Cameron has speaking and has started by defending his father
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Tax Havens
(835 Posts)We can't possibly let this slip by!
Tory on Radio 4 this morning arguing that we can't tackle the "treasure islands" that we have sovereignty over as it will lose people jobs!
I was astounded. So it is fine for the Steel workers to face penury but not those who help the wealthy to hide their money.
DC implicated - won't be long before GO is mentioned.
.daphne, you list the reasons why I dislike - not hate as accused by niggle - Cameron
I agree with you, ab, but what seems to be happening is that people are forgetting his arrogance, hypocrisy, spin and comments such as the one about Corbyn's suit, which are just plain nasty schoolboy bullying (and it's not the first time he's done it). Some people seem to be letting him off the hook because he's done nothing illegal. I think he should be judged on his arrogance, hypocrisy, disregard for the poor and vulnerable, etc etc. I think it's a shame that it's taken the Panama Papers to wake up media interest. I doubt very much if he'll change, but we'll see.
It doesn't seem Cameron has done anything ilegal , he couldn't have had a more expert advisor than his father.
It's the fact he has been dishonest , seperating his and his fathers tax avoidance from the same as others.
He condemned Jimmy Carr as immoral yet when asked about Gary Barlow doing the same as Carr he said he would not make personal comments
Receiving a large sum of money to cover clothing expenses and mocking a MP in the house over his suit.
Arrogance is unpleasant and I consider him arrogant
Anya, The original leak was made to a German newspaper before the 2015 election, so I don't see how the original intention can have been to smear Cameron. However, I do think that it's possible that the obsession with the Cameron family and ignoring other people involved suits some interest groups very well.
Interestingly, Farage and Johnson are refusing to publish their tax data.
It's seems that Cameron has done nothing illegal, although he is responsible for deciding what's legal and the extent to which his personal circumstances have influenced law-making is a serious issue. I fear that we'll see some 'enquiry' and, once it's shown that Cameron is in the clear, the whole bigger picture will be swept under the carpet.
That's an interesting point you make POGS about Putin, and I believe Assad too.
It makes all this over-concern in the media about Cameron seem insignificant if that was the reasoning behind the leaks.
Yes, there is a much bigger picture to be considered here.
Cameron has said Georgie should published his tax returns
Have you got a crystal ball ab? Your hatred of D.C. is bordering on paranoia and is quite creepy. I'm accused of making horrid comments, that's rich!!!! People in glass houses etc come to mind !
Cameron's speech in the house this afternoon will be more amusing than any comedy. He may start with his love for his father - rather generous considering his mother thought it wrong one son was given far more in the will than the other son! - then he will attack, he always uses - the best form of defence is attack as he goes very red in the face with anger . As a PM and a PR man one would think he would have learned how to conduct himself in public
I think it is utterly immaterial as to the name of this individual, and to pursue this is to deflect attention to what is important. Yes it is an intellectual exercise to try to find out what agenda that individual is pursuing, but in the scheme of things it is small beer.
I believe the files were originally leaked to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, a centre-left German newspaper, starting last year. I remember reading some of them at the time, but didn't take much notice of them. They were mainly about corruption in third world countries and Russia, which was common knowledge. I had no idea that there would be so many files nor that so many people would be named. You're right, POGS, Cameron is a very small player. It seems that by concentrating on him in the UK, we're losing sight of the bigger picture.
There was so much data that the SDZ asked the ICIJ to help analyse the data. I think the BBC, Guardian and Sunday Times are the only UK members of the ICIJ. Presumably they're co-ordinating how and when the information is released. It seems that other newspapers and media sources are picking up on this third hand and coming to their own conclusions.
I agree with you, POGS. It would be interesting to know who hacked/leaked the information in the first place. As ever, there's almost always an agenda with leaks and it would add to the bigger picture, if it were known what the hacker(s)/leaker(s) hoped to achieve. Is it really somebody interested in global corruption? Is it somebody who wants to 'have a go' at individuals? Or is it some spotty computer nerd, who did it just because (s)he could? It would also be interesting to know why the bulk of the information is being released now. The SDZ has had these files for over a year.
Whistleblowers should be protected as a matter of principle. Absolutely no reason to know who, so the messenger is not important, it is the message that we should be concentrating on.
"The Panama Papers have blown the lid on the issue of offshore trusts and companies used to hide the profits and wealth of the rich. Amongst the world leaders and celebrities squirrelling money away from the authorities, we’ve also learnt that 31,000 offshore companies own £170 billion worth of UK property. 10% of those companies were linked to a single law firm at the centre of the Panama Papers, Mossack Fonseca."
We know this because of the Panama Papers and because the Land Registry is still in public hands.
If it is sold off, it might not be possible to find out who owns what land in this country, without paying for the information.
That's why we need to stop the government from selling off Land Registry.
Read my post of 11.24, POGS.
I thought I had moved on to the bigger picture I thought it was.
I am not interested in knowing who it was because that person needs protecting from those who would like to shut him/her up.
Durhamjen
I raised the question in a post as to who hacked/leaked the data of law firm Mossack Foseca and subsequently gave that information to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists/ICIJ. I then mentioned I could only find 3 UK members the BBC, The Guardian and the Sunday Times, meaning as I thought relative connections to the disclosure of the initial leak. What is your point in proving the word' International ' involves journalists from other countries. What is your problem with my concentrating on the UK element of the ICIJ.
You produced a link to something like a further 6 UKmembers. You then accuse me of 'homing in' on one. You are being ridiculous, I did not 'home in' you proffered the name of Paul Myers and now accuse me of 'homing in' on one journalist, being petty and small minded.
The reason behind my mentioning the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the hack/leak is because I am interested as to who is behind it. I have watched a few debates/interviews about it and a lot of comments have surrounded the American Intelligence Agencies and questioned why the journalists /papers who were '!eaked' the story initially were of , shall I say of ' a percieved ' type of political leaning. This may well be a total conspiracy theory . The thought behind the leak by many is not as the UK media or Gransnet posters have made the issue, about David Cameron. There is a widely held suspicion is was about Putin et al and to me that is a far more interesting story and will no doubt be one our lazy media will concentrate on once the soft touch of making it all about Cameron will diminish. I hope so .
You on the other hand have said you are not interested in who leaked/hacked the data but seem intent on dealing with what I see' at times ' as the minutiae , point scoring. We are now in the arena of tit for tat and if my explanation is not suitable for you then it never will so unless you make another personal attack I hope this has ends the saga.
Government has always sat on revenue collectors coat tails.
theconversation.com/six-things-a-tax-haven-expert-learned-from-the-panama-papers-57308
Whistleblowers have to be protected more. Otherwise the big corporations are bound to win. That's why it is not important to know who leaked the Panama papers.
What is important is what happens to those people and companies who are involved in the tax dodging.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/11/if-the-government-is-serious-about-collecting-tax-it-needs-people-at-hmrc-who-believe-in-tax/
About the Guardian article on Ed Troup and his history.
I rest my case!
Roses and niggly trying to deflect again.
Tax cheating is not funny.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/11/if-cameron-is-serious-about-tax-abuse-then-hes-backing-the-wrong-law/
Rosesarered, , when you play wanna be moderator and tell me what to post and what not to post would you mind including 'please'. Thank you. Annie
A very important article this morning by Aditya Chakrabortty that argues that the Panama papers show that there are a significant amount of individuals in the world that are no longer following the rules that the rest of us are expected to live by. The papers show that these individuals are buying political influence like never before and that as a result there is a serious corrosion of democracy.
Plutocracy in the UK in the past 30 years has brought about an era of unrepresentative democracy. With few exceptions our politicians no longer represent or work for us but for the super rich.
Annie give up doing your kind of humour, it's childish and pathetic.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »