Is there anything in politics more shit than the Labour Party?

[Taffin]

49 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

1.   I'm not defending the Labour Party.   I'm commenting on a specific thing concerning an individual person.

 

2.  Nauseating.   

 

 

 

 

The thread's about the Labour party and you're on it making excuses for one of their senior leaders proving their incompetence/deceitfulness yet again. Seems like you're defending them imo. This is a pattern, not an isolated incident from Keir and leadership team.

 

So yes, I do find that hypocrisy nauseating as when it's Boris of Farage or a.n. other from the right you're all over it hand-wringing. 

 

At least be consistent; we either do expect our elected leaders to uphold the highest standards...or we don't. 

 

Amateur psychology - I sense you voted for them and are having issues with reconciling you were wrong and voted for this.

 

Edited October 30 by Taffin

[Gundermann]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

It's emblematic of UK politics right now.   People losing their dignity over a Selective Rental Licence that a letting agent didn't apply for.

 

 

As stooshies go, it's not much. Not a resigning issue IMO. I'm just more depressed at the number of so-called Labour MPs who are content to feather their nests, on top of everything else they receive, by being blood-sucking parasite landlords too.

 

[Victorian]

A letting agent failing to complete a piece of admin in regard to a property let is not equivalent to ALL other instances of current and/or historical conduct in public office.   Not everything is the same or of similar seriousness.   To suggest otherwise is silly.

 

Embarrassing stuff.

[Mr Moncler]

Quite a forgetful lot tho no? 
Angela Raynor forgot to pay her stamp duty, Reeves forgot to register she’s now a slumlord, Starmer forgot Mandelson was bezzie mates with a worldwide sex trafficker and paedo and he’s also forgotten all his manifesto pledges😐

 

[Taffin]

5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

A letting agent failing to complete a piece of admin* in regard to a property let is not equivalent to ALL other instances of current and/or historical conduct in public office.   Not everything is the same or of similar seriousness.   To suggest otherwise is silly.

 

Embarrassing stuff.

 

*A Chancellor failing to complete a piece of admin, not a letting agent. She's still responsible for abiding by the rules, an agent doesn't absolve you of that. Mitigation maybe, but still responsible.

 

Acting in a way that potentially (almost certainly imo) breaks the ministerial code isn't okay. You can rationalise it away saying 'but the Tory bad man did worse', but it's there for a reason. It's either okay to break it, or it's not.

Should she be sacked? Of course not, an apology is ample but pretending it's nothing, or okay, or not her doing is absolutely accepting of one rule for them and one for everyone else 

[Victorian]

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

*A Chancellor failing to complete a piece of admin, not a letting agent. She's still responsible for abiding by the rules, an agent doesn't absolve you of that. Mitigation maybe, but still responsible.

 

Acting in a way that potentially (almost certainly imo) breaks the ministerial code isn't okay. You can rationalise it away saying 'but the Tory bad man did worse', but it's there for a reason. It's either okay to break it, or it's not.

Should she be sacked? Of course not, an apology is ample but pretending it's nothing, or okay, or not her doing is absolutely accepting of one rule for them and one for everyone else 

 

I know she has responsibility.   I said so myself initially in my first mention of it.

 

Nobody once said "it's ok" to make a mistake,  break a rule,  etc.   Never said or suggested.

 

It's an admin error or omission with the mitigation of it being caused by a secondary agency.   I'm not going to be bound by any notion that I have to treat it as an equivalent to any number of unrelated previous instances,  some of which may or may not be worse,  more serious,  less serious,  completely different altogether.

 

Guy once criticised a Tory for doing something dodgy = guy isn't now allowed to say a Labour person's mistake is a non-story.   Not a rule I'll be following.   Thanks all the same.

 

 

[Taffin]

37 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I know she has responsibility.   I said so myself initially in my first mention of it.

 

Nobody once said "it's ok" to make a mistake,  break a rule,  etc.   Never said or suggested.

