Labour lose Caerphilly

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12726

She has a record of telling lies.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12726

accrington fan wrote:

if being an MP means you have to be totally squeeky clean in your past and the present the house of commons would be empty. how many of us have doctored our CV and might be about local area rules about renting your own property. dislike her and this government as much as anybody but am getting sick of this checking up of people to find shit on them just like the case of farages girlfriend. where the politicians from the past any better before the internet and half the country seem to think they are journalists.

You could also say how many of us have broken the 30 MPH speed limit but it doesn't matter does it if you get caught breaking it. It's not an excuse and being scrutinized in public life is part and parcel of the job. If you don't want the scrutiny don't take the job but if you do want the job then behave yourself. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and this lot we have in power threw plenty when in opposition. What goes around comes around. Maybe because they got away with beergate they thought they would be untouchable,

Well it turns out they're not.

As for their family members like your example of Farage's girlfriend, I agree entirely. Politicians are fair game but their families are a different kettle of fish and the media should be warned off persecuting them just because of who their spouse etc is.

MutleyRules · **Joined:** Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:38 am **Posts:** 1857

derwent wrote:

MutleyRules wrote:

derwent wrote:

There is something radically wrong with Reeves. She puts on her CV that she was in the Bank of England for ten years when it was five, that her job there was as accountant when she was an admin clerk and now she "wasn't aware" of the renting rules in her local borough. She also thinks, as does Starmer, that an apology is sufficient to get her off the hook.
Boris Johnson apologised over thirty times to Parliament for misleading them but that wasn't enough for Starmer et al, so why should Reeves get away with just an apology??????
Is it the case that the Labour Party is so devoid of talent that she is irreplaceable, despite her foibles and constantly demonstrating that she hasn't a bloody clue.
This Government wasn't prepared for office, isn't capable of running the show and is totally out of it's collective depth.

It was a Lettings Agency that dealt with it not Rachel Reeves herself.
You don't get a Roofing Company to repair your roof and say to them...don't forget to replace the tiles around the chimney. Or a cashier in the Supermarket....don't forget to charge me for the 2 tins of beans.

If it was a letting agency who did the job for her that makes it worse. If she instructed a letting agency to act for her a contract will have been signed. It will be their policy to discuss the terms and conditions of letting through them and you can bet a pound to a piece of pigeon shit that it will have been mentioned in the contract. I can't see a letting agency holding up their hands and saying it was an oversight on their part. They will be doing letting contracts on a regular basis and those contracts are written by legals in legal terms. It will have been their standard contract, unless an individual contract for Reeves was written. If Reeves has signed a contract without reading it or not discussed her responsibilities in the letting process then she is even dafter than I thought. You would have thought that after Rayner's experience she would have checked every avenue to make sure she wasn't committing anything untoward. I hope, for her sake, the income from the rental has been declared because that will be the next investigation. You often mention what happened in the reign of previous Governments and you will remember the stink Labour created when in opposition when these events raised their ugly head. Wouldn't you think that, when they got into power they would move hell and high water to be seen to be squeaky clean. They obviously haven't learnt anything have they???? It's one after the other Mutley and there comes a time when, even you, have to shake your head in disgust. I know one thing for sure that if Jeremy Hunt had been in this situation you would be screaming blue murder. Criminal acts should be dealt with equal vigour despite the colour of their rosette.

Just got in from work and can't be arsed to read all that because usually it's a lot of words that means nothing and tries to deflect...but I might read it tomorrow....might.
But I'll leave you with this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c24l7gn ... be0ab#post

MutleyRules · **Joined:** Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:38 am **Posts:** 1857

Basically and in plain English....the Lettings Agency made THE mistake....not Rachel Reeves.
BTW...I do actually think...in the words of Alan Partridge...she's not very good!!

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 4723

In plain English she wrote to Sir Keir yesterday and said she didn't know a licence was needed. Now it turns out she absolutely did know that a licence was needed. Doesn't get any plainer she lied, again.

Sussex UK · **Joined:** Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:34 pm **Posts:** 3786

This one won't go away..talk about digging yourself a hole.

Sussex UK · **Joined:** Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:34 pm **Posts:** 3786

PTID wrote:

She actively campaigned for the introduction of letting licences in Leeds so it's unbelievable that she let her house without checking that she needed a licence.

Punishable by a fine of up to £30,000 i believe.

"Lawmakers shouldn't be Lawbreakers". :naughty:

jamie1952 · **Joined:** Fri Oct 03, 2025 11:07 am **Posts:** 228

Stocksfield_Poolie wrote:

Mutley, the country is already on its knees. Look around you!

