FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > David Cameron
David Cameron
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has said David Cameron's admission that he owned shares in an offshore fund set up by his late father has undermined public trust in him. . . "After years of calling for tax transparency and attacking complex offshore tax arrangements as 'morally wrong', the prime minister has been shown to have personally benefited from exactly such a secretive offshore investment," . . On Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale. He said the firm, Blairmore Holdings, had not been set up to avoid tax. But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the PM had "misled the public" and "lost the trust of the British people". Mr Cameron's actions had showed there was "one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us". . . So have you lost faith in your leader due to this, or did you never have faith in the first place? . . Can you ever believe what he says and now that he is fighting to remain in EU, can you believe he has the UK at heart or is this to ensure he goes on and makes more millions once he stands down as PM, exact same as Blair (Remember him? the multi millionaire)." . As he has done nothing that is illegal , what interest should it be to anyone as to how he manages his own personal investments ?. As long as he pays tax that is due , who cares . The Prime Ministers resources should be devoted to running the country , not how he manages his own personal investments . In any event , these investments were sold six years ago and in addition were made by David Cameron's father . Much people voted for him that any other party . It is inevitable that any ex PM will become a multi millionaire. . Why would this bother anyone . Few people have the necessary skills to become pm .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has said David Cameron's admission that he owned shares in an offshore fund set up by his late father has undermined public trust in him. . . "After years of calling for tax transparency and attacking complex offshore tax arrangements as 'morally wrong', the prime minister has been shown to have personally benefited from exactly such a secretive offshore investment," . . On Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale. He said the firm, Blairmore Holdings, had not been set up to avoid tax. But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the PM had "misled the public" and "lost the trust of the British people". Mr Cameron's actions had showed there was "one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us". . . So have you lost faith in your leader due to this, or did you never have faith in the first place? . . Can you ever believe what he says and now that he is fighting to remain in EU, can you believe he has the UK at heart or is this to ensure he goes on and makes more millions once he stands down as PM, exact same as Blair (Remember him? the multi millionaire)." . It seems to me that you are a secret David Cameron supporter buyt afraid to admit it . This is the second thread that you have started on the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Few people have the necessary skills to become pm .." I'm not sure that Cameron had them either  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had no faith in this charlatan before the news was released. He's a spin maestro who will bend anything to try to make it seem as if it's something else. " Absolutely spot on!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that you are a secret David Cameron supporter buyt afraid to admit it . This is the second thread that you have started on the topic. " cheers Pat69 but no, im not a fan . Its just that like the majority of threads I start they get too big and eventually closed with the message: Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) so if any thread I start gets too big due to popularity or amount of good input from other members then I will roll it on, you must be the same with the threads you start | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is - if he resigns now, just before the EU referendum - we will end up in chaos. I'm sure he's not the only MP investing in offshore funds or employing a spouse in some way to mitigate tax. They're all as bad as each other ! Sarah " I'm inclined to fully agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
")..The Prime Ministers resources should be devoted to running the country , not how he manages his own personal investments . In any event , these investments were sold six years ago and in addition were made by David Cameron's father . It is inevitable that any ex PM will become a multi millionaire. . .." So ? Is it true that he cashed in the funds in 2010, the funds passed down to him by his late father? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
")..The Prime Ministers resources should be devoted to running the country , not how he manages his own personal investments . In any event , these investments were sold six years ago and in addition were made by David Cameron's father . It is inevitable that any ex PM will become a multi millionaire. . .. So ? Is it true that he cashed in the funds in 2010, the funds passed down to him by his late father?" I don't know. And let's be honest, nor do you. All we know is what's in the media. The only people who know for sure is DC, his accountant and HMRC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
")..The Prime Ministers resources should be devoted to running the country , not how he manages his own personal investments . In any event , these investments were sold six years ago and in addition were made by David Cameron's father . It is inevitable that any ex PM will become a multi millionaire. . .. So ? Is it true that he cashed in the funds in 2010, the funds passed down to him by his late father? I don't know. And let's be honest, nor do you. All we know is what's in the media. The only people who know for sure is DC, his accountant and HMRC. " Wasn't the media; it was what Cameron said in his speech when questioned, saying that the shares were passed down from his late father, must have been before his father dies, as he cashed in his shares in Jan 2010, his father passed away Sept 2010 but then everything will become clearer in the weeks to come Did you know tax returns only show "Taxable Income" they do not show earnings WITHOUT TAX | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
").. Did you know tax returns only show "Taxable Income" they do not show earnings WITHOUT TAX " Oh and what would earnings without tax be then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
").. Did you know tax returns only show "Taxable Income" they do not show earnings WITHOUT TAX Oh and what would earnings without tax be then?" ANYTHING you have not paid UK tax on so what is the point of Cameron showing his tax returns as it is only going to show taxable income If you pay into AVC's what ever you pay is not shown as it is before tax i.e. if you Earn £85,000 a year and pay £25,000 direct into AVC's, your tax return only shows £65,000 it does not show your full employment earnings, if you can understand where I am coming from So when Cameron says he is happy to show his tax returns, then why not as they only display earnings of which he has paid tax on, which is a pointless exercise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like him "
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it." You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
").. Did you know tax returns only show "Taxable Income" they do not show earnings WITHOUT TAX Oh and what would earnings without tax be then? ANYTHING you have not paid UK tax on so what is the point of Cameron showing his tax returns as it is only going to show taxable income If you pay into AVC's what ever you pay is not shown as it is before tax i.e. if you Earn £85,000 a year and pay £25,000 direct into AVC's, your tax return only shows £65,000 it does not show your full employment earnings, if you can understand where I am coming from So when Cameron says he is happy to show his tax returns, then why not as they only display earnings of which he has paid tax on, which is a pointless exercise" I understand exactly where you are coming from but it is still nonsense. AVC's (additional voluntary contributions into a pension) are legally (and open to everyone) deducted from income, but (although it's a while since I last filled in a UK tax return I doubt it has changed) still have to be shown as part of gross earnings. They only become actual income when you draw the pension and are then taxable. A non issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it." If you make profits in the UK you should pay tax on those profits in the UK. It really is that simple! However I bet your a fan of the Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich as well as offshore money laundering tax havens! But only when done by those who have more money than they know what to do with.  Offshore tax avoidance companies are totally different from legitimate international investments.