 

It's an admin error or omission with the mitigation of it being caused by a secondary agency.   I'm not going to be bound by any notion that I have to treat it as an equivalent to any number of unrelated previous instances,  some of which may or may not be worse,  more serious,  less serious,  completely different altogether.

 

Guy once criticised a Tory for doing something dodgy = guy isn't now allowed to say a Labour person's mistake is a non-story.   Not a rule I'll be following.   Thanks all the same.

 

 

 

You can do as you wish of course. I think it's hypocritical based on your previous posting and a complete blind spot on your part to Labour leadership hypocrisy.

 

If she's responsible though why do you keep going on about a 3rd party admin error? It wasn't. It was her error. They only carry out your instruction.

 

I don't think it's a big deal, much the same as I didn't think the COVID parties were a big deal. His no.10 redecorating and Angela Rayner were different kettles of fish though and both were indicative of the parties imo.

Edited October 30 by Taffin

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

You can do as you wish of course. I think it's hypocritical based on your previous posting and a complete blind spot on your part to Labour leadership hypocrisy.

 

If she's responsible though why do you keep going on about a 3rd party admin error? It wasn't. It was her error. They only carry out your instruction.

 

I don't think it's a big deal, much the same as I didn't think the COVID parties were a big deal. His no.10 redecorating and Angela Rayner were different kettles of fish though and both were indicative of the parties imo.

 

1.   It's not hypocritical.   It is viewing each individual item on it's own merits.

 

2.   Labour Party my arse.   I'm not defending the Labour Party.   The Labour Party didn't rent out a home or make an error.   It's an individual person.   I'm not even defending her,  I'm commenting on the specifics of the accusation.

 

3.   The mitigation is the outsourcing to a professional agency.   It's not being suggested as an excuse or defence.   It's quite normal to leave all of the work to the agency in the understanding it's done correctly,  as anyone else would do.

 

4.   Glad you brought up Rayner.   At the time I thought she would be in the clear if she could prove she had done everything right on her part in the best honest faith.   But then it transpired she probably wasn't fully transparent about what she did and knew.   At that point I said on here that her feet wouldn't touch the floor.

 

Does that meet with your rules about what people are permitted to think and say?   If so,  I'm delighted.

 

I'm still going to treat each new news item on it's own merits,  with no assistance sought from you or anyone else.   

 

Cheers.   👍

[Taffin]

26 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

1.   It's not hypocritical.   It is viewing each individual item on it's own merits.

 

Yup, sure...the merits being what colour tie or blouse they wear.

 

26 minutes ago, Victorian said:

2.   Labour Party my arse.   I'm not defending the Labour Party.   The Labour Party didn't rent out a home or make an error.   It's an individual person.   I'm not even defending her,  I'm commenting on the specifics of the accusation.

 

An individual with one of the highest roles in a governing political party with previous for this sort of thing and who chose to appoint her...on a thread about that party. You can see why I'm viewing it as I am surely.

 

26 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

3.   The mitigation is the outsourcing to a professional agency.   It's not being suggested as an excuse or defence.   It's quite normal to leave all of the work to the agency in the understanding it's done correctly,  as anyone else would do.

 

If it's not an excuse or a defence, what's it's relevance? It wouldn't wash for you, nor I. Why should it wash for her, in role like that particularly.

 

It may be normal if your a dough brained goon, but normal people know they're just executing your instruction. My estate agent told me I didn't need to pay second home stamp duty, she was well and truly wrong and thankfully I sought the proper advice or I'd be up the swanny with HMRC. You can't 'outsource' that kind of thing to them as whilst they're a professional agency, they aren't legal advisors 

 

26 minutes ago, Victorian said:

4.   Glad you brought up Rayner.   At the time I thought she would be in the clear if she could prove she had done everything right on her part in the best honest faith.   But then it transpired she probably wasn't fully transparent about what she did and knew.   At that point I said on here that her feet wouldn't touch the floor.

 

That's telling in itself imo.

 

If she'd done everything right on her part it would have never happened. Ignorance isn't a defence.