More so Hartlepool named as the 3rd most deprived area in England, Boro are top.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly137089yyo

jamie1952 · **Joined:** Fri Oct 03, 2025 11:07 am **Posts:** 228

Snowy wrote:

You’re obsessed with money, every aspect of filthy lucre……it’s a necessity, not a religion to fall on your knees before……. Ebeneezer.

Of course I am, penny wise but not pound foolish, how many people have been ripped off or scammed over misold policies as they no knowledge of how the financial system works. I worked damn hard for every penny, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth plus you can’t do much without money, it makes the world go round.

jamie1952 · **Joined:** Fri Oct 03, 2025 11:07 am **Posts:** 228

MutleyRules wrote:

jamie1952 wrote:

Typical Daily Mail, they never mention how Farage girlfriend found the funds to buy the house in Clacton or the fact she is part of EU court on November the 5th on alleged fraud charges against her.
The government devoid of talent like the 36 Reform councillors who have resigned, been suspended and jumped ship since May, let’s hope they make a better choice when selecting MPs. Yes a few councillors and MPs have committed misdemeanours but not that many in such a short period of time.

In a perverse kind of way I hope that Reform do get in....the Country will be on its knees within 6 months.

100% agree Mutley, it will be worse than Truss’s short tenure, here is another bit of info which didn’t make the headlines in the MSM,

The Reform UK political party has admitted to a significant error in its VAT compliance, failing to register for the tax on sales from events and merchandise despite exceeding the legal turnover threshold. After inquiries from The Times in October 2025, the party began a review of its finances and pledged to settle any liabilities with HMRC.
Tax experts suggest that the party should have been registered for VAT by late 2024. As a result, Reform UK may have to pay a VAT bill to HMRC, along with potential interest and penalties

MutleyRules · **Joined:** Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:38 am **Posts:** 1857

PTID wrote:

In plain English she wrote to Sir Keir yesterday and said she didn't know a licence was needed. Now it turns out she absolutely did know that a licence was needed. Doesn't get any plainer she lied, again.

In even plainer English and to hopefully stop you clutching at straws....

Gareth Martn, owner of Harvey and Wheeler added: "We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for."

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 4723

It was in quite a few of the the newspapers and ITV reported on it, in fact the whole issue was first raised by the Times so not sure about not being reported by MSM?
Doesn't look good, but most reports state there was no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing so incredible as it may be it seems that the bigger stories are government wrongdoings and subsequent lying to cover their tracks rather than scrutinising a minor political party. There's plenty in the MSM digging up all they can on Reform and Farage in particular, but so far nothing has stuck unlike the constant stream of greed and corruption around our government eh?

Sussex UK · **Joined:** Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:34 pm **Posts:** 3786

I thought you had to pay and sign for a licence..surely she's not that thick to let it slip.and forget.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12726

MutleyRules wrote:

derwent wrote:

MutleyRules wrote:

derwent wrote:

There is something radically wrong with Reeves. She puts on her CV that she was in the Bank of England for ten years when it was five, that her job there was as accountant when she was an admin clerk and now she "wasn't aware" of the renting rules in her local borough. She also thinks, as does Starmer, that an apology is sufficient to get her off the hook.
Boris Johnson apologised over thirty times to Parliament for misleading them but that wasn't enough for Starmer et al, so why should Reeves get away with just an apology??????
Is it the case that the Labour Party is so devoid of talent that she is irreplaceable, despite her foibles and constantly demonstrating that she hasn't a bloody clue.
This Government wasn't prepared for office, isn't capable of running the show and is totally out of it's collective depth.

It was a Lettings Agency that dealt with it not Rachel Reeves herself.
You don't get a Roofing Company to repair your roof and say to them...don't forget to replace the tiles around the chimney. Or a cashier in the Supermarket....don't forget to charge me for the 2 tins of beans.

If it was a letting agency who did the job for her that makes it worse. If she instructed a letting agency to act for her a contract will have been signed. It will be their policy to discuss the terms and conditions of letting through them and you can bet a pound to a piece of pigeon shit that it will have been mentioned in the contract. I can't see a letting agency holding up their hands and saying it was an oversight on their part. They will be doing letting contracts on a regular basis and those contracts are written by legals in legal terms. It will have been their standard contract, unless an individual contract for Reeves was written. If Reeves has signed a contract without reading it or not discussed her responsibilities in the letting process then she is even dafter than I thought. You would have thought that after Rayner's experience she would have checked every avenue to make sure she wasn't committing anything untoward. I hope, for her sake, the income from the rental has been declared because that will be the next investigation. You often mention what happened in the reign of previous Governments and you will remember the stink Labour created when in opposition when these events raised their ugly head. Wouldn't you think that, when they got into power they would move hell and high water to be seen to be squeaky clean. They obviously haven't learnt anything have they???? It's one after the other Mutley and there comes a time when, even you, have to shake your head in disgust. I know one thing for sure that if Jeremy Hunt had been in this situation you would be screaming blue murder. Criminal acts should be dealt with equal vigour despite the colour of their rosette.

Just got in from work and can't be arsed to read all that because usually it's a lot of words that means nothing and tries to deflect...but I might read it tomorrow....might.
But I'll leave you with this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c24l7gn ... be0ab#post

What that article proves is that she did know that a licence was needed because the article says it was discussed and they agreed to sort out the application for her. So she also lied to Starmer in her letter when she said she wasn't aware that a licence was needed. So thanks for that, it proves that she also lied to the independent body that rules on whether standards have been breached.
Why didn't she just say that she was told a licence was needed and that the letting agency had agreed to sort it. Funny the guy who had agreed to sort it suddenly upped and offed. Also she would have had to sign the application for licence documents even though the agency was processing it for her. It stinks Mutters and is one lie after another. She is making herself out to be a twat, please don't let her drag you into it. Get rid.

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 20887

Sussex UK wrote:

This one won't go away..talk about digging yourself a hole.

it will because there will be another name popping up shortly. does not seem that long when it was all about rayner.

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 20887

MutleyRules wrote:

PTID wrote:

In plain English she wrote to Sir Keir yesterday and said she didn't know a licence was needed. Now it turns out she absolutely did know that a licence was needed. Doesn't get any plainer she lied, again.

In even plainer English and to hopefully stop you clutching at straws....

Gareth Martn, owner of Harvey and Wheeler added: "We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for."

so many do not want to know as they,d rather see her doing time. the same ones would probebly have sympathy for a non politician that this has happened to. its another nail in british politics though with people feeling that they are all the same so why bother to vote anyway.

jamie1952 · **Joined:** Fri Oct 03, 2025 11:07 am **Posts:** 228

accrington fan wrote:

Sussex UK wrote:

This one won't go away..talk about digging yourself a hole.

it will because there will be another name popping up shortly. does not seem that long when it was all about rayner.

Newspapers etc employ investigative journalists to dig the dirt up on anyone and everyone to sell newspapers, their not bothered who it is even to the extent of tapping peoples phones

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 20887

jamie1952 wrote:

accrington fan wrote:

Sussex UK wrote:

This one won't go away..talk about digging yourself a hole.

it will because there will be another name popping up shortly. does not seem that long when it was all about rayner.

Newspapers etc employ investigative journalists to dig the dirt up on anyone and everyone to sell newspapers, their not bothered who it is even to the extent of tapping peoples phones

its quite a sad state of affairs that so many people are interested in this type of stuff especially if they are far from squeeky clean themselves.

jamie1952 · **Joined:** Fri Oct 03, 2025 11:07 am **Posts:** 228

derwent wrote:

MutleyRules wrote:

derwent wrote:

MutleyRules wrote:

derwent wrote:

There is something radically wrong with Reeves. She puts on her CV that she was in the Bank of England for ten years when it was five, that her job there was as accountant when she was an admin clerk and now she "wasn't aware" of the renting rules in her local borough. She also thinks, as does Starmer, that an apology is sufficient to get her off the hook.
Boris Johnson apologised over thirty times to Parliament for misleading them but that wasn't enough for Starmer et al, so why should Reeves get away with just an apology??????
Is it the case that the Labour Party is so devoid of talent that she is irreplaceable, despite her foibles and constantly demonstrating that she hasn't a bloody clue.
This Government wasn't prepared for office, isn't capable of running the show and is totally out of it's collective depth.

It was a Lettings Agency that dealt with it not Rachel Reeves herself.
You don't get a Roofing Company to repair your roof and say to them...don't forget to replace the tiles around the chimney. Or a cashier in the Supermarket....don't forget to charge me for the 2 tins of beans.

If it was a letting agency who did the job for her that makes it worse. If she instructed a letting agency to act for her a contract will have been signed. It will be their policy to discuss the terms and conditions of letting through them and you can bet a pound to a piece of pigeon shit that it will have been mentioned in the contract. I can't see a letting agency holding up their hands and saying it was an oversight on their part. They will be doing letting contracts on a regular basis and those contracts are written by legals in legal terms. It will have been their standard contract, unless an individual contract for Reeves was written. If Reeves has signed a contract without reading it or not discussed her responsibilities in the letting process then she is even dafter than I thought. You would have thought that after Rayner's experience she would have checked every avenue to make sure she wasn't committing anything untoward. I hope, for her sake, the income from the rental has been declared because that will be the next investigation. You often mention what happened in the reign of previous Governments and you will remember the stink Labour created when in opposition when these events raised their ugly head. Wouldn't you think that, when they got into power they would move hell and high water to be seen to be squeaky clean. They obviously haven't learnt anything have they???? It's one after the other Mutley and there comes a time when, even you, have to shake your head in disgust. I know one thing for sure that if Jeremy Hunt had been in this situation you would be screaming blue murder. Criminal acts should be dealt with equal vigour despite the colour of their rosette.

