 

But doing so then publicly scolding others for doing something similar is foolish and will attract criticism.

Taking legal action against people who called you mean names on the internet is kinda sad.

[dobmisterdobster]

5 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

I'm going to say that second paragraph again, but this time in bold.

 

It's bad enough for countries to have liberal rules about residency to make life easier for the rich.  Most modern economies do it, and their rules should be a lot tighter.  But this is way worse.  It is literally taking the piss and chucking it down the throats of British voters, workers and small businesses when the actual sodding Chancellor of the Exchequer's family is offshore for tax purposes.

 

[Dazo]

Jeez some morning knickers in a right state over something perfectly legal. 
 

Can’t say I’m a fan of taxing peoples business interests abroad just because they decide to live in the UK. 

[Sooperstar]

Is the Tory party a cult?

[Japan Jambo]

12 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

I don’t like Dom women 

and she is non Dom apparently 

😀👏

[WorldChampions1902]

12 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

I don’t like Dom women 

and she is non Dom apparently 

 

[Japan Jambo]

6 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Resident of the UK. Pays taxes on her UK operations. Domiciled in the country of her birth where she pays taxes on her Indian operations.

 

The UK has an agreement with India and many other countries not to double tax non-dom individuals. We have no business taxing income generated in India.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/game-on-as-taxman-goes-after-gary-lineker-for-5million-d9qnbg07q

 

Celebs creating their own businesses to reduce their tax burden is the oldest trick in the book.

 

 Well overdue a look particularly when you overlay the virtue signalling employed by many of them. Too many hypocrites for my liking.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Mrs Sunak does not own a home in India, her apparent country of residence.

 

Dancing on the head of a pin.

[jack D and coke]

Tradesman for example you’re at it doing a cash job, money you’re going straight out the pub with or tescos btw but a billionaire can live here, enjoy whatever the country provides, husband is the in the actual ****ing govt   makes laws that hits families for around an extra £2.6k a year but helps protects his own mrs income  have three houses, children schooled here, cars galore etc etc but claim non dom (you have to choose to do that btw) and pay next to jack shit and probably has most of the money offshore. One rule for the super rich and one rule for us  

Its legal aye but it’s not right. 

[Cade]

Non-doms are like Rangers/The Rangers/Sevco.

 

Nom-doms  are simultaneously a citizen of two nations without actually being resident in either nationality, for tax purposes.

Whereas Rangers are simultaneously a new football club for tax purposes but the old one for trophy statistics.

 

 

Also, it has just been unearthed that both Rishi and his missus both held USA green cards (again, purely for tax purposes) but have let them lapse.

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Cade

[The Mighty Thor]

1 minute ago, Cade said:

Non-doms are like Rangers/The Rangers/Sevco.

 

Nom-doms  are simultaneously a citizen of two nations without actually being resident in either nationality, for tax purposes.

Whereas Rangers are simultaneously a new football club for tax purposes but the old one for trophy statistics.

 

Schrodinger's tax dodgers?

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Cade said:

Non-doms are like Rangers/The Rangers/Sevco.

 

Absolute ****bunnets

 

Ftfy

[Japan Jambo]

Wouldn't think Rishi got his rock'n'roll last night. Decidedly frosty reception at home I have no doubt, I can just imagine the conversation over dinner - So let me get this right you traded in your seven figure salary at Deutsche for a role in Government that pays just under £150k and now I'm expected to pay millions of pounds worth of additional tax for that privilege and do time in the stocks so that you can serve the country?

No wonder folks shy away from politics and we are left with the crap, you have to be a special blend of narcissist/masochist to take this on.

 

I understand that what has been done is legal but I really don't understand how he thought the optics of this would work out well for him, there are far too many shenanigans taking place in the tax code as it is. It badly needs simplified and he's just stymied himself with regard to being able to get stuck into that with any credibility.

 

  

 

[I P Knightley]

9 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Why should she be expected to relinquish her Indian citizenship? It's funny to see liberals obsess over someone's nationality and heritage.

She doesn't have to relinquish citizenship to pay UK tax. She has elected to take advantage of the non-dom status available to her. It stinks to high hell but is above board. 