When it comes to caMoron I find it strange the number of morons who think it is ok for him to lie to win an election and then when his 9 years of lying to parliament by not declaring investments think that's ok too.  Finally I find it absolutely unbelievable that the shit and his cronies have the nerve to say he did nothing wrong.
The man is a (dead pig fucking if the rumour is true) disgrace and should not just be forced to resign as PM but also as an MP and then be prosecuted. But being he is a corrupt rich Eaton fag he will get away with it just like he got away with supporting News International, Rebekah Brooks and even employing Andy Coulson in No10, but then none of them did anything wrong either because they are all rich, powerful and well connected. Its only the little people like their underlings and the police they bribed and corrupted that are criminals.
If caMorn was in the USA I think someone would have shot him by now and I for one would throw a party! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society." . However any of the money remitted to the UK is subject to taxation. I think you will find that David Cameron and his family pay a lot more tax that most people. They put a lot more into society than they take out . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. If you make profits in the UK you should pay tax on those profits in the UK. It really is that simple! However I bet your a fan of the Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich as well as offshore money laundering tax havens! But only when done by those who have more money than they know what to do with. Offshore tax avoidance companies are totally different from legitimate international investments.
When it comes to caMoron I find it strange the number of morons who think it is ok for him to lie to win an election and then when his 9 years of lying to parliament by not declaring investments think that's ok too. Finally I find it absolutely unbelievable that the shit and his cronies have the nerve to say he did nothing wrong.
The man is a (dead pig fucking if the rumour is true) disgrace and should not just be forced to resign as PM but also as an MP and then be prosecuted. But being he is a corrupt rich Eaton fag he will get away with it just like he got away with supporting News International, Rebekah Brooks and even employing Andy Coulson in No10, but then none of them did anything wrong either because they are all rich, powerful and well connected. Its only the little people like their underlings and the police they bribed and corrupted that are criminals.
If caMorn was in the USA I think someone would have shot him by now and I for one would throw a party!". If he has done nothing wrong and no one suggested that he has , what do you propose to prosecute him for ?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
").. I understand exactly where you are coming from but it is still nonsense. AVC's (additional voluntary contributions into a pension) are legally (and open to everyone) deducted from income, but (although it's a while since I last filled in a UK tax return I doubt it has changed) still have to be shown as part of gross earnings. They only become actual income when you draw the pension and are then taxable. A non issue." YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT they do not show up on tax return or P60 earnings of £85,000 show as £65,000 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society.. However any of the money remitted to the UK is subject to taxation. I think you will find that David Cameron and his family pay a lot more tax that most people. They put a lot more into society than they take out . " Thanks Pat. You keep repeating this point, because you think it is relevant to the situation in some way. As its only relevance is as a way of trying to obscure the real issue, please stop bringing it up, it's a waste of everyone's time. David Cameron's contributions to society are, shall we say, a matter of opinion at best. As you are here though, any news on your research into the hardworking family of Samantha Cameron yet, and how they made money in ways not connected to their inherited wealth and privilege? This is the third time I've had to ask you now I think.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In addition, as David Cameron has regularly claimed that tax avoidance is morally wrong and personally castigated people involved in tax avoidance, the clear link between him, his father and a company clearly created to avoid tax taints him even further, as it reveals him to be a hypocrite. Even people who voted for him will find his hypocrisy hard to stomach, unless they are hypocrites themselves." . He sold the investments in 2010 and the legalisation has now been amended , so there is nothing to worry about . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". If he has done nothing wrong and no one suggested that he has , what do you propose to prosecute him for ?. " being a smart arsed pompus bast**d would be good enough for me good job we all feel different | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In addition, as David Cameron has regularly claimed that tax avoidance is morally wrong and personally castigated people involved in tax avoidance, the clear link between him, his father and a company clearly created to avoid tax taints him even further, as it reveals him to be a hypocrite. Even people who voted for him will find his hypocrisy hard to stomach, unless they are hypocrites themselves.. He sold the investments in 2010 and the legalisation has now been amended , so there is nothing to worry about . " Remember Comical Ali? "No, I am not scared Prime Minister, and neither should you be!" Now Pat, about Samantha Cameron's family...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. If you make profits in the UK you should pay tax on those profits in the UK. It really is that simple! However I bet your a fan of the Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich as well as offshore money laundering tax havens! But only when done by those who have more money than they know what to do with. Offshore tax avoidance companies are totally different from legitimate international investments.
When it comes to caMoron I find it strange the number of morons who think it is ok for him to lie to win an election and then when his 9 years of lying to parliament by not declaring investments think that's ok too. Finally I find it absolutely unbelievable that the shit and his cronies have the nerve to say he did nothing wrong.
The man is a (dead pig fucking if the rumour is true) disgrace and should not just be forced to resign as PM but also as an MP and then be prosecuted. But being he is a corrupt rich Eaton fag he will get away with it just like he got away with supporting News International, Rebekah Brooks and even employing Andy Coulson in No10, but then none of them did anything wrong either because they are all rich, powerful and well connected. Its only the little people like their underlings and the police they bribed and corrupted that are criminals.
If caMorn was in the USA I think someone would have shot him by now and I for one would throw a party!. If he has done nothing wrong and no one suggested that he has , what do you propose to prosecute him for ?. "How about sticking his prick in a dead pig to get into the Piers Gaveston Society club! That is a serious sexual offence, he and all his Piers Gaveston Society mates should be on the sex offenders registrar and barred from holding any public office for that little stunt alone! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society.. However any of the money remitted to the UK is subject to taxation. I think you will find that David Cameron and his family pay a lot more tax that most people. They put a lot more into society than they take out . Thanks Pat. You keep repeating this point, because you think it is relevant to the situation in some way. As its only relevance is as a way of trying to obscure the real issue, please stop bringing it up, it's a waste of everyone's time. David Cameron's contributions to society are, shall we say, a matter of opinion at best. As you are here though, any news on your research into the hardworking family of Samantha Cameron yet, and how they made money in ways not connected to their inherited wealth and privilege? This is the third time I've had to ask you now I think. ". I do not think that it makes any difference whether the money is inherited or earned. If you inherit assets and do not manage them properly you will quickly lose the lot . Looking after your offspring and leaving them an inheritance for the future is an attribute to be proud of . It also encourages a sense of responsibility . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. If you make profits in the UK you should pay tax on those profits in the UK. It really is that simple! However I bet your a fan of the Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich as well as offshore money laundering tax havens! But only when done by those who have more money than they know what to do with. Offshore tax avoidance companies are totally different from legitimate international investments.
When it comes to caMoron I find it strange the number of morons who think it is ok for him to lie to win an election and then when his 9 years of lying to parliament by not declaring investments think that's ok too. Finally I find it absolutely unbelievable that the shit and his cronies have the nerve to say he did nothing wrong.
The man is a (dead pig fucking if the rumour is true) disgrace and should not just be forced to resign as PM but also as an MP and then be prosecuted. But being he is a corrupt rich Eaton fag he will get away with it just like he got away with supporting News International, Rebekah Brooks and even employing Andy Coulson in No10, but then none of them did anything wrong either because they are all rich, powerful and well connected. Its only the little people like their underlings and the police they bribed and corrupted that are criminals.
If caMorn was in the USA I think someone would have shot him by now and I for one would throw a party!"OK I get it. You don't like him. I'm not too keen on him myself. Far too left wing for me. but that doesn't mean that he has done anything illegal or even immoral.
International, offshore, call them what you will, investments are exactly that. Whether they are in banking, coffee farming or manufacturing doesn't matter. They are international and pay tax in their home country.
Any individual from the UK (or anywhere else) who invests in them still has to pay tax in their home country when they draw any profits.
It's simple and fair.
BTW. I've not tried the double Irish but the Dutch sandwich was more than fun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society.. However any of the money remitted to the UK is subject to taxation. I think you will find that David Cameron and his family pay a lot more tax that most people. They put a lot more into society than they take out . Thanks Pat. You keep repeating this point, because you think it is relevant to the situation in some way. As its only relevance is as a way of trying to obscure the real issue, please stop bringing it up, it's a waste of everyone's time. David Cameron's contributions to society are, shall we say, a matter of opinion at best. As you are here though, any news on your research into the hardworking family of Samantha Cameron yet, and how they made money in ways not connected to their inherited wealth and privilege? This is the third time I've had to ask you now I think. . I do not think that it makes any difference whether the money is inherited or earned.
If you inherit assets and do not manage them properly you will quickly lose the lot .
Looking after your offspring and leaving them an inheritance for the future is an attribute to be proud of .
It also encourages a sense of responsibility . "Pat, if you are unable to answer the question, just say so, there's no shame in it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. If you make profits in the UK you should pay tax on those profits in the UK. It really is that simple! However I bet your a fan of the Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich as well as offshore money laundering tax havens! But only when done by those who have more money than they know what to do with. Offshore tax avoidance companies are totally different from legitimate international investments.
When it comes to caMoron I find it straOnge the number of morons who think it is ok for him to lie to win an election and then when his 9 years of lying to parliament by not declaring investments think that's ok too. Finally I find it absolutely unbelievable that the shit and his cronies have the nerve to say he did nothing wrong.
The man is a (dead pig fucking if the rumour is true) disgrace and should not just be forced to resign as PM but also as an MP and then be prosecuted. But being he is a corrupt rich Eaton fag he will get away with it just like he got away with supporting News International, Rebekah Brooks and even employing Andy Coulson in No10, but then none of them did anything wrong either because they are all rich, powerful and well connected. Its only the little people like their underlings and the police they bribed and corrupted that are criminals.
If caMorn was in the USA I think someone would have shot him by now and I for one would throw a party!. If he has done nothing wrong and no one suggested that he has , what do you propose to prosecute him for ?.
How about sticking his prick in a dead pig to get into the Piers Gaveston Society club! That is a serious sexual offence, he and all his Piers Gaveston Society mates
should be on the sex offenders registrar and barred from holding any public office for that little stunt alone!"One slight problem. No one has been able to produce any evidence that there was a remote possibility that there an truth in the statement about the pigs head . It remains in fantasy land . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In addition, as David Cameron has regularly claimed that tax avoidance is morally wrong and personally castigated people involved in tax avoidance, the clear link between him, his father and a company clearly created to avoid tax taints him even further, as it reveals him to be a hypocrite. " Hypocrite? Not if he also told his father that he thought it was morally wrong, surely 
If he sold the shares passed on to him as soon after his fathers death as possible, and paid the correct level of tax on this as either an inheritance or capital gain, then you're simply advocating punishing the children for the iniquities of the father, aren't you?
There is much play about "just before he came into power", but I hardly think his Dad died in 2010 deliberately, these things just happen you know
Mr ddc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In addition, as David Cameron has regularly claimed that tax avoidance is morally wrong and personally castigated people involved in tax avoidance, the clear link between him, his father and a company clearly created to avoid tax taints him even further, as it reveals him to be a hypocrite. Hypocrite? Not if he also told his father that he thought it was morally wrong, surely
If he sold the shares passed on to him as soon after his fathers death as possible, and paid the correct level of tax on this as either an inheritance or capital gain, then you're simply advocating punishing the children for the iniquities of the father, aren't you?
There is much play about "just before he came into power", but I hardly think his Dad died in 2010 deliberately, these things just happen you know
Mr ddc"I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. He is now polling below Corbyn in the YouGov approval ratings, and Corbyn is ranking higher than Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson in the YouGov polls over who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance, so fortunately your _iew isn't a popular one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He is now polling below Corbyn in the YouGov approval ratings, and Corbyn is ranking higher than Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson in the YouGov polls over who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance, so fortunately your _iew isn't a popular one." YouGov is only as accurate as it's demographic. Remember the shock after the GE that the Twitter predictions were wrong.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mr ddc I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. He is now polling below Corbyn in the YouGov approval ratings, and Corbyn is ranking higher than Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson in the YouGov polls over who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance, so fortunately your _iew isn't a popular one." Meh "Government unpopular in mid-term" shocker. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society.. However any of the money remitted to the UK is subject to taxation. I think you will find that David Cameron and his family pay a lot more tax that most people. They put a lot more into society than they take out . Thanks Pat. You keep repeating this point, because you think it is relevant to the situation in some way. As its only relevance is as a way of trying to obscure the real issue, please stop bringing it up, it's a waste of everyone's time. David Cameron's contributions to society are, shall we say, a matter of opinion at best. As you are here though, any news on your research into the hardworking family of Samantha Cameron yet, and how they made money in ways not connected to their inherited wealth and privilege? This is the third time I've had to ask you now I think. . I do not think that it makes any difference whether the money is inherited or earned.