 

26 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Does that meet with your rules about what people are permitted to think and say?   If so,  I'm delighted.

 

I'm still going to treat each new news item on it's own merits,  with no assistance sought from you or anyone else.   

 

Cheers.   👍

 

As I say, you're more than entitled too. Likewise, I'm entitled to feel it's a load of baloney and that if Raynor, Reeves and Starmer were of the Tory persuasion your leeway would be far less, if not non-existent.

Edited October 30 by Taffin

[Victorian]

21 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Yup, sure...the merits being what colour tie or blouse they wear.

 

 

An individual with one of the highest roles in a governing political party with previous for this sort of thing and who chose to appoint her...on a thread about that party. You can see why I'm viewing it as I am surely.

 

 

If it's not an excuse or a defence, what's it's relevance? It wouldn't wash for you, nor I. Why should it wash for her, in role like that particularly.

 

It may be normal if your a dough brained goon, but normal people know they're just executing your instruction. My estate agent told me I didn't need to pay second home stamp duty, she was well and truly wrong and thankfully I sought the proper advice or I'd be up the swanny with HMRC. You can't 'outsource' that kind of thing to them as whilst they're a professional agency, they aren't legal advisors 

 

 

That's telling in itself imo.

 

If she'd done everything right on her part it would have never happened. Ignorance isn't a defence.

 

 

As I say, you're more than entitled too. Likewise, I'm entitled to feel it's a load of baloney and that if Raynor, Reeves and Starmer were of the Tory persuasion your leeway would be far less, if not non-existent.

 

1.   No the merits of the case.   I can't be help responsible for your ill conceived suspicions.

 

2.   It's the Labour Party thread so probably the most appropriate thread.   Again,  I can't be held responsible for how you view things.   I hope.

 

3.   Once again,  it's the mitigation.   The mitigating circumstances.   Could not have made this clearer.   I can't be held responsible for clear stuff not being clearly understood.

 

4.   It's being suggested she was told by the agency that they would inform her if a Selective Rental Licence was required and did not.   That item will need to remain pending until such time as it develops.   

 

5.   Final paragraph.   Again that's a bit of a presumptuous suspicion and once more I cannot be held responsible for the presumptuous notions of someone else.

 

I can offer no further assistance or insight at this juncture.   I'll leave you to your own thoughts.

Edited October 30 by Victorian

[Ked]

It's really a sad reflection on political life in the UK that the current government are far more palatable than any other mob out there.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

See how we're* suddenly all over the conduct of public officials lads

 

Any comment on Farage's dodgy dealings with his bint's gaff?

 

How about the billions spaffed in the VIP lanes and the criminals in the Tory party behind it still walking about free?

 

Anyone?

 

Anyone?

 

* snowflake easily offended by anything,  right wingers

Edited October 30 by The Mighty Thor

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

The thread's about the Labour party and you're on it making excuses for one of their senior leaders proving their incompetence/deceitfulness yet again. Seems like you're defending them imo. This is a pattern, not an isolated incident from Keir and leadership team.

 

So yes, I do find that hypocrisy nauseating as when it's Boris of Farage or a.n. other from the right you're all over it hand-wringing. 

 

At least be consistent; we either do expect our elected leaders to uphold the highest standards...or we don't. 

 

Amateur psychology - I sense you voted for them and are having issues with reconciling you were wrong and voted for this.

 

Good posting 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Well who would have guessed ? Labour just as shite and corrupt as the previous government ? Moi moi 

[Taffin]

16 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

See how we're* suddenly all over the conduct of public officials lads

 

Any comment on Farage's dodgy dealings with his bint's gaff?

 

How about the billions spaffed in the VIP lanes and the criminals in the Tory party behind it still walking about free?

 

Anyone?

 

Anyone?

 

* snowflake easily offended by anything,  right wingers

 

Think you're on the wrong thread, this one's about the Labour party. The whataboutery one is on page 6 I think.

