Popular Post tonyh29 Posted April 5, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted April 5, 2016 Thanks for the tip David 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chindie Posted April 5, 2016 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted April 5, 2016 I've seen this in a few places, but it's a fair point. It's brilliantly ironic that the Prime Minister leading a government that wants to look at your entire online presence at will, has the brass neck to say his affairs are private. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Quote Ian Cameron took advantage of a new climate of investment after all capital controls were abolished in 1979, making it legal to take any sum of money out of the country without it being taxed or controlled by the UK government. Not long after the change, brought in by Margaret Thatcher after her first month in power, Ian Cameron began setting up and directing investment funds in tax havens around the world. Guardian 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blandy Posted April 6, 2016 Author Moderator Popular Post Share Posted April 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Xann said: Guardian 2012 Not long after the change, brought in by Margaret Thatcher after her first month in power, Ian Cameron began setting up and directing investment funds in tax havens around the world. It's almost like Thatcher was some kind of force for evil, isn't it? Must admit the thought had never so much as begun to contemplate the opportunity of crossing my mind until reading that. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Thatcher to blame .. who'd have thunk it It's kinda amusing to see the people that were vocal that Ed's fathers actions /beliefs had no relevance to Ed himself , now seem to be trying to hang Cameron based on the actions /beliefs of his father .. one could almost say it's rather hypercritical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: It's kinda amusing to see the people that were vocal that Ed's fathers actions /beliefs had no relevance to Ed himself , now seem to be trying to hang Cameron based on the actions /beliefs of his father .. one could almost say it's rather hypocritical. This is true. Now the morally wrong facts are in the open, what's the son going to do about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 7 minutes ago, Xann said: This is true. Now the morally wrong facts are in the open, what's the son going to do about it? probably the same as Ed did over his tax avoidance on the family home ... bugger all ( sorry for the Ah but , you can have that one Pete ) I'm not sure what Cameron has to do , it seems from reading into it , that they kinda saw all this coming and when he became PM in 2010 did all they could to try and tidy it up , the cynic in me thinks that the brother will have got the dodgy stuff and Cameron's inheritance will have come from cleaner methods ( his rumoured £300k from £2.7m seems low , which is what makes me suspicious ) , but that's just me being cynical I don't have any fact or evidence on this . I don't know if HMRC have any legal claim on the British people named , it was all legal at the end of the day , maybe Osborne will come around for a chat and agree a settlement of a few thousand ? but you can get 3-1 on Cameron resigning in 2016 and 7 -1 on Boris being PM by 2017 so maybe get yourself down Ladbrooks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 41 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: probably the same as Ed did over his tax avoidance on the family home ... bugger all Crucial difference being only one of them has a chance of getting legislation through the Commons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 58 minutes ago, Xann said: Crucial difference being only one of them has a chance of getting legislation through the Commons. I think your struggling if that is the best response you can come up with , you're supposed to be morally outraged at the tax avoidance not excusing Ed because he isn't in power ( though At the time it broke I'd have said Ed was already measuring the curtains for number 10 as Cameron wasn't expected to win ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Just now, tonyh29 said: I think your struggling... Yeah, right, I'm struggling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I think your struggling if that is the best response you can come up with , you're supposed to be morally outraged at the tax avoidance not excusing Ed because he isn't in power ( though At the time it broke I'd have said Ed was already measuring the curtains for number 10 as Cameron wasn't expected to win ) Two wrongs don't make a right. Milliband has nothing to do with Camerons murky family financial background. Simply condemn both. Personally I find it nauseating, that Cameron preaches austerity to the poorest in society, because there isn't enough cash in the public purse , while at the same time benefiting from the actions of those trying their best to keep resources out of that purse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 13 minutes ago, Xann said: Yeah, right, I'm struggling ah sarcasm , the last refuge of the struggling as Oscar Wilde once said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted April 6, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted April 6, 2016 2 minutes ago, meregreen said: Two wrongs don't make a right. Milliband has nothing to do with Camerons murky family financial background. Simply condemn both. Personally I find it nauseating, that Cameron preaches austerity to the poorest in society, because there isn't enough cash in the public purse , while at the same time benefiting from the actions of those trying their best to keep resources out of that purse. ...and actively cutting the contributions to that purse made by his rich mates. Whilst not collecting the corporate tax owed which would mean less pressure on the NHS and teh schools in the first place, and proposing a wholesale gift of state assets to his rich mates who run companies that handle academies. Great stuff all round really can't think why anyone would think he's a word removed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: ah sarcasm , the last refuge of the struggling as Oscar Wilde once said Ha ha ha, what can I say? Regular readers can make up their own minds x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Cameron and his advisers have created this problem for themselves. The question was clear, it encompassed his close family, past, present and future. His first response was to answer only for himself and only in the present. It was explained to his advisers why a partial answer looked bad. So there was a 'clarification' that his kids and wife won't benefit in the future. Which still leaves his mum, and still leaves him potentially having benefited in the past. If he and his advisers, can't understand the wording, they really shouldn't be running a country and organising an EU referendum. If they do understand it and are trying to be 'clever' they are going to come unstuck as journalists and opposition will not leave this alone. If they do understand, have nothing to hide and think the bullish but incomplete answer was sufficient, well then they've done themselves a huge dis service, letting people that suspect politicians anyway, have 2 days of wriggling half answers. Why not just answer the question properly when it came up? Poorly advised, or poorly prepared, or hiding something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 3 minutes ago, meregreen said: Two wrongs don't make a right. Milliband has nothing to do with Camerons murky family financial background. Simply condemn both. Personally I find it nauseating, that Cameron preaches austerity to the poorest in society, because there isn't enough cash in the public purse , while at the same time benefiting from the actions of those trying their best to keep resources out of that purse. couple of things there 1) The point I made which was that I was exposing how the people that said Ed's tax avoidance /sins of the father were nothing to do with Ed , whilst now saying about Cameron should be culpable for errm the sins of his father .. I wasn't making a comment about right or wrong 2) Simply Condem both .... I think you are aiming this at the wrong poster , but thanks for confirming that Xaan's response was indeed the wrong one but , where is your evidence that Cameron has benefitted from these actions ? If there were I think he would have been close to be forced out of office by now ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 43 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Poorly advised, or poorly prepared, or hiding something. or very clever to give himself some wiggle room for if / when he's found out you lot really don't like to give a Tory any credit at all do you 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted April 6, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted April 6, 2016 3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: you lot really don't like to give a Tory any credit at all do you suffice to say, if a tory was on fire, I'd take 3 days to get back from my holiday and then I'd go out to tender for 6 weeks to find the cheapest person willing to piss on them before considering any further action 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, blandy said: It's almost like Thatcher was some kind of force for evil, isn't it? more likely an agent of the forces of evil, doing their bidding and such, which probably amounts to the same thing i guess, just lower down the pyramid than you place her. Edited April 6, 2016 by mockingbird_franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: couple of things there 1) The point I made which was that I was exposing how the people that said Ed's tax avoidance /sins of the father were nothing to do with Ed , whilst now saying about Cameron should be culpable for errm the sins of his father .. I wasn't making a comment about right or wrong 2) Simply Condem both .... I think you are aiming this at the wrong poster , but thanks for confirming that Xaan's response was indeed the wrong one but , where is your evidence that Cameron has benefitted from these actions ? If there were I think he would have been close to be forced out of office by now ? Statement from Cameron today that he will not be benefiting from his Fathers tax avoidance "in the future". Rather confirms his profit in the past methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts