Tax Havens

To be fair to Rosesarered, it seems for some strange reason she doesn't mix with socialists , probably thinks all socialists live in industrial parts if the country , wear cloth caps and clogs and are uneducated . Bet you get really excited when that Rees Mogg speaks Rosesarered. ,

Perhaps it's because socialists tend to be petty, spiteful and small minded! Just a thought!

What unpleasant thoughts you hold niggly , so sad

Oh I listened to Rees Mogg this morning

Sorry but POGS is being petty and small minded. She is going on about the UK journalists and has homed in on one.
There are 400 journalists involved in this.
It's a world-wide problem as you will see if you look at the actionaid website.

www.actionaid.org.uk/blog/campaigns/2016/04/04/panama-papers-and-the-broken-global-tax-system

www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/05/panama-papers-world-leaders-tycoons-secret-property-empires

This one shows how much the UK is involved, and POGS sees fit to argue about the British journalists involved.
Talk about being petty.
I do not see POGS as a socialist.

Could someone else click on the ICIJ website and let me know if it's working okay on their computer, because it isn't on mine this morning. It was last night.

It's OK on mine

My comments to djen were not the kind of 'knock knock' or 'I say I say I say'
Joke, is that the kind of humour only understood on here?Dear dear, it reinforces my thoughts on Socialists and their utter dreary humourless-ness.
No, I don't know any btw you are right about that.Just what I read on here by a small handful of people. A lot may live in Islington in million pound or more houses.Lighten up FGS.

Not me ab, it's a known fact! dj clearly has them with regard to POGS, is she said too?!!

Annie give up doing your kind of humour, it's childish and pathetic.

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 With few exceptions our politicians no longer represent or work for us but for the super rich.

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

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/

I rest my case!

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.

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.

Government has always sat on revenue collectors coat tails.

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.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/02/25/why-does-hmrc-need-a-boss-who-thinks-tax-is-legalised-extortion/

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.

"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.

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.

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.

www.wired.com/2016/04/reporters-pulled-off-panama-papers-biggest-leak-whistleblower-history/

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.