 

8 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

She isn't domiciled in the UK, yet he talks about how she lives in Downing Street, talks about her arrangements "before she moved to this country"

 

Sounds pretty bloody domiciled to me

I had to take a couple of tax exams when I was doing my CA training and this was probably the area I found most confusing. Not just the terminology ('resident' and 'domiciled' being two different things) but the whole logic of it. Why should someone who brings earnings into a household in the UK be excused from paying tax on those earnings just because of where they were born/grew up? If I remember correctly, the £30,000 one-off fee for non-doms is a more recent addition. They should have just scrapped the whole thing and base tax on residency - not that that is without its own little loopholes. 

 

 

[Ray Gin]

14 hours ago, Victorian said:

"We were the first to split the atom... we're bringing nuclear home... "

 

 

 

 

It's coming home

[Japan Jambo]

5 minutes ago, Cade said:

Non-doms are like Rangers/The Rangers/Sevco.

 

Nom-doms  are simultaneously a citizen of two nations without actually being resident in either nationality, for tax purposes.

Whereas Rangers are simultaneously a new football club for tax purposes but the old one for trophy statistics.

 

 

Also, it has just been unearthed that both Rishi and his missus both held USA green cards (again, purely for tax purposes) but have let them lapse.

 

 

mmm, a US green card conveys residence privileges at the expense of subjecting you to worldwide income, it would almost certainly result in paying more tax not less. It's complicated being rich and mobile.

[The Mighty Thor]

8 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

Decidedly frosty reception at home I have no doubt

Now there's a question. Just where is Mrs Sunak's home?

[Japan Jambo]

6 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

She doesn't have to relinquish citizenship to pay UK tax. She has elected to take advantage of the non-dom status available to her. It stinks to high hell but is above board. 

 

I had to take a couple of tax exams when I was doing my CA training and this was probably the area I found most confusing. Not just the terminology ('resident' and 'domiciled' being two different things) but the whole logic of it. Why should someone who brings earnings into a household in the UK be excused from paying tax on those earnings just because of where they were born/grew up? If I remember correctly, the £30,000 one-off fee for non-doms is a more recent addition. They should have just scrapped the whole thing and base tax on residency - not that that is without its own little loopholes. 

 

 

 

It's about the cash at the end of the day; given the mobility of the wealthy and the choices they have open to them if the tax system isn't advantageous they will simply park themselves somewhere that is. You can be sure that someone at the treasury (working for Rishi paradoxically) will have a model of the laffer curve relating to non-dom tax and they'll be tweaking it to maximise the take. Issue with the whole thing is that that it creates some glaring injustices. 

[Japan Jambo]

1 minute ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Now there's a question. Just where is Mrs Sunak's home?

 

No question in my mind that it's 11 Downing Street. This will be quite the bun fight.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 minute ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

No question in my mind that it's 11 Downing Street. This will be quite the bun fight.

Quite. 

 

The dripping tap of Tory sleaze.

 

The Patrick Maguire contribution is popcorn-tastic.

 

Up to their baws in it. All of them.

 

[Victorian]

17 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

It's coming home

 

Using world leading uranium,  mined in Buckinghamshire.

[jambos are go!]

The deafening silence from Sturgeon on Cambo, North Sea expansion and new Nuclear Stations speaks volumes about the    nonsense that is their current policies in the post Ukraine world.

[The Mighty Thor]

We've not had a week in Tory for a few weeks. This one is as stark as ever.

 

 

Keep voting Tory ya mugs 👍

[Don Dan]

Sunak will be gone by the end of next week. This is escalating at a rate of knots. Johnson is delighted no doubt but his time is coming the party is over even though the fat lady has lost her voice. 

[Mikey1874]

8 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Resident of the UK. Pays taxes on her UK operations. Domiciled in the country of her birth where she pays taxes on her Indian operations.

 

The UK has an agreement with India and many other countries not to double tax non-dom individuals. We have no business taxing income generated in India.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/game-on-as-taxman-goes-after-gary-lineker-for-5million-d9qnbg07q

 

Celebs creating their own businesses to reduce their tax burden is the oldest trick in the book.

 

I liked the bit that she's avoiding tax in India too. Fairs fair. 