If you inherit assets and do not manage them properly you will quickly lose the lot .
Looking after your offspring and leaving them an inheritance for the future is an attribute to be proud of .
It also encourages a sense of responsibility .
Pat, if you are unable to answer the question, just say so, there's no shame in it. ". Hi. Samantha Cameron was creative director of Smythson an upmarket stationery firm and built up a 2.7 % personal stake in the company . Ian Cameron worked for Panamure Gordon and Alexander Cameron is a leading English Barrister . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mr ddc I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. He is now polling below Corbyn in the YouGov approval ratings, and Corbyn is ranking higher than Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson in the YouGov polls over who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance, so fortunately your _iew isn't a popular one. Meh "Government unpopular in mid-term" shocker. "And they're polling that way on "who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance" as opposed to "who do you want running the country" so unless tax avoidance becomes the number 1 issue at the next election, above all else, it doesn't seem likely to help much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've got cameron, he's not perfect. Go look at Putin. Things could be worse..." I doubt many people base their opinions on other people by comparing them to Vladimir Putin. "Cameron's not so bad...we could have Hitler! Or Emo Philips! Or that maneating plant from The Little Shop of Horrors! Things could be worse I guess." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mr ddc I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. He is now polling below Corbyn in the YouGov approval ratings, and Corbyn is ranking higher than Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson in the YouGov polls over who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance, so fortunately your _iew isn't a popular one. Meh "Government unpopular in mid-term" shocker.
And they're polling that way on "who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance" as opposed to "who do you want running the country" so unless tax avoidance becomes the number 1 issue at the next election, above all else, it doesn't seem likely to help much. "It is going to be MASSIVE at the next election. The one thing even Tory voters care about is taxation, and who pays it fairly. The stink of this will be on the Tories for years, as the revelations from Panama will be fed for years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He is now polling below Corbyn in the YouGov approval ratings, and Corbyn is ranking higher than Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson in the YouGov polls over who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance, so fortunately your _iew isn't a popular one. YouGov is only as accurate as it's demographic. Remember the shock after the GE that the Twitter predictions were wrong...." Twitter is not a poll, so why you think it has any relevance is anyone's guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mr ddc I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. He is now polling below Corbyn in the YouGov approval ratings, and Corbyn is ranking higher than Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson in the YouGov polls over who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance, so fortunately your _iew isn't a popular one. Meh "Government unpopular in mid-term" shocker.
And they're polling that way on "who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance" as opposed to "who do you want running the country" so unless tax avoidance becomes the number 1 issue at the next election, above all else, it doesn't seem likely to help much. "I've told you before about this, logic and common sense have little worth in "debates" like this, let alone actual facts...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One slight problem. No one has been able to produce any evidence that there was a remote possibility that there an truth in the statement about the pigs head . It remains in fantasy land ." Really? Are you sure of that? Let me point out that you can go out and buy the book that makes the claim or read the excerpt about the incident in the Mail! It says there is a photo of the prick with his dick in the pig! If someone accused me of doing something like that in published print I would be suing the author, publisher, the Mail, its editor and proprietor for everything they have! It is noticeable that caMoron has not even applied for an injunction to stop the story being circulated or the book being sold. I wonder why? Could it be that he is afraid if he tries the photo will be produced? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society.. However any of the money remitted to the UK is subject to taxation. I think you will find that David Cameron and his family pay a lot more tax that most people. They put a lot more into society than they take out . Thanks Pat. You keep repeating this point, because you think it is relevant to the situation in some way. As its only relevance is as a way of trying to obscure the real issue, please stop bringing it up, it's a waste of everyone's time. David Cameron's contributions to society are, shall we say, a matter of opinion at best. As you are here though, any news on your research into the hardworking family of Samantha Cameron yet, and how they made money in ways not connected to their inherited wealth and privilege? This is the third time I've had to ask you now I think. . I do not think that it makes any difference whether the money is inherited or earned.
If you inherit assets and do not manage them properly you will quickly lose the lot .
Looking after your offspring and leaving them an inheritance for the future is an attribute to be proud of .
It also encourages a sense of responsibility .
Pat, if you are unable to answer the question, just say so, there's no shame in it. . Hi. Samantha Cameron was creative director of Smythson an upmarket stationery firm and built up a 2.7 % personal stake in the company . Ian Cameron worked for Panamure Gordon and Alexander Cameron is a leading English Barrister .
"And now Pat, see if you can show how Samantha Cameron got that job without using inherited wealth and privilege. I'm glad you brought up Smythson though...they are going to prove embarrassing for the Camerons, based as it is in not one, but two different tax havens. Just fancy that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hypocrite? Not if he also told his father that he thought it was morally wrong, surely
If he sold the shares passed on to him as soon after his fathers death as possible, and paid the correct level of tax on this as either an inheritance or capital gain, then you're simply advocating punishing the children for the iniquities of the father, aren't you?
