egg

That's your interpretation. In your mind her question to her advisor (she says her conveyancers, not her ifa) was something like "how do I pay minimum sdlt on the purchase". Her question may have been "how much sdlt do I have to pay "? She could have even followed up the answer with "are you sure" and been told yes. In short, you're making up your own narrative, and we don't know the facts. Fwiw, I think it looks bloody awful, and am surprised that a conveyancer would dare give sdlt advice around a trust arrangement. That's accountant territory every day of the week.

Good stuff! Congratulations to her on qualifying.

I'd tell her to avoid residential conveyancing completely. No real law involved, full of admin, they're the front line of money laundering, etc. All for shit fees.

Our posts crossed mate.

Stepping back for a moment, and playing devil's advocate, what's unclear is: What she told the conveyancer. What the conveyancer actually advised. Whether the conveyancer suggested that she seek external tax advice (I don't know any conveyancers who don't). What her intentions were re tax, ie to seek to minimise her obligations. She's thrown the conveyancer under the bus. I think much depends on what they have to say, although lawyer/client privilege means we won't hear their side of the story.

Why should anyone have to doubt the professional advice that they are given, and seek a second opinion? The suggestion that she should so because of her job is ridiculous. She took advice, as she should, and relied on it as much as anyone else. The second opinion came after it was suggested that she took a misstep. The only hypocrisy I'm reading today is that sportspeople shouldn't pay tax based on poor advice whereas politicians should, and also get the sack.

That makes zero sense in this context. We all have to pay tax. As someone who claims to mix with high rollers, you ought to know that professional advice is taken and relied upon. SDLT is complex. I'd hazard a guess that the lawyer may not have had full information about the Trust, especially if she had to obtain court approval to provide the information. She's as entitled to rely on professional advice as the sports people who people have sympathy for, and anyone else. It's neither incompetent nor dishonest to rely on advice from a professional who ought to have given the correct advice.

On the main thread, we have a thread about footballers and other professional sports people taking and relying on professional advice, then coming a cropper and being exposed to tax after the event. Here we have a politician who's followed legal advice which has been wrong. I appreciate that she needs to maintain the highest standards given her public office, but, it's interesting to read support for footballers being given duff advice (but may have been aware that they were trying to avoid tax) and mass criticism of a politician who claims that she was negligently advised and sought specialist Counsel when a potential issue came to light.

I'm largely with him, although I'm 5/10. I don't compare to where we were last time we were in the championship as I don't see that as a necessary comparison. Looking at the spine of the team compared to last season's fiasco, GK is weaker, CB is the same, CM is minus a big Les (and maybe Aribo) and up a Jander who may improve us, AM is minus a Fernandes and up and Azaz so no better, and CF is no stronger. Then there's the outside areas. RB is different and very good but probably not better, LB is similar. LW and RW are arguably down but I'll take Fellows and Scienza over a reluctant Dibling and variable Kamaldeen. The wage bill is massively down, but we still have players we don't want or need. My 5 may be a bit harsh, but the spine of a team is vital, and it's no better despite all the ins and outs, and arguably we're no better elsewhere either. What's pleasing though is we've recruited players who'll be really good at this level.

The 2 situations are not remotely comparable.

I haven't watched it yet, but have read about it. For me this highlights a few issues. I've worked with top flight players, and have met with them and their agents. These guys put a ridiculous amount of trust and faith in their agents, and any other outside advisors, most all but working on a "just tell me what to do and I'll do it" basis. Sadly, there's a lot of naivety, generally. There's also a bit of a herd mentality, and if one player who is seen as savvy does something that sounds like a good idea, others follow. If anyone, or firm, gets a decent name in the game, the good word spreads and they'll clean up. I've even known it with the brokers that source high end cars for players, get one player at a club and sort them out, you'll get the rest, then when that lad moves and has an influence in the changing room, then you get players from his next club. Putting aside the rights and wrongs of tax avoidance schemes ( but, 1. if you play with fire you get burnt, 2. if it sounds too good to be true, it is), I can imagine these guys were told this was the best thing to do, saw other people doing it, and followed the herd. At the end of the day, the lives of people who've followed advice from people who owed them a duty of care have been massively affected. Very sad carry on.

You criticise tax rises, whilst singling out our increasing debt, and increased borrowing costs. There's a disconnect there. The markets want to see financial prudence If we accept that more borrowing isn't the answer, and you've ruled out tax rises, what's the solution to reducing the fiscal black hole to the satisfaction of the markets?

I'm baffled why you think that labour MPs would vote themselves out of a job, and open the doors for a reform government.

In more important news, government borrowing costs have soared, which isn't great when coupled with increased borrowing. Essentially, we're a bit fucked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy989njnq2wo

I'm not sure these are meant as serious points. The government always has, and always will, hire lawyers for any legal matter or court. Nobody would expect Kier or the lord chancellor to pop along to the High Court every time there's a judicial review or some other legal process involving the government would they.

5 for me, although I'm cautious as I haven't the new boys play. Like others have said, GK isn't good, although a Baz upgrade was never in the cards. I'm OK with the CB's and have no issues with Stephens at this level. Hopefully THB picks up, and if he does, the new boys should do well in a back 4. Quarshie looks a year or so away for me, but Mads looks brilliant. CM doesn't have the right balance. Azaz offers us what we need further up, but that doesn't help is further back. Out wide we've recruited really well on the face of it. My main concern though is who's on the end of Fellows balls into the box. I'd like to think Archer will come good, but let's see. In short, CB aside where we're ok, the spine ain't the best imo, but the bits on the side are decent. I think we have a play off squad.

Cute story, but what he does on the pitch is all that matters. Looks promising though.

Wtf are you on about mate. I've never said a word about Trump hiring lawyers. Now hiring his picks as Supreme Court Judges, that's a different matter. When people start criticising a government for hiring lawyers to uphold the law, but applaud a leader who hires Judges to get things done his way, something ain't right.

That's daft even by your standards, and echo chamber fm. Do you honestly think that governments don't always employ decent lawyers to advise and represent it? When the unthinking vote your reform mates in, they will as well.

Under 19's too, so Robinson won't be around either.

Edozie, yes, but not sure about Aribo. I'd like to keep him personally, decent player at this level who will give us another option. If he was on the bench at the weekend, I reckon we'd have won if he came in for Downes.

I suspect he'll stay for a nominal fee, although he'll be fighting for a place with another stellar ex saint RB, Kayne Ramsey.

Not Bree who'll come back here.

Conor Chaplin has joined Pompey. Good signing.

Just odd that he went somewhere where he won't play. His England chances wouldn't have been any less playing for us. Strange move.