[jack D and coke]

30 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

The deafening silence from Sturgeon on Cambo, North Sea expansion and new Nuclear Stations speaks volumes about the    nonsense that is their current policies in the post Ukraine world.

The Scottish govt haven’t been consulted regards the North Sea or anything regards energy.  Its reserved matter you see. 
Thought the oil and gas was aw running oot anyway? Half a century left now?  

[jack D and coke]

33 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

We've not had a week in Tory for a few weeks. This one is as stark as ever.

 

 

Keep voting Tory ya mugs 👍

Absolutely scandalous stuff  

Whit aboot krankie tho…

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

36 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

The deafening silence from Sturgeon on Cambo, North Sea expansion and new Nuclear Stations speaks volumes about the    nonsense that is their current policies in the post Ukraine world.

You're on the wrong tread.

[Cade]

India "you owe us tax"

Non-dom: "sorry, I live in London"

 

UK: "you owe us tax"

Non-dom: "sorry, I'm Indian"

 

India and UK talk to each other about it

"sorry, I'm a US citizen"

 

[A Boy Named Crow]

1 hour ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

mmm, a US green card conveys residence privileges at the expense of subjecting you to worldwide income, it would almost certainly result in paying more tax not less. It's complicated being rich and mobile.

Aye, and you can't just "let it lapse", I'm told  if you decide you no longer want to be a US resident they tax you a % of your assets for giving up your green card. The alternative is to pay US taxes on your global income for the rest of your life. 

 

Unless you actually want to live in Anerica the rest of your days, I just can't see why you'd want one!

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Non-doms are like Rangers/The Rangers/Sevco.

 

Nom-doms  are simultaneously a citizen of two nations without actually being resident in either nationality, for tax purposes.

Whereas Rangers are simultaneously a new football club for tax purposes but the old one for trophy statistics.

 

 

Also, it has just been unearthed that both Rishi and his missus both held USA green cards (again, purely for tax purposes) but have let them lapse.

 

Quite an appropriate analogy.  👍   Meanwhile all the people who were convicted of fraud during its death & re-incarnation  now seem to winning their appeals against the  Procurator Fiscal for  wrongful practice in bringing the cases in the first place.    Scottish taxpayers now have the privilege of paying for all this.      

 

 

 

 

[Don Dan]

Hands: “It is not a loan, it is a discount which is taken back in the form of a levy.”

Bruce: “You are not being given it, you have to pay it back.”

Hands: “No, not necessarily. It is given to the individual and it is taken back at the point at which it is levied.”
 

talk about a 3 card trick 

 

https://apple.news/AZ5KcpieQQvKHFJ-qi4PGNw
 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Imaman

[Unknown user]

4 hours ago, Dazo said:

Jeez some morning knickers in a right state over something perfectly legal. 
 

Can’t say I’m a fan of taxing peoples business interests abroad just because they decide to live in the UK. 

 

Mug

[joondalupjambo]

28 minutes ago, Imaman said:

Hands: “It is not a loan, it is a discount which is taken back in the form of a levy.”

Bruce: “You are not being given it, you have to pay it back.”

Hands: “No, not necessarily. It is given to the individual and it is taken back at the point at which it is levied.”
 

talk about a 3 card trick 

 

https://apple.news/AZ5KcpieQQvKHFJ-qi4PGNw
 

 

 

Got to give him some credit because he never even flinched from the party line when folk were laughing, good man he will go far in the Tory party😄 These are the types needed for the future of politics in this country.

 

If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck it's a duck.   No this is where you are wrong, it is a not a duck, it is a bird.

[Cade]

Well, to be fair, it's not a loan to any one person.

 

New first-time homeowners over the next 5 years will be paying back the "loan", which they never got, as they weren't home owners back in 2022.

It's not even a loan to your property either, as anyone moving into a new build over the next 5 years will also still be paying back the "loan", even though that house hadn't been built in 2022.

 

ALL energy bills are being reduced by £200 and then ALL energy bills are being put up by £40 for 5 years to pay it back.

 

Of course, as more homes are built over the 5 year term, the energy companies will end up taking in more than the original discount.

There are around 27.8million households in the UK at the moment, and this has been growing about 6% every 10 years.