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Think you're on the wrong thread, this one's about the Labour party. The whataboutery one is on page 6 I think.

Classic deflection from him as per usual mate . 

[The Mighty Thor]

 

 

 

[Victorian]

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c24l7gnp3v2t

 

Rorey Bosotti

Reeves 'would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for' - estate agentpublished at 17:34

17:34Breaking

We've just heard for the first time from the letting agency which oversaw the renting out of Rachel Reeves' former family home.

They were previously declining to comment but Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey Wheeler, has now released a statement - here it is in full:

"We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients' behalf, as shown in the correspondence.

"That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.

"Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply.

"We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.

"At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted.

"Our clients would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. Although it is not our responsibility to apply, we did offer to help with this.

"We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for."

 

In the clear.   Letting agency admit dropping a bollock.   

 

Nut aye nut aye but it's the same as Tory sleaze wut folk moaned aboot.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c24l7gnp3v2t

 

Rorey Bosotti

Reeves 'would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for' - estate agentpublished at 17:34

17:34Breaking

We've just heard for the first time from the letting agency which oversaw the renting out of Rachel Reeves' former family home.

They were previously declining to comment but Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey Wheeler, has now released a statement - here it is in full:

"We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients' behalf, as shown in the correspondence.

"That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.

"Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply.

"We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.

"At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted.

"Our clients would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. Although it is not our responsibility to apply, we did offer to help with this.

"We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for."

 

In the clear.   Letting agency admit dropping a bollock.   

 

Nut aye nut aye but it's the same as Tory sleaze wut folk moaned aboot.

 

Its always aboot defleckshun likesy 

[Victorian]

Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

Its always aboot defleckshun likesy 

 

And apparently such defleckshuns were... let me see now... oh aye... "nauseating".

 

[Taffin]

What's new? The Chancellor didn't carry out or ensure an action that is her responsibility was done...we already knew that  🤷🏻‍♂️

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Its always aboot defleckshun likesy 

Pathetic as usual from you . 🤣🤣🤣

[Victorian]

Just now, Taffin said:

What's new? The Chancellor didn't carry out or ensure an action that is her responsibility was done...we already knew that  🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Deflection imo.

[Taffin]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

Pathetic as usual from you . 🤣🤣🤣

 

I sense some are really struggling to come to terms that Labour are filled with a sleekit bunch of crooks too, and they've legitimised it by voting for them.

[Taffin]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

Deflection imo.

 

Aren't you going to spell it in Scots in a sneering manner?

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

What's new? The Chancellor didn't carry out or ensure an action that is her responsibility was done...we already knew that  🤷🏻‍♂️

They really are quite naive  . 

[Victorian]

Double down.   Double right on down.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

I sense some are really struggling to come to terms that Labour are filled with a sleekit bunch of crooks too, and they've legitimised it by voting for them.

Course . That’s it . Least I know I was voting for a sleekit bunch of crooks . 🤣

[Victorian]

For the hard of thinking...

 

The letting agency admit they told the client that the licence was applied for,  albeit with the disclaimer that they are not under the obligation to do so.   Nonetheless,  the client was told the service was offered and carried out.   Therefore it is no longer a matter of who is legally responsible because that detail is mutually understood.   The actual matter is that the client was informed that their personal responsibility was taken care of on their behalf.   Therefore all of the research in the universe would not have informed the client further.   

 

Keep doubling down though.

[Mr Moncler]

10 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I sense some are really struggling to come to terms that Labour are filled with a sleekit bunch of crooks too, and they've legitimised it by voting for them.

There can’t be a single person in this country that isn’t secretly regretting voting this mob in. 
This budget ain’t gonna be nice either but I’d imagine they’ll still double down. 
The SNP voters do the same up here. 

Starmer and Reeves can get right back to their day job of lying and battering us all into the dirt with extra taxes now the letting agent made a mistake🤣

Righto🤣

Honestly I sometimes think the British people get exactly what they deserve.

 

[Taffin]

5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

For the hard of thinking...

 

The letting agency admit they told the client that the licence was applied for,  albeit with the disclaimer that they are not under the obligation to do so.   Nonetheless,  the client was told the service was offered and carried out.   Therefore it is no longer a matter of who is legally responsible because that detail is mutually understood.   The actual matter is that the client was informed that their personal responsibility was taken care of on their behalf.   Therefore all of the research in the universe would not have informed the client further.   

 

Keep doubling down though.

 

Applied for, not in receipt. We're exactly where we were this afternoon. Absolutely nothing has changed.

 

She'd be in receipt of the permit if they'd done it fully. No matter how much you want it, it's still her responsibility to ensure it's done and to have the permit. Yes, it's an unprofessional cock up from whatever company she's employed but it still doesn't absolve her. Surely when she'd ask for the physical copy or check the digital copy on their portal when having her legal advisers check over it? 

Edited October 30 by Taffin

[Victorian]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

She'd be in receipt of the permit if they'd done it. No matter how much you want it, it's still her responsibility to ensure it's done and to have the permit. Yes, it's an unprofessional cock up from whatever company she's employed but it still doesn't absolve her.

 

Yes it does.   You'll see so if you read what the Ministerial Code says about it.

 

Keep clutching at the legal responsibility straw though.   Even though this is universally understood and accepted.

 

 

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Yes it does.   You'll see so if you read what the Ministerial Code says about it.

 

Keep clutching at the legal responsibility straw though.   Even though this is universally understood and accepted.

 

 

 

Applied for and done are two very different things. What if it was rejected? She'd still be none the wiser.

 

I'd agree with you if they'd told her they had it. They didn't though.

Edited October 30 by Taffin

[Taffin]

5 minutes ago, Mr Moncler said:

There can’t be a single person in this country that isn’t secretly regretting voting this mob in. 
This budget ain’t gonna be nice either but I’d imagine they’ll still double down. 
The SNP voters do the same up here. 

Starmer and Reeves can get right back to their day job of lying and battering us all into the dirt with extra taxes now the letting agent made a mistake🤣

Righto🤣

Honestly I sometimes think the British people get exactly what they deserve.

 

 

They will regret it in time imo. I think we're on an curve here...currently at denial I feel.

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Applied for and done are two very different things. What if it was rejected? She'd still be none the wiser.

 

"We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.

"At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted."

 

IT WAS NOT APPLIED FOR BUT THE CLIENT WAS INFORMED THAT IT HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR.   

 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

They will regret it in time imo. I think we're on an curve here...currently at denial I feel.

 

They'll regret it and then in '29 they'll vote in a proper criminal outfit

[Mr Moncler]

8 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

They'll regret it and then in '29 they'll vote in a proper criminal outfit

Very true, sadly. 
Britain seems messed. 

[Taffin]

18 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

"We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.

"At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted."

 

IT WAS NOT APPLIED FOR BUT THE CLIENT WAS INFORMED THAT IT HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR.   

 

 

HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR. NOT ACCEPTED, NOT ACQUIRED, NOT IN RECEIPT OF.

 

 

[Taffin]

18 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

They'll regret it and then in '29 they'll vote in a proper criminal outfit

 

I hope not but what else is there to vote for?

 

I'll just not vote again so I can snipe in all directions 

[Mr Moncler]

12 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I hope not but what else is there to vote for?

 

I'll just not vote again so I can snipe in all directions 

It’s tragic. Britain feels likes it’s on a death spiral of voting in some mob who are every bit as bad as the ones you pumped out🤦🏽‍♂️

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR. NOT ACCEPTED, NOT ACQUIRED, NOT IN RECEIPT OF.

 

 

 

So?   How could they possibly tell a client a licence was obtained/received when it wasn't applied for?   It was an open-ended oversight.   Any client would be perfectly entitled to believe that a licence they were told was applied for would be received in due course and held by the agency.   

 

If someone was truly demented they might argue that a client should proactively confirm possession of documents they were informed were being applied for.   But I think the large majority of people would accept that the oversight occurred and that the client wouldn't feel the need to mark the homework of a professional agency to discover any mistakes or omissions.

 

All depends on how desperate someone is to continue it as a thing worth frothing about.

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

14 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I hope not but what else is there to vote for?

 

I'll just not vote again so I can snipe in all directions 

lol do what I’ve done . I’ve voted them all at some point 🤣🤣 well apart the greens 

[Taffin]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

So?   How could they possibly tell a client a licence was obtained/received when it wasn't applied for?   It was an open-ended oversight.   Any client would be perfectly entitled to believe that a licence they were told was applied for would be received in due course and held by the agency.   

 

So? Nobody at any stage has told Reeves she had what she needed. It's a significant difference. 

 

Just now, Victorian said:

 

If someone was truly demented they might argue that a client should proactively confirm possession of documents they were informed were being applied for.   But I think the large majority of people would accept that the oversight occurred and that the client wouldn't feel the need to mark the homework of a professional agency to discover any mistakes or omissions.

 

Demented of keen to avoid being in a situation like this they could easily have avoided.

 

It's not marking the homework of them, it's not their area of expertise/homework...your post confirms that further up, they don't normally do it. They just advise it needs done.

 

Just now, Victorian said:

All depends on how desperate someone is to continue it as a thing worth frothing about.

 

 

 

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

lol do what I’ve done . I’ve voted them all at some point 🤣🤣 well apart the greens 

 

Might vote Reform just to piss folk off.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

So? Nobody at any stage has told Reeves she had what she needed. It's a significant difference. 

 

 

Demented of keen to avoid being in a situation like this they could easily have avoided.

 

It's not marking the homework of them, it's not their area of expertise/homework...your post confirms that further up, they don't normally do it. They just advise it needs done.

 

 

 

1.   They wouldn't tell her that.   The application stage was overlooked so it ended up becoming a licence that would never be received.   A missing piece of admin.

 

2.   It's a disclaimer to state that the agency is under no obligation to apply for the licence and that client's retain legal responsibility.   But it is a service they offer.   They did offer the service.   They even told the client the service was performed.   Yes it is their area of expertise... it's a ruddy letting agency for crying out loud.   🤣

 

I'm out.   Concoct some other wild take and claim victory.   You are the champion of missing Selective Rental Licences.   🏅

[Victorian]

https://news.sky.com/story/badenoch-says-hacking-into-harriet-harmans-website-17-years-ago-not-the-same-as-reeves-breaking-law-13460659

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

23 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Might vote Reform just to piss folk off.

 

[Taffin]

According to the BBC they were quoted £900 for it and the PAT testing (🤷🏻‍♂️ fully furnished maybe). 

 

If they've paid it then, yes, they've quite clearly been shafted...albeit still odd to pay nearly a grand for something and not bother to check if it's been done. I keep and file all my EICR certs as the letting agents I've used have been known to have the wrong ones on system.

 

If they haven't, then they quite obviously knew the agency wasn't going to do it.

 

Presumably a journalist will find that out.

 

All that aside - the party of the people and they're all rolling around in excess housing to be rented out 🤔

Edited October 30 by Taffin

[Martin B]

24 minutes ago, Victorian said:

https://news.sky.com/story/badenoch-says-hacking-into-harriet-harmans-website-17-years-ago-not-the-same-as-reeves-breaking-law-13460659

 

Even by Tory standards, Badenoch is incredibly dislikable. 

[Victorian]

6 minutes ago, Martin B said:

Even by Tory standards, Badenoch is incredibly dislikable. 

 

It's a belter,  even mad Kemi's standards.

 

Nut,  nut,  never mind my criminal hacking of a website.   I was in my 20s.   I wasn't even an MP.

 

Symptomatic of the mindset.   Some of these people believe in the political right to reinvent themselves and disown the previous self.   Especially crazed ones think that applies to their whole lives.   Deeply dishonest shit.   She's got other previous.