Video Summary

The troubling situation surrounding Rachel Reeves has raised significant concerns about accountability and fairness in political conduct. Initially believed to be a minor error, her failure to secure a necessary licence for property rental has sparked outrage when compared to the hefty fines imposed on other landlords for similar oversights.

Despite her apology and claims of the agent's fault, many argue that the repercussions do not appear uniform across the board. Critics highlight a perceived double standard in governance, where politicians are held to different standards than ordinary citizens receiving heavy penalties for comparable infractions.

Furthermore, this lack of consistency fosters distrust, especially as various politicians frequently criticize others for rule violations while seeming to evade similar consequences themselves.

In the wake of notable changes within the royal family, particularly concerning Prince Andrew, discussions of justice and accountability continue to dominate public discourse. The King's recent decision to strip Andrew of his titles raises essential questions about the integrity of the monarchy and the necessity of fair legal processes. As the public seeks answers about these pressing issues, it remains crucial to ensure that rules apply equally to all, regardless of status.

Transcript

Let's talk about why this situation with Rachel Reeves is so bad. A lot of people are saying, "Well, she's apologised. Let's just move on." And you might think so, but you may not think that at the end of this video.

So, in a nutshell, if you're not familiar with the situation, she broke the law. I've explained what the law is and how it applies in my Black Belt Barrister video. On that point, we're here on Black Belt Secrets. If you didn't realise, I've got multiple channels. I do that to try to split the content out. So, please do subscribe here as well. It is growing very rapidly, thanks to you all.

But let's talk about why this is so bad. In a nutshell, she broke the law because she was supposed to have a licence to rent out the property. She didn't. She initially wrote to Karma and said, "We didn't realise we needed a licence, so we didn't get one." When the email surfaced, she then said, "Well, actually, it was the agent's fault. They said they were going to apply for it. It's £900." And there’s an email exchange, I'll show you in a minute. Then she changed her tune and said that it was actually the agent's fault. But Karma has said, "Well, never mind. I accept that you didn't act in bad faith. No further investigation, no further action. Tickety-boo. Let's all move on."

The reason that is so bad, among others, is that we have situations like this one here, where a landlord was given £66,000 worth of fines for exactly the same thing and has now been forced to sell the property to cover those costs. In this case, this landlord faced £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. The council hit the company with £165,000 per flat and fined him personally another £165,000 per flat, which was £66,000 in total for a simple oversight.

Now, if it's an oversight for this landlord and he's been fined £66,000, but it's also an oversight for Rachel Reeves and her husband, why are they not also fined the same sort of amount and pursued in the same way? I mean, they might be; we don't know yet. But at the moment, it looks like, you know, no foul, no further investigation. Let's all move on because you've apologised.

Now, why all of that stinks to so many people, I don't like the phrase, but I use it because it’s sort of poignant and it sort of makes the point. The reason that stinks to lots of people is because, and it's one thing I hate about politics, we've got lots of politicians who incessantly criticise each other for having a drink when they're not supposed to, or, you know, because of lockdown rules, or getting, you know, David Lammy fishing without a fishing licence, or someone getting some kind of fixed penalty for something or other.

Now, all of these might be fine. You might think that everyone in office should have absolutely impeccable behaviour, never get anything wrong, never get a fine or anything of the sort. Now, I don't happen to agree with that because I think that's just realistically impossible. Everyone at some stage is going to get a fine at some point. But that's not the point. It’s the dual nature, the two-tier approach.

Because if you listen to Kharma himself, this is his approach to people breaking those rules. He said, "I was the director of public prosecutions that prosecuted MPs for breach of the expenses rule. So, I know how to take tough decisions. And if I get into power, I want to clean this up. I don’t think it’s acceptable to simply say, 'Well, it goes on. It’s priced in. It’s all right.' It isn’t all right. It needs to be cleaned up, because millions of people out there do not want one rule for those in government and another rule for everybody else. That is not acceptable. And I would make it clear that if I were prime minister, I’d clean that up."

So absolutely crystal clear. He couldn’t have been clearer. If people were breaking the rules, he won’t stand for it. And he’s not the only one. They’ve all said it. This brings us back to Rachel Reeves from 2021. Again, have a listen. "A whole growing feeling that there’s one rule for those at the top and another for everybody else that we need to root out of our politics." Very short and sweet, but that’s exactly what she said.

There’s another one: "It now turns up that the very people at the top of government, making these rules for everybody else, didn’t think that they applied to them. I don’t think that we can have a situation where there’s one set of rules for one group of people and another for everybody else."

And so that is precisely the problem. A lot of them will complain that there’s one set of rules for quote people at the top and another for everybody else. But that is precisely what’s happened here.

With the rapid increase of reports and complaints and police intervention with social media posts and comments that people subjectively find offensive or have reason to complain about, I would encourage you to take the steps to remain anonymous. That is why I very proudly support NordVPN on my channel. I strongly recommend, if you are not using a VPN already, NordVPN is in my view the leading VPN in the market. It will help you to remain anonymous and avoid malicious websites and downloads. NordVPN does not keep any logs of what you do online. They’ve been audited a fifth time by a world-renowned firm to ensure that their claims about no logs are accurate.

