Winchester Cathedral.... Your'e bringing me doooown, remember that from the 60's? quite a good song, I will have it in my head all day now.
Good Morning Tuesday 12th May 2026
When a political leader lies on their CV - can you trust them?
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.
"In 3 days the European Parliament will be voting on a law that could silence whistleblowers. MEPs have come under pressure by multinational companies and important players in their party but they also listen to us. Those who vote for them.
If tens of thousands of us let the key power players know in a very public way how we want them to vote, then we have a chance to sway positions.
Tweet now to an MEP and let them know that they need to vote against this law.
If you’re not on twitter, you can still take action and directly email one of the MEPs whose vote is key: Use your own words to tell British Tory MEP Syed Kamall ([email protected]) why he should vote against this law -- the more personalised you make it, the more it will have an impact.
The revelations of the Panama Papers rocked the world, no doubt. But just as surprised as we were, you can bet those involved directly in the scandal were too. It is thanks to those brave people who leaked the Panama Papers for the common good that the ruling elite now know they are not untouchable. And we owe it to those brave people who acted in defence of our rights to act in defence of theirs. A new legislation facilitating lawsuits against them is the last thing they need.
www.wemove.eu/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=3957&qid=2420178
Just been reading the article in the DM. Quite aggressive. I think they've gone off Cameron.
But still have to have admit neither he nor his family have done anything wrong.
It cannot be said they have done nothing wrong until the complete truth is told
dj the daily mail has at least two agendas. The first is to get out of the EU - its owner of course lives off shore. They want to rubbish Cameron as a result
The second is that there is a large element in the Tory party who hate Cameron. They tend to be the newer intake with no culture of what used to be the original one nation Tory, Cameron of course is somewhat from this tradition. The daily mail is on the newer lots side it has no sympathy with the older type of Tory. They want to get rid of Cameron entirely. They were the ones he tried to appease in the referendum - another poor judgement.
durhamjen If you had been reading the DM as long as I have you would know that they have never been a fan of DC.
Why on earth would I read the DM, unless pointed to aspecific article by someone I agree with?
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/10/sometimes-you-just-have-to-smile-about-things-chris-coltrane-on-the-panama-papers/
Channel four asked all 21 cabinet members if they had offshore interests.
Three replied no. The other 18 haven't answered.
Too busy moving their money, obviously, all arranged by Cameron or his dad.
Eh? Now you're just being ridiculous.
Chris Coltrane does swear a lot, but it's effective, don't you think?
Did Channel 4 also ask whether they still beat their wives? That used to be standard questioning where the subject was damned if he said yes and damned if he said no.
Reply "Yes I have/had offshore interests" - result, damned for saying yes.
Reply "No, I do not have/have not had offshore interests" - result, damned for telling lies. ("Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" Mandy Rice-Davies)
Reply "Mind your own business" - result, damned for "refusing to admit it"
No reply at all - result, damned for not giving channel 4 a chance to damn them for any of the other replies.
Just watched it - my sentiments exactly - without the swearing of course!
Cameron paid tax whrn he sold his off shore shares but what did he make during the years the money was invested 1997 to 2010 and why did he invest money off shore
rosesarered Do you really think that there are no Labour/Green members in areas that you call "leafy and nice". It really is rather snobbish of you to imagine that the left of the political spectrum does not contain people who live in attractive areas and have above average incomes. I have lived in several "leafy and nice" localities and, whilst Labour/Green voters are generally in the minority in such areas, there were certainly thriving Labour groups, with members from all income levels and walks of life.
Accountants, tax barristers and financial experts are hardly neutral bystanders in this matter. Some of those asked to comment may well be the people whose job it is, or was, to facilitate and even devise these arrangements so they are unlikely to say that the companies and individuals using them are doing something wrong/unethical.
Durhamjen
Interesting you have posted a barbed comment in your post at 10.26 today re Price Waterhouse Cooper /PwC and Cameron's finances.
Last year and goodness knows how long for , Price Waterhouse Cooper was the biggest Non Union Donor to the Labour Party. I have put a link up for you, yes I have understood how to do it now, there are so many articles on the subject but I have put a link to the New Statesman for one.
I like some of the comments in particular from Labour MP Patricia Hodge who was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee at the time and which 'slammed ' the PwC/ Labour connection. The committee produced a report accusing the firm of 'the promotion of tax avoidance on an industrial scale'. She comments:-
' Labour MP's such as Ed Balls, Chuka Umuna and Racheal Reeves receiving assistance from the firm is 'inappropriate' .
I am not saying Labour were the only party to receive funding but to use PwC when attacking Cameron reminded me of the Labour connections too.
Margaret Hodge, not Patricia Hodge, two completely different MPs.
However, I agree with her that it was wrong. They actually gave to all three major parties; it said so in the article.
However, I also think it is wrong that PwC have people as non execs at HMRC.
Do you think it is right that the person responsible for tax at PwC is now responsible for tax simplification?
Do you not see a conflict of interest there?
The lead non-exec was a senior partner at KPMG, both companies that have offices in Panama.
Do you not see why we mistrust the government on tax affairs?
This deserves to be read.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/15/are-kpmg-really-masters-of-the-universe/
Re my comment at 10.26, Cameron gave his first comment inside PwC offices when he was giving them a speech, so it was reasonable to assume he used them as his accountants.
He played his usual trick of only allowing two questions from the press.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/08/19/who-did-the-big-4-fund-before-the-general-election/
It's actually the top seven firms, and at the 2010 election. I can't find a list for the last one.
www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/hhje?e=4f295de050c123204df7f4a5c79d8428&utm_source=thepeoplesassembly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=volunteers_demo&n=2
That demo is going to be huge next weekend.
Nicola Sturgeon has today published HER tax return apparently it only took a couple of minutes to do it.
d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/thesnp/pages/5353/attachments/original/1460296299/NicolaSturgeon_TaxReturn.pdf?1460296299
Footnote: Also announced this weekend that the decision of Scottish Ministers to forego their pay rises since 2009 has resulted in a cumulative sum of £250,000 to date being returned to the Scottish budget.
Not ALL politicians are greedy Bs
Excellent, Granny23. It just shows it can be done.
If only Cameron had done that in the first place, we would have known he had nothing to hide.
" If only David Cameron had done that in the first place we would have known he had nothing to hide ".
That sums it up.
Who do posters think 'hacked' the data files of law firm Mossack Foseca, going back 4 decades and subsequently gave information to those papers in the Consortium of Investigative Journalists.? The only 3 UK members of the ICIJ I can find out about are the BBC, The Guardian and The Sunday Times.
There has been a lot of finger pointing in the direction of the American Intelligence Services, conspiracy theory or possible?
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 »