Just got in from work and can't be arsed to read all that because usually it's a lot of words that means nothing and tries to deflect...but I might read it tomorrow....might.
But I'll leave you with this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c24l7gn ... be0ab#post

What that article proves is that she did know that a licence was needed because the article says it was discussed and they agreed to sort out the application for her. So she also lied to Starmer in her letter when she said she wasn't aware that a licence was needed. So thanks for that, it proves that she also lied to the independent body that rules on whether standards have been breached.
Why didn't she just say that she was told a licence was needed and that the letting agency had agreed to sort it. Funny the guy who had agreed to sort it suddenly upped and offed. Also she would have had to sign the application for licence documents even though the agency was processing it for her. It stinks Mutters and is one lie after another. She is making herself out to be a twat, please don't let her drag you into it. Get rid.

I get the impression you don’t like Rachael Reeves Dermot, bearing in mind what serious offence has she committed ?

WHO IS THIS DERMOT FELLA JAMIE.

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 4723

When law makers are law breakers it's pretty serious. When law breakers lie to cover their tracks it's worse - she told Starmer she didn't know a licence was required, 24 hours later she had to tell him she knew. Why didn't she just guess up when it was in the public awareness. She's a serial liar and is another liability.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12726

PTID wrote:

When law makers are law breakers it's pretty serious. When law breakers lie to cover their tracks it's worse - she told Starmer she didn't know a licence was required, 24 hours later she had to tell him she knew. Why didn't she just guess up when it was in the public awareness. She's a serial liar and is another liability.

Sums it up perfectly. How can a PM trust a senior cabinet minister who lies to him????

In the words of a deceased friend of mine, a born and bred true, dyed in the wool Cockney gentleman, she has more faces than Big Ben and more front than Brighton. Get rid two tier before your title elevates to three tier or beyond.
Cor Blimey.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12726

accrington fan wrote:

jamie1952 wrote:

accrington fan wrote:

Sussex UK wrote:

This one won't go away..talk about digging yourself a hole.

it will because there will be another name popping up shortly. does not seem that long when it was all about rayner.

Newspapers etc employ investigative journalists to dig the dirt up on anyone and everyone to sell newspapers, their not bothered who it is even to the extent of tapping peoples phones

its quite a sad state of affairs that so many people are interested in this type of stuff especially if they are far from squeeky clean themselves.

When you consider the power that Chancellors of the Exchequer, Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, Chiefs of Police, Judges and any one else of any significance over us the plebs and how they influence millions of lives they should be making every effort to be squeaky clean. Whether you or I are squeaky clean is neither here nor there in the great scheme of things. We are only accountable for ourselves. BUT BUT BUT if we are not sqeaky clean and are up before the Beak for a misdemeanor we are never allowed the excuse "we made a mistake" or "we didn't know". Ignorance is not accepted as an excuse when it comes to us. They know the rules and they know they are under intense scrutiny and You would expect that a cabinet minister, with all the help and advice that is available to her would at least check that her activities are within the law.
The eleventh commandment says "Thou shall not get caught". When you do expect the curtains to close. End of..

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 38680

Much ado about nothing ….. but she is shite.
Would those defending her do the same ii it happened to an opposing party in exactly the same circumstances…..?

PTID · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:07 pm **Posts:** 4723

She told Starmer she applied for the licence when she first realised it was an oversight, it was in the public domain on Wednesday and according to the latest reports she applied for the licence on Friday, so another outright lie. Probably waiting to see if she was going to be sacked and actually have to move back into the house herself and there would then have been no need for one saving £900.
If I was her tenant I'd be lodging a claim for a refund of the rent speculatively.

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 20887

PTID wrote:

When law makers are law breakers it's pretty serious. When law breakers lie to cover their tracks it's worse - she told Starmer she didn't know a licence was required, 24 hours later she had to tell him she knew. Why didn't she just guess up when it was in the public awareness. She's a serial liar and is another liability.

what do we expect as those who are supposed to uphold the law are in many cases the breakers of it and now we have the two tier being seen regularly.

The Poolie Bunker

Labour lose Caerphilly

Who is online