Again, as I say, I will not encourage you to send nasty things, but if you’re worried about it, staying anonymous is certainly one shield of protection for you. As a partner to my channel, you get a great discount, with an additional four months free off the plan using the code blackbeltsecrets. Check out NordVPN today because this one case is just one example of a landlord being fined for exactly the same thing.

There’s another one underneath it that says, "A landlord who let a house of multiple occupation licence lapse faced a nightmare scenario: £125,000 per property for operating an unlicensed, £17,000 for breaches of HMO management regulations, £85,000 for regulation 7 breaches, £125,000 for failing to comply with the electrical safety regulations, and a total staggering £15,000."

The reason for these rules is clear; they are to lift the standards. They are supposed to lift the standards of the properties in those areas. The reason for the rules, the reason for the regulations, is to hold the landlords accountable for higher standards, to eliminate the lower standard properties. A house of multiple occupancy, if you’ve got multiple families living in there, it’s going to be more difficult to keep those standards.

So, the reason for the licences is clear. It isn’t, in my view, okay to just say, well, she’s apologised for it, blamed the agent, and moved on. A strict reading of the legislation shows it’s a strict liability offence. It doesn’t matter if you intend to or ought to have known, and phrases like that don’t apply here.

If we are going to apply these rules, they should be applied across the board to everybody in exactly the same way. It really ought to be the case that she is either fined by the council or prosecuted for it; not just allowed to get away with it. That is why so many people are upset. To those saying, "Well, she’s apologised. It’s just a small error," this is why it’s not such a small deal. It may have just been a simple error, they may have just relied on the agent, but it’s still their responsibility to have it.

Those are my thoughts on that, and I did say I would come to those emails just to briefly show you because those emails that were revealed. The email quite clearly says, "We will also need a gas safety certificate and electrical installation condition report which is a relatively new requirement. Would you like us to organise this for you?" Once we’ve got that in hand, we will need to apply for a licence under the selective licensing scheme by the southern council. So, this was in July.

These are the ones that apparently have now surfaced to give Rachel Reeves cause to write a second letter to Karma to say actually it was the agent’s fault. From the property owner, presumably Rachel Reeves’ husband, I understand from the letters she has published it says, "Can you confirm the cost for arranging the gas and electricity certificates and for applying for the selective licence?" The agent said the selective licence will be £900.

There’s the question; they must surely have realised that they were going to have to pay this money and didn’t pay it. The agent then said, "I don’t apply for the licence until we actually have the tenants moved in, and this payment won’t need to be paid until after move-in." The response from the property owner Rachel Reeves or her husband was, "Yes, please go ahead with the PAT test and the selective licence." They did tell them to go ahead and do it, but it’s still their responsibility to have that done.

In the second part of the video, major news regarding Andrew, formerly Prince Andrew. More about that in just a minute. Groundbreaking news here: a royal communication statement from Buckingham Palace. His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, title, and honours of Prince Andrew. He will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. His lease on Royal Lodge has provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notices now been served to surrender the lease, and he will move to alternative private accommodation.

These censures are deemed necessary notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him. Now a lot of people have speculated and raised very legitimate, reasonable questions. First of all, is he not innocent until proven guilty? Why remove his titles, and if they do have information or evidence that might show otherwise, why not proceed to prosecution? Is it just the fact that he’s caught up in the scandal?

We don’t really know. Many people thought they could remove titles but not the princely title, which even surprised me at first. This is now the latest announcement, and so let’s talk about the removal of a princely title from someone who is heir to the throne. This is obviously a decision by the reigning monarch. The king gets to decide based on any personal, familial, or reputational grounds. There’s no specific criteria.

But obviously, the scandal is what has given rise to this consideration. These changes are known as letters patent. I’ve talked about these before, and they are very few and far between in terms of history. Questions are also now raised about Andrew remaining in the line of succession despite being stripped of all his titles. As far as I know, he is still on the royal family website as being eighth in line of succession. An act of Parliament will need to be introduced to change this, but the government is not going to pursue this with parliamentary time at the moment, according to a Number 10 spokesperson.

They say that there are no plans to make legislative changes. Those decisions will be up to MPs and Parliament. This is a major move by the king. There is, in my view, enough of a scandal that constantly chips away at the reputation of the royal family to warrant this removal of titles. Whether or not there will be any prosecution for anything, if there is any evidence behind the allegations, which he denies, remains to be seen. A lot of people believe there ought to be a full prosecution if there is enough evidence to support this decision to remove his titles and honours. That’s quite a lot to take in for just a couple of days' turnaround. So, please leave me your thoughts and comments below. Remember to subscribe to the channel. We are here on Black Belt Secrets, my sort of outlet channel.