So we can project that 3% more houses will be built over the next 5 years, or 166,000 each year.

166,000 new homes in year 1 will "pay back" the full £200 "loan" even though they never got a "loan" in the first place.
166,000 new homes in year 2 will pay back £160
Year 3 pay back £120 each
Year 4 pay £80
Year 5 pay £40

In total that's £99.6 million in "repayments" made by people that never got the loan in the first place. 
The energy companies get free money over and above the price cap increases.

Essentially, the Government is forcing the population to give the energy companies 3% more money over 5 years for energy they never used.

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Cade said:

Well, to be fair, it's not a loan to any one person.

 

New first-time homeowners over the next 5 years will be paying back the "loan", which they never got, as they weren't home owners back in 2022.

It's not even a loan to your property either, as anyone moving into a new build over the next 5 years will also still be paying back the "loan", even though that house hadn't been built in 2022.

 

ALL energy bills are being reduced by £200 and then ALL energy bills are being put up by £40 for 5 years to pay it back.

 

Of course, as more homes are built over the 5 year term, the energy companies will end up taking in more than the original discount.

There are around 27.8million households in the UK at the moment, and this has been growing about 6% every 10 years.

So we can project that 3% more houses will be built over the next 5 years, or 166,000 each year.

166,000 new homes in year 1 will "pay back" the full £200 "loan" even though they never got a "loan" in the first place.
166,000 new homes in year 2 will pay back £160
Year 3 pay back £120 each
Year 4 pay £80
Year 5 pay £40

In total that's £99.6 million in "repayments" made by people that never got the loan in the first place. 
The energy companies get free money over and above the price cap increases.

Essentially, the Government is forcing the population to give the energy companies 3% more money over 5 years for energy they never used.

 

 

Indeed.  It's a sort of loan(for some)+daylight robbery type scheme.

 

But at least they can deny it's a normal loan with a straight face.  Job done.

[RobboM]

1 hour ago, Imaman said:

Hands: “It is not a loan, it is a discount which is taken back in the form of a levy.”

Bruce: “You are not being given it, you have to pay it back.”

Hands: “No, not necessarily. It is given to the individual and it is taken back at the point at which it is levied.”
 

talk about a 3 card trick 

 

https://apple.news/AZ5KcpieQQvKHFJ-qi4PGNw
 

 

 

Pretty sure he is a regular poster on this thread 😂

[manaliveits105]

5 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

The deafening silence from Sturgeon on Cambo, North Sea expansion and new Nuclear Stations speaks volumes about the    nonsense that is their current policies in the post Ukraine world.

Fair comment 

[maroonlegions]

As if Lord Pickles hadn't made enough of a fool of himself for one day...

 

THELONDONECONOMIC.COM

Eric Pickles gets number of Grenfell dead wrong in inquiry debacle

Lord Pickles made blunder after blunder at the Grenfell Inquiry on Thursday.

 

 

That man sums up your Tory..

 

Selfservatives to the core.

 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Fair comment 

Deflection from a Tory politician who cant tell the difference from a loan and daylight robbery..  

 

People getting poorer, in work poverty off the scale.. 

 

Great strides in tackling child poverty too..

 

Really hope the public never forget Party Gate while some of their loved ones died ALONE.

 

You must be beaming with pride in the Tories..

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Deflection from a Tory politician who cant tell the difference from a loan and daylight robbery..  

 

People getting poorer, in work poverty off the scale.. 

 

Great strides in tackling child poverty too..

 

Really hope the public never forget Party Gate while some of their loved ones died ALONE.

 

You must be beaming with pride in the Tories..

 

 

That village has a lot to answer for. 

[maroonlegions]

 

 

 

Pay 30k to dodge 20 million, its a no brainer, if you have no interest in the welfare and living conditions of the electorate.

 

Sunak is a con man.

 

 

[Victorian]

On the pathetic number of visas granted to Ukrainian refugees and asked why Global Gobshites are always playing catch-up compared to other countries,  Patel reckons "it's not about catch-up".

 

Aye? You can say that again.  It's about not catching up.  Amirite?

 

We're not in the EU and it's only right that we operate our own rules.  Apparently.

 

Aye.  Brexit opportunities.  The opportunity to look the other way.