On the point about Cameron's dad - I don't think he should be attacked personally for it. Although you can see why the press like the story. It isn't fair to judge or punish a son for their dad's actions. I don't think Corbyn brought up Cameron's father, hopefully for this reason.
Neither did Corbyn bring up Cameron's mothers views on austerity recently. However it didn't stop Dave then using his mother's alleged views to attack Corbyn and deflect from the question during PMQ recently.
DC's father died before last election. So as new PM he was aware that a tax evasion scheme was in place that would benefit him when Mum dies. He could have said to Mum, Dad was wrong to set this up, I need to be seen to pay my way, or he could think, I will be gone in 5 years so it's unlikely to come out and I will be Quid's in at the expense of the British taxpayer. He chose the latter. A resigning issue if Murdoch's press had any cojones.
DC's father died before last election. So as new PM he was aware that a tax evasion scheme was in place that would benefit him when Mum dies. He could have said to Mum, Dad was wrong to set this up, I need to be seen to pay my way, or he could think, I will be gone in 5 years so it's unlikely to come out and I will be Quid's in at the expense of the British taxpayer. He chose the latter. A resigning issue if Murdoch's press had any cojones.
Does DC or his mother have any controlling interest in order to have this wound up? Also this is hardly new, it was already known back in 2012 that his dead dad used tax-avoiding schemes in Panama. If he didn't resign back then there is nothing new here to suggest he should resign now. Certain people won't be happy though unless DC either resigns or publicly shames his dead father, neither of which are likely to happen.
On the point about Cameron's dad - I don't think he should be attacked personally for it. Although you can see why the press like the story. It isn't fair to judge or punish a son for their dad's actions. I don't think Corbyn brought up Cameron's father, hopefully for this reason.
Neither did Corbyn bring up Cameron's mothers views on austerity recently. However it didn't stop Dave then using his mother's alleged views to attack Corbyn and deflect from the question during PMQ recently.
You can't have it both ways.
Except DC was provoked by a Labour backbencher and wasn't really directly using his mother's views. Bit different to using his dead dad to attack him for something he had nothing to do with.
So our pork loving, Bullingdon honed, "we're all in it together ", " call me Dave" PM's sliver spoon may have been paid for by cash from an off - shore tax dodge?!! Shocking!
Update - Dave says he didn't benefit from this - which is good enough for me
Is this a bad time to mention I get childcare vouchers which are paid for before my salary gets taxed?
I am scum stealing from other tax payers to fund my child raising excesses.
No, because you are using it to benefit your child in an economic system that forces both parents to work.
Dave has already told us he did not benefit from this. Who knows what his father spent the money on, but we now know it wasn't childcare thanks to Dave.
What about if I rob a bank to put my children through private education?
What about if you paid people to do it in another country? Like, I don't know, a part time bishop. He could use the proceeds to get a new roof for his palace.
I wasn't suggesting it was illegal, just morally repugnant.
On the point about Cameron's dad - I don't think he should be attacked personally for it. Although you can see why the press like the story. It isn't fair to judge or punish a son for their dad's actions. I don't think Corbyn brought up Cameron's father, hopefully for this reason.
Neither did Corbyn bring up Cameron's mothers views on austerity recently. However it didn't stop Dave then using his mother's alleged views to attack Corbyn and deflect from the question during PMQ recently.
You can't have it both ways.
Except DC was provoked by a Labour backbencher and wasn't really directly using his mother's views. Bit different to using his dead dad to attack him for something he had nothing to do with.
In response to something someone else said he replied with his clearly prepared quip about what his mother would say about Corbyn. Despite the fact it was actually exposing a serious point, that even his nearest and dearest had their reservations about his policies, his party and plenty of people on here have only just stopped laughing at Cameron's crappy, low rent dig that did nothing to answer the question being asked.
Maybe it's just me but I don't expect my Prime Minister to respond to a serious issue by reference to his mother thinking his opponent should get a proper suit.
We know we'll never agree but its simple for me, if you don't want your political opponents or the press to drag your family into a political argument, don't fecking well do it yourself when it suits you to.
On the point about Cameron's dad - I don't think he should be attacked personally for it. Although you can see why the press like the story. It isn't fair to judge or punish a son for their dad's actions. I don't think Corbyn brought up Cameron's father, hopefully for this reason.
Neither did Corbyn bring up Cameron's mothers views on austerity recently. However it didn't stop Dave then using his mother's alleged views to attack Corbyn and deflect from the question during PMQ recently.
You can't have it both ways.
Except DC was provoked by a Labour backbencher and wasn't really directly using his mother's views. Bit different to using his dead dad to attack him for something he had nothing to do with.
In response to something someone else said he replied with his clearly prepared quip about what his mother would say about Corbyn. Despite the fact it was actually exposing a serious point, that even his nearest and dearest had their reservations about his policies, his party and plenty of people on here have only just stopped laughing at Cameron's crappy, low rent dig that did nothing to answer the question being asked.
Maybe it's just me but I don't expect my Prime Minister to respond to a serious issue by reference to his mother thinking his opponent should get a proper suit.
We know we'll never agree but its simple for me, if you don't want your political opponents or the press to drag your family into a political argument, don't fecking well do it yourself when it suits you to.
I'd like to think most people are decent enough to see the difference between responding to someone heckling 'your mum' at you and attacking someone because you disagree with decisions their dead dad made. I also don't think you're dense enough to believe that Cameron was quoting his own mother in all seriousness. We can both agree it was a pretty crap point to make in PMQs but it doesn't open him up to personal attack based on the actions of a dead parent.
Given that David Cameron supported Ed Miliband over attacks made on him over Ralph Miliband's past, even David recognises this.
I'm sure is plenty in these documents that will come out over time, but what exactly is the new FIFA bloke supposed to have done wrong?
Seems to me he signed a contract allocating TV rights to some company that then turned out to be controlled by a couple of dubious characters. Is that it?
I presume he signed dozens of such contracts over time.
Now if the other side were convicted wrong doers at the time then you would have to question the wisdom of signing over rights to them. But if they weren't?
Sounds to me like the media are clutching at straws on this one a bit. I'm no FIFA fan, far from it, but surely there has to be something more substantial behind a story before it becomes a headline like this?
If you rob a bank to pay for your child's education, you are in the wrong but your child can't be blamed even if they have benefitted. It is difficult for Cameron because his dad was clearly a dodgy tax dodger - going as far as to hold meetings abroad to avoid paying it - but he is still his dad. I do have sympathy for his position. The press will smell a juicy story and be on this.
Didn't Tony Benn, the extremely vocal tax avoidance voice of Labour, go out of his way to ensure his children wouldn't pay inheritance tax on anything he left them?
It would seem that even those who bleat about the wrongs and ills of others are just as guilty of being both hypocritical and a big fat smelly liar.
Irony on the bbc. The BBC are running with this story. A few minutes later they go onto their business section where they remind us to organise our ISA allowance worth 15 grand before the deadline. And also where to find the best interest rates.
Where is the irony?
Legal tax avoidance condemned in one breath then promoted in the next. Perhaps hypocrisy would be a better word.
Come on. Surely you understand the difference. An ISA is a financial tool created by successive governments to encourage people to save. It is broadly part of a manifesto commitment which people voted on.
Now, what part of this other shit did you vote on as being good for the country? And why on earth would you vote for it, even if in some parallel universe it was presented to you as an option?
I agree it's bollocks and didn't vote for it but the point is it's legal tax avoidance.
I don't remember a big hoo ha when CAFC set up offshore under Baton using the same principles.
It stinks but that's why it needs changing. Whilst it's still legal people will take advantage of it.
Probably because it's not true. Baton is a UK-registered company which fulfills a role previously delivered by Charlton Athletic Plc, i.e. to enable the shareholders to hold the principle fixed assets (The Valley and Sparrows Lane) at one remove from the club's trading activities through CAFC Ltd. It had nothing to do with tax avoidance AFAIK, especially as it makes losses.
The spivs then bought 90 percent of Baton in late 2010 through a separate BVI registered company, which crucially meant there was no way of the FL or fans verifying the ultimate ownership of the club.
If you rob a bank to pay for your child's education, you are in the wrong but your child can't be blamed even if they have benefitted. It is difficult for Cameron because his dad was clearly a dodgy tax dodger - going as far as to hold meetings abroad to avoid paying it - but he is still his dad. I do have sympathy for his position. The press will smell a juicy story and be on this.
Which is ironic given that most of the newspapers funnel their profits through offshore schemes.
This quote: No 10 said there were "no offshore trusts or funds" that the prime minister or his immediate family would benefit from "in future".
Now, to me, that clearly indicates that he is not smart enough to manage his own financial affairs prudently. So why should we trust him with ours? #sweattheassets
If you rob a bank to pay for your child's education, you are in the wrong but your child can't be blamed even if they have benefitted. It is difficult for Cameron because his dad was clearly a dodgy tax dodger - going as far as to hold meetings abroad to avoid paying it - but he is still his dad. I do have sympathy for his position. The press will smell a juicy story and be on this.
Which is ironic given that most of the newspapers funnel their profits through offshore schemes.
Yes, but secrecy is not good, and when you seek it, it becomes a story when it all spills out.
If you rob a bank to pay for your child's education, you are in the wrong but your child can't be blamed even if they have benefitted. It is difficult for Cameron because his dad was clearly a dodgy tax dodger - going as far as to hold meetings abroad to avoid paying it - but he is still his dad. I do have sympathy for his position. The press will smell a juicy story and be on this.
Which is ironic given that most of the newspapers funnel their profits through offshore schemes.
Yes, but secrecy is not good, and when you seek it, it becomes a story when it all spills out.
Except as far as I am aware DC has never made any attempt to hide his father's business and it was already reported back in 2012 that his dad had funnelled money into Panama. I think the only story is it is slow news week. The Icelandic PM is a completely different scenario.
That's all we can do. Either the PM is clean or he was stupid enough to try and get away with it. Until then calls for resignation are premature, to say the least, and calls for him to publicly shame his dead father are not appropriate no matter the outcome.
Call me Dave has no offshore investments now, and will apparently not benefit from offshore investments in the future. What about the past? Also, was he aware of his father's dealings?
He may well be in the clear but I think there's a lot more to come out yet.
Interesting to note though that anyone with a pension fund (millions of people) will have offshore investments via the fund managers.
I'm sure is plenty in these documents that will come out over time, but what exactly is the new FIFA bloke supposed to have done wrong?
Seems to me he signed a contract allocating TV rights to some company that then turned out to be controlled by a couple of dubious characters. Is that it?
I presume he signed dozens of such contracts over time.
Now if the other side were convicted wrong doers at the time then you would have to question the wisdom of signing over rights to them. But if they weren't?
Sounds to me like the media are clutching at straws on this one a bit. I'm no FIFA fan, far from it, but surely there has to be something more substantial behind a story before it becomes a headline like this?
This is still a good question which remains unanswered, notwithstanding the raid on UEFA offices. I've posted pretty much your question to Owen Gibson of the Guardian on their page where you can ask their journos any question about the Panama Papers. Since he is running that story, and has become a Friend of Charlton Fans, I think there is a good chance it will feature on that page. And with his track record, it should be a good answer.
I'm sure is plenty in these documents that will come out over time, but what exactly is the new FIFA bloke supposed to have done wrong?
Seems to me he signed a contract allocating TV rights to some company that then turned out to be controlled by a couple of dubious characters. Is that it?
I presume he signed dozens of such contracts over time.
Now if the other side were convicted wrong doers at the time then you would have to question the wisdom of signing over rights to them. But if they weren't?
Sounds to me like the media are clutching at straws on this one a bit. I'm no FIFA fan, far from it, but surely there has to be something more substantial behind a story before it becomes a headline like this?
This is still a good question which remains unanswered, notwithstanding the raid on UEFA offices. I've posted pretty much your question to Owen Gibson of the Guardian on their page where you can ask their journos any question about the Panama Papers. Since he is running that story, and has become a Friend of Charlton Fans, I think there is a good chance it will feature on that page. And with his track record, it should be a good answer.
I'm sure is plenty in these documents that will come out over time, but what exactly is the new FIFA bloke supposed to have done wrong?
Seems to me he signed a contract allocating TV rights to some company that then turned out to be controlled by a couple of dubious characters. Is that it?
I presume he signed dozens of such contracts over time.
Now if the other side were convicted wrong doers at the time then you would have to question the wisdom of signing over rights to them. But if they weren't?
Sounds to me like the media are clutching at straws on this one a bit. I'm no FIFA fan, far from it, but surely there has to be something more substantial behind a story before it becomes a headline like this?
This is still a good question which remains unanswered, notwithstanding the raid on UEFA offices. I've posted pretty much your question to Owen Gibson of the Guardian on their page where you can ask their journos any question about the Panama Papers. Since he is running that story, and has become a Friend of Charlton Fans, I think there is a good chance it will feature on that page. And with his track record, it should be a good answer.
I feel like my head has just been patted.
Oh come on.
I thought that by today, with the raids, the answer to your question would be obvious, and it still isn't , as far as I can see, so why not ask the guy most directly working on it?
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35966412
You can't have it both ways.
Update - Dave says he didn't benefit from this - which is good enough for me
I am scum stealing from other tax payers to fund my child raising excesses.
Dave has already told us he did not benefit from this. Who knows what his father spent the money on, but we now know it wasn't childcare thanks to Dave.
1. Did you get caught?; and
2. Were you doing it the honourable way (balaclava and shotgun), or in your capacity as Chairman of the Board?
I wasn't suggesting it was illegal, just morally repugnant.
Maybe it's just me but I don't expect my Prime Minister to respond to a serious issue by reference to his mother thinking his opponent should get a proper suit.
We know we'll never agree but its simple for me, if you don't want your political opponents or the press to drag your family into a political argument, don't fecking well do it yourself when it suits you to.
Given that David Cameron supported Ed Miliband over attacks made on him over Ralph Miliband's past, even David recognises this.
Seems to me he signed a contract allocating TV rights to some company that then turned out to be controlled by a couple of dubious characters. Is that it?
I presume he signed dozens of such contracts over time.
Now if the other side were convicted wrong doers at the time then you would have to question the wisdom of signing over rights to them. But if they weren't?
Sounds to me like the media are clutching at straws on this one a bit. I'm no FIFA fan, far from it, but surely there has to be something more substantial behind a story before it becomes a headline like this?
It would seem that even those who bleat about the wrongs and ills of others are just as guilty of being both hypocritical and a big fat smelly liar.
The spivs then bought 90 percent of Baton in late 2010 through a separate BVI registered company, which crucially meant there was no way of the FL or fans verifying the ultimate ownership of the club.
No 10 said there were "no offshore trusts or funds" that the prime minister or his immediate family would benefit from "in future".
Now, to me, that clearly indicates that he is not smart enough to manage his own financial affairs prudently. So why should we trust him with ours?
#sweattheassets
As my mother always says, there's plenty of people willing to do that for you....
He may well be in the clear but I think there's a lot more to come out yet.
Interesting to note though that anyone with a pension fund (millions of people) will have offshore investments via the fund managers.
I thought that by today, with the raids, the answer to your question would be obvious, and it still isn't , as far as I can see, so why not ask the guy most directly working on it?