There is much play about "just before he came into power", but I hardly think his Dad died in 2010 deliberately, these things just happen you know
Mr ddc"He owned the shares from 1997, only selling them in 2010, several months before his father died, but fortunately while the profit was still below Capital Gains Tax threshold. Maybe he has done nothing illegal, but he found the whole episode embarrasing enough to avoid giving a straight answer for most of a week. If he had the money invested in an ISA or similar UK savings fund do you think he would have hesitated to answer any question about it immediately? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One slight problem. No one has been able to produce any evidence that there was a remote possibility that there an truth in the statement about the pigs head . It remains in fantasy land . Really? Are you sure of that? Let me point out that you can go out and buy the book that makes the claim or read the excerpt about the incident in the Mail! It says there is a photo of the prick with his dick in the pig! If someone accused me of doing something like that in published print I would be suing the author, publisher, the Mail, its editor and proprietor for everything they have! It is noticeable that caMoron has not even applied for an injunction to stop the story being circulated or the book being sold. I wonder why? Could it be that he is afraid if he tries the photo will be produced? " You are wasting your time with this. People here know they voted for a crooked pig fucker...the only way to come to terms with that for them is to find it acceptable or stick their fingers in their ears and pretend it didn't happen. You'll see both techniques on display here regularly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people take steps to retain and grow their wealth. Fuck me, didn't see that one coming. " I think it was more the way the shifty bastard has spent the last few years banging on about how "morally wrong" tax dodging is, when he was up to his neck in it himself. Remember how he went after Jimmy Carr? Hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politician "not honest" shocker..." I think it's more a case of people being forgiving of deceptive traits in others that they share themselves, rather than politicians being dishonest by default. The papers haven't been able to pin any dishonesty on Jeremy Corbyn for example, despite conducting the most orchestrated smear campaign against a politician in UK political history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people take steps to retain and grow their wealth. Fuck me, didn't see that one coming. I think it was more the way the shifty bastard has spent the last few years banging on about how "morally wrong" tax dodging is, when he was up to his neck in it himself. Remember how he went after Jimmy Carr? Hypocrisy. " I completely agree - he's cocked this one right up. It's the entire Panama story I'm totally underwhelmed by. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people take steps to retain and grow their wealth. Fuck me, didn't see that one coming. I think it was more the way the shifty bastard has spent the last few years banging on about how "morally wrong" tax dodging is, when he was up to his neck in it himself. Remember how he went after Jimmy Carr? Hypocrisy. I completely agree - he's cocked this one right up. It's the entire Panama story I'm totally underwhelmed by. " If there is nothing wrong with the 'Panama story', as you call it, then there is no hypocrisy, and logically no cock up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The papers haven't been able to pin any dishonesty on Jeremy Corbyn for example, despite conducting the most orchestrated smear campaign against a politician in UK political history." Just for the record, I like Jeremy Corbyn. He is a breath of fresh air thay our politics desperately needed. It's just that when it comes to vote, I vote for the party that I think will improve my life, and that of my children, while still being fair to those less fortunate than myself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people take steps to retain and grow their wealth. Fuck me, didn't see that one coming. I think it was more the way the shifty bastard has spent the last few years banging on about how "morally wrong" tax dodging is, when he was up to his neck in it himself. Remember how he went after Jimmy Carr? Hypocrisy. I completely agree - he's cocked this one right up. It's the entire Panama story I'm totally underwhelmed by. If there is nothing wrong with the 'Panama story', as you call it, then there is no hypocrisy, and logically no cock up." You're doing your usual thing of telling people what they are saying, rather than understanding what they've posted. I'm underwhelmed because it is the least surprising story to come out this year. I didn't say "nothing wrong". Tax evasion is wrong. Money laundering is wrong. Tax avoidance, if it's legal, knock yourself out. But publicly saying someone else's legal tax avoidance scheme is wrong while using one yourself is hypocritical and a political cock up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people take steps to retain and grow their wealth. Fuck me, didn't see that one coming. I think it was more the way the shifty bastard has spent the last few years banging on about how "morally wrong" tax dodging is, when he was up to his neck in it himself. Remember how he went after Jimmy Carr? Hypocrisy. I completely agree - he's cocked this one right up. It's the entire Panama story I'm totally underwhelmed by. " I'm a bit underwhelmed with this story too, regardless of how many more consecutive days the op posts it, I remain totally meh...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people take steps to retain and grow their wealth. Fuck me, didn't see that one coming. I think it was more the way the shifty bastard has spent the last few years banging on about how "morally wrong" tax dodging is, when he was up to his neck in it himself. Remember how he went after Jimmy Carr? Hypocrisy. I completely agree - he's cocked this one right up. It's the entire Panama story I'm totally underwhelmed by. If there is nothing wrong with the 'Panama story', as you call it, then there is no hypocrisy, and logically no cock up. You're doing your usual thing of telling people what they are saying, rather than understanding what they've posted. I'm underwhelmed because it is the least surprising story to come out this year. I didn't say "nothing wrong". Tax evasion is wrong. Money laundering is wrong. Tax avoidance, if it's legal, knock yourself out. But publicly saying someone else's legal tax avoidance scheme is wrong while using one yourself is hypocritical and a political cock up. " Yes, that makes sense, apologies for the misunderstanding. Although there will be many people who don't know for sure that David Cameron's father was a serial tax avoider, and will be very surprised. Also there are many of us who suspected the whole family were morally corrupt, and are grateful to have it factually confirmed. It's a beautiful thing to see the Tories, who were in disarray at best, having a ton of Tory kfyptinite right on their heads. A very beautiful thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You're doing your usual thing of telling people what they are saying, rather than understanding what they've posted. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society." "You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here" Oh I understand it all right. The actual issue is Labour trying to get at Cameron with a non issue because they can find sod all else. "The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident" A clue is in the word "partly" so it could have been partly founded by and American, Canadian, Italian, Frenchman and so on. So are those countries entitled to the tax from a Bahamas company as well? Or would it not just be better to wait until any income is drawn then charge tax. Which is what happens. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. Which he will have been paying on all personal income including drawings from any international investments. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. How can it be avoiding UK taxes when as you say yourself "it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents" You shoot down your own argument So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. Good sound bite but not really true. As you said yourself "partly" created by his father. An international investment company with an international clientèle and international owners can base itself where it likes. If you are suggesting that any international company with at least one British owner should be based in the UK. Then you really have no grasp whatsoever on how international finance works. Well outside of North Korea anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The papers haven't been able to pin any dishonesty on Jeremy Corbyn for example, despite conducting the most orchestrated smear campaign against a politician in UK political history. Just for the record, I like Jeremy Corbyn. He is a breath of fresh air thay our politics desperately needed. It's just that when it comes to vote, I vote for the party that I think will improve my life, and that of my children, while still being fair to those less fortunate than myself."
And as far as Corbyn goes, he didn't even want to do what was best for his own children, so what chance ours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has said David Cameron's admission that he owned shares in an offshore fund set up by his late father has undermined public trust in him. . . "After years of calling for tax transparency and attacking complex offshore tax arrangements as 'morally wrong', the prime minister has been shown to have personally benefited from exactly such a secretive offshore investment," . . On Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale. He said the firm, Blairmore Holdings, had not been set up to avoid tax. But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the PM had "misled the public" and "lost the trust of the British people". Mr Cameron's actions had showed there was "one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us". . . So have you lost faith in your leader due to this, or did you never have faith in the first place? . . Can you ever believe what he says and now that he is fighting to remain in EU, can you believe he has the UK at heart or is this to ensure he goes on and makes more millions once he stands down as PM, exact same as Blair (Remember him? the multi millionaire).. As he has done nothing that is illegal , what interest should it be to anyone as to how he manages his own personal investments ?. As long as he pays tax that is due , who cares . The Prime Ministers resources should be devoted to running the country , not how he manages his own personal investments . In any event , these investments were sold six years ago and in addition were made by David Cameron's father . Much people voted for him that any other party . It is inevitable that any ex PM will become a multi millionaire. . Why would this bother anyone . Few people have the necessary skills to become pm .." So the fact that he is a liar and hypocrite is okay with you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so you cant see the hypocrisy of our prime minister standing up in parliament and stating that Jimmy Carrs use of the self same tax avoidance measures as he and his family have benefited from is "morally wrong " he damned by his own words. this is the man who went on record that he would fight to have these schemes blocked and stopped but then personally intervenes in the EU to stop them doing exactly that but hey its all legal right ! hypocrisy of the highest order do as i say not as i do !" He's no mug, that's for sure! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society. "You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here" Oh I understand it all right. The actual issue is Labour trying to get at Cameron with a non issue because they can find sod all else. "The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident" A clue is in the word "partly" so it could have been partly founded by and American, Canadian, Italian, Frenchman and so on. So are those countries entitled to the tax from a Bahamas company as well? Or would it not just be better to wait until any income is drawn then charge tax. Which is what happens. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. Which he will have been paying on all personal income including drawings from any international investments. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. How can it be avoiding UK taxes when as you say yourself "it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents" You shoot down your own argument So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. Good sound bite but not really true. As you said yourself "partly" created by his father. An international investment company with an international clientèle and international owners can base itself where it likes. If you are suggesting that any international company with at least one British owner should be based in the UK. Then you really have no grasp whatsoever on how international finance works. Well outside of North Korea anyway " As soon as you said this was cooked up by the Labour Party you were off on a flight of fancy. The rest was no better, sorry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Few people have the necessary skills to become pm .. I'm not sure that Cameron had them either "Rather him than that clown Corbyn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like Jeremy Corbyn. He is a breath of fresh air thay our politics desperately needed. It's just that when it comes to vote, I vote for the party that I think will improve my life, and that of my children, while still being fair to those less fortunate than myself." It is funny, so many say that but if you look at the figures you are wrong in just about every way. Examples when in power: number of years in office over the last 70 (since the end of WW2) Labour 28 Tory 42 Average yearly borrowing, excluding global financial chrisis (corrected to 2014 prices) Labour: 26.8 billion Tory : 33.5 " Number of years when debt was repaid Labour 7 Tory 4 % of debt paid off Labour 25 Tory 9.4 Total amount paid off Labour 108.8 billion Tory 19.9 " The total borrowed by Tories since 2010 is more than that borrowed by every Labour government ever! Seems to me that when you look at the figures all the Tory economic claims turn out to be as false as their election promises. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like Jeremy Corbyn. He is a breath of fresh air thay our politics desperately needed. It's just that when it comes to vote, I vote for the party that I think will improve my life, and that of my children, while still being fair to those less fortunate than myself. It is funny, so many say that but if you look at the figures you are wrong in just about every way. Examples when in power: number of years in office over the last 70 (since the end of WW2) Labour 28 Tory 42 Average yearly borrowing, excluding global financial chrisis (corrected to 2014 prices) Labour: 26.8 billion Tory : 33.5 " Number of years when debt was repaid Labour 7 Tory 4 % of debt paid off Labour 25 Tory 9.4 Total amount paid off Labour 108.8 billion Tory 19.9 " The total borrowed by Tories since 2010 is more than that borrowed by every Labour government ever! Seems to me that when you look at the figures all the Tory economic claims turn out to be as false as their election promises." What people believe politically is very rarely to do with any facts. It's pretty much all feelings. Recent studies have shown that political allegiance is as much to do with the make up of the brain as anything else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like Jeremy Corbyn. He is a breath of fresh air thay our politics desperately needed. It's just that when it comes to vote, I vote for the party that I think will improve my life, and that of my children, while still being fair to those less fortunate than myself. It is funny, so many say that but if you look at the figures you are wrong in just about every way. Examples when in power: number of years in office over the last 70 (since the end of WW2) Labour 28 Tory 42 Average yearly borrowing, excluding global financial chrisis (corrected to 2014 prices) Labour: 26.8 billion Tory : 33.5 " Number of years when debt was repaid Labour 7 Tory 4 % of debt paid off Labour 25 Tory 9.4 Total amount paid off Labour 108.8 billion Tory 19.9 " The total borrowed by Tories since 2010 is more than that borrowed by every Labour government ever! Seems to me that when you look at the figures all the Tory economic claims turn out to be as false as their election promises." Oh, perhaps the Tories are actually more socialist than labour then?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like Jeremy Corbyn. He is a breath of fresh air thay our politics desperately needed. It's just that when it comes to vote, I vote for the party that I think will improve my life, and that of my children, while still being fair to those less fortunate than myself. It is funny, so many say that but if you look at the figures you are wrong in just about every way. Examples when in power: number of years in office over the last 70 (since the end of WW2) Labour 28 Tory 42 Average yearly borrowing, excluding global financial chrisis (corrected to 2014 prices) Labour: 26.8 billion Tory : 33.5 " Number of years when debt was repaid Labour 7 Tory 4 % of debt paid off Labour 25 Tory 9.4 Total amount paid off Labour 108.8 billion Tory 19.9 " The total borrowed by Tories since 2010 is more than that borrowed by every Labour government ever! Seems to me that when you look at the figures all the Tory economic claims turn out to be as false as their election promises." Yeah, but I still feel all's well with the world at the mo. Maybe I just have a sunny disposition  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, but I still feel all's well with the world at the mo. Maybe I just have a sunny disposition "Well here is another fact for you to think about, while the tories in the last 6 years have been borrowing more than labour did in all their time in office they have also managed to sell off more of the nations assets than in the whole of the thatcher/major years and that does not include the privatising of the land registrary or all schools still under LEA control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, but I still feel all's well with the world at the mo. Maybe I just have a sunny disposition
Well here is another fact for you to think about, while the tories in the last 6 years have been borrowing more than labour did in all their time in office they have also managed to sell off more of the nations assets than in the whole of the thatcher/major years and that does not include the privatising of the land registrary or all schools still under LEA control. "And here's one for you to think about. Under every labour government unemployment has risen. How come? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, but I still feel all's well with the world at the mo. Maybe I just have a sunny disposition
Well here is another fact for you to think about, while the tories in the last 6 years have been borrowing more than labour did in all their time in office they have also managed to sell off more of the nations assets than in the whole of the thatcher/major years and that does not include the privatising of the land registrary or all schools still under LEA control.
And here's one for you to think about. Under every labour government unemployment has risen. How come?"That is demonstrably historically false, of course. It's just the sort of thing that people who vote Conservative regularly fall for, the parroting of false information as fact because they don't actually know whether it's true or not, but it suits their beliefs. The fact that it came out of Grant Schapp's mouth should be enough to warn anyone away from repeating it. Here are the real facts: http://www.bbench.co.uk/#!%E2%80%9CEvery-Labour-government-in-history-has-left-unemployment-higher%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-A-Fact-Check/crhk/15B68EE0-FA3E-4B5C-9F0E-D81DBFDE4254 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is - if he resigns now, just before the EU referendum - we will end up in chaos. I'm sure he's not the only MP investing in offshore funds or employing a spouse in some way to mitigate tax. They're all as bad as each other ! Sarah " Exactly, if he steps down, it will be replacing like for like, most of them are corrupt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Taking a step back from the details.. Cameron covered up by not being open with a sensitive issue while not illegal his covering up.. Bearing in mind his office.. His position .. he just can't be trusted to being truthful. Casting doubt on his motives on all other issues .." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society. "You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here" Oh I understand it all right. The actual issue is Labour trying to get at Cameron with a non issue because they can find sod all else. "The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident" A clue is in the word "partly" so it could have been partly founded by and American, Canadian, Italian, Frenchman and so on. So are those countries entitled to the tax from a Bahamas company as well? Or would it not just be better to wait until any income is drawn then charge tax. Which is what happens. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. Which he will have been paying on all personal income including drawings from any international investments. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. How can it be avoiding UK taxes when as you say yourself "it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents" You shoot down your own argument So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. Good sound bite but not really true. As you said yourself "partly" created by his father. An international investment company with an international clientèle and international owners can base itself where it likes. If you are suggesting that any international company with at least one British owner should be based in the UK. Then you really have no grasp whatsoever on how international finance works. Well outside of North Korea anyway As soon as you said this was cooked up by the Labour Party you were off on a flight of fancy. The rest was no better, sorry. "So Corbyn, Mann, and Watson are Tories then? Or maybe Ukippers? The raw information may have come from the so called "Panama Papers" but it is those three who are flying the kite for all it is worth. Which is very little if anything really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cameron is taking personal responsibility for the cock up Downing Street have made over this. He's asking people not to blame his advisors. So now we know that he is admitting to being personally dishonest. What a week!" LoL... Reminds me of a verse from Walter Scott's Marmion: Yet Clare's sharp questions must I shun, Must separate Constance from the nun - Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive! A Palmer too!- no wonder why I felt rebuked beneath his eye; I might have known there was but one Whose look could quell Lord Marmion Or maybe J.R. Popes, 'A Word of Encouragement' would be more appropriate: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive But when we've practiced for a while How vastly we improve our style!" Now remember folks 'call me "we're all in this together" dave' wears nice £2,000 to £3,500 suits and stands up for the national anthem! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mr ddc I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. He is now polling below Corbyn in the YouGov approval ratings, and Corbyn is ranking higher than Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson in the YouGov polls over who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance, so fortunately your _iew isn't a popular one. Meh "Government unpopular in mid-term" shocker.
And they're polling that way on "who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance" as opposed to "who do you want running the country" so unless tax avoidance becomes the number 1 issue at the next election, above all else, it doesn't seem likely to help much.
It is going to be MASSIVE at the next election. The one thing even Tory voters care about is taxation, and who pays it fairly.
The stink of this will be on the Tories for years, as the revelations from Panama will be fed for years."Think back to Spring last year. Your track record on predictions leaves something to be desired. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society. "You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here" Oh I understand it all right. The actual issue is Labour trying to get at Cameron with a non issue because they can find sod all else. "The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident" A clue is in the word "partly" so it could have been partly founded by and American, Canadian, Italian, Frenchman and so on. So are those countries entitled to the tax from a Bahamas company as well? Or would it not just be better to wait until any income is drawn then charge tax. Which is what happens. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. Which he will have been paying on all personal income including drawings from any international investments. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. How can it be avoiding UK taxes when as you say yourself "it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents" You shoot down your own argument So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. Good sound bite but not really true. As you said yourself "partly" created by his father. An international investment company with an international clientèle and international owners can base itself where it likes. If you are suggesting that any international company with at least one British owner should be based in the UK. Then you really have no grasp whatsoever on how international finance works. Well outside of North Korea anyway As soon as you said this was cooked up by the Labour Party you were off on a flight of fancy. The rest was no better, sorry.
So Corbyn, Mann, and Watson are Tories then? Or maybe Ukippers?
The raw information may have come from the so called "Panama Papers" but it is those three who are flying the kite for all it is worth. Which is very little if anything really."i think its the media flying the flags, the rest is politics.. unless one is of the opinion that blatant hypocrisy is only allowed to be highlighted by one side it was ever thus.. could all be a smoke screen to detract from the In campaign that our Dave is leading into the wilderness of possible failure and a less than graceful exit from number 10 though.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has said David Cameron's admission that he owned shares in an offshore fund set up by his late father has undermined public trust in him. . . "After years of calling for tax transparency and attacking complex offshore tax arrangements as 'morally wrong', the prime minister has been shown to have personally benefited from exactly such a secretive offshore investment," . . On Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale. He said the firm, Blairmore Holdings, had not been set up to avoid tax. But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the PM had "misled the public" and "lost the trust of the British people". Mr Cameron's actions had showed there was "one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us". . . So have you lost faith in your leader due to this, or did you never have faith in the first place? . . Can you ever believe what he says and now that he is fighting to remain in EU, can you believe he has the UK at heart or is this to ensure he goes on and makes more millions once he stands down as PM, exact same as Blair (Remember him? the multi millionaire).. As he has done nothing that is illegal , what interest should it be to anyone as to how he manages his own personal investments ?. As long as he pays tax that is due , who cares . The Prime Ministers resources should be devoted to running the country , not how he manages his own personal investments . In any event , these investments were sold six years ago and in addition were made by David Cameron's father . Much people voted for him that any other party . It is inevitable that any ex PM will become a multi millionaire. . Why would this bother anyone . Few people have the necessary skills to become pm .." Or privileged background. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society. "You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here" Oh I understand it all right. The actual issue is Labour trying to get at Cameron with a non issue because they can find sod all else. "The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident" A clue is in the word "partly" so it could have been partly founded by and American, Canadian, Italian, Frenchman and so on. So are those countries entitled to the tax from a Bahamas company as well? Or would it not just be better to wait until any income is drawn then charge tax. Which is what happens. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. Which he will have been paying on all personal income including drawings from any international investments. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. How can it be avoiding UK taxes when as you say yourself "it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents" You shoot down your own argument So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. Good sound bite but not really true. As you said yourself "partly" created by his father. An international investment company with an international clientèle and international owners can base itself where it likes. If you are suggesting that any international company with at least one British owner should be based in the UK. Then you really have no grasp whatsoever on how international finance works. Well outside of North Korea anyway As soon as you said this was cooked up by the Labour Party you were off on a flight of fancy. The rest was no better, sorry.
So Corbyn, Mann, and Watson are Tories then? Or maybe Ukippers?
The raw information may have come from the so called "Panama Papers" but it is those three who are flying the kite for all it is worth. Which is very little if anything really."You seem to think the world's media, who are all covering this important story, are controlled by three men in the Labour Party. Like I said, a flight of fancy. When the UK Prime Minister attempts to deceive the electorate, honest people consider it to be a major issue. Those who think deceit is normal will of course disagree. I know you desperately, desperately, desperately want this all to go away, but it won't. So you may as well just try to deal with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Mr ddc I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. He is now polling below Corbyn in the YouGov approval ratings, and Corbyn is ranking higher than Cameron, Osborne and Boris Johnson in the YouGov polls over who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance, so fortunately your _iew isn't a popular one. Meh "Government unpopular in mid-term" shocker.
And they're polling that way on "who the public trust to tackle tax avoidance" as opposed to "who do you want running the country" so unless tax avoidance becomes the number 1 issue at the next election, above all else, it doesn't seem likely to help much.
It is going to be MASSIVE at the next election. The one thing even Tory voters care about is taxation, and who pays it fairly.
The stink of this will be on the Tories for years, as the revelations from Panama will be fed for years.
Think back to Spring last year. Your track record on predictions leaves something to be desired."You just couldn't stay away! I note that my Corbyn predictions have been 100% accurate so far, so I'm feeling pretty, pretty good about this too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society. "You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here" Oh I understand it all right. The actual issue is Labour trying to get at Cameron with a non issue because they can find sod all else. "The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident" A clue is in the word "partly" so it could have been partly founded by and American, Canadian, Italian, Frenchman and so on. So are those countries entitled to the tax from a Bahamas company as well? Or would it not just be better to wait until any income is drawn then charge tax. Which is what happens. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. Which he will have been paying on all personal income including drawings from any international investments. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. How can it be avoiding UK taxes when as you say yourself "it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents" You shoot down your own argument So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. Good sound bite but not really true. As you said yourself "partly" created by his father. An international investment company with an international clientèle and international owners can base itself where it likes. If you are suggesting that any international company with at least one British owner should be based in the UK. Then you really have no grasp whatsoever on how international finance works. Well outside of North Korea anyway As soon as you said this was cooked up by the Labour Party you were off on a flight of fancy. The rest was no better, sorry.
So Corbyn, Mann, and Watson are Tories then? Or maybe Ukippers?
The raw information may have come from the so called "Panama Papers" but it is those three who are flying the kite for all it is worth. Which is very little if anything really.
You seem to think the world's media, who are all covering this important story, are controlled by three men in the Labour Party. Like I said, a flight of fancy.
When the UK Prime Minister attempts to deceive the electorate, honest people consider it to be a major issue. Those who think deceit is normal will of course disagree.
I know you desperately, desperately, desperately want this all to go away, but it won't. So you may as well just try to deal with it. "How did he deceive the electorate? His father left him some shares in an international company which he sold shortly afterwards. The few months delay will almost certainly be the time it took for the estate to go through probate. End. Punt. Period. Full stop. As for desperately wanting it to go away? If anything I should be wanting it to hang around as more grist to the mill of the Brexit campaign, which I support. However a non story is a still a non story. It's just that the Labour party and a few of their pet hacks are desperate to find anything, no matter how preposterous, they can chuck at the Tories. Now let's talk about Tony Blairs dodgy dealing shall we. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets just say that Brexit, Port Talbot, Council Funding, Junior Doctor's dispute, the Middle East and Ukraine/Russia are all much more important than this (as are many other things!). Using 1984 speak is irrelevant in this discussion. Cameron has not been deceitful, he might have handled it better, but he does not merit the negativity and certainly not resignation. This is noise from people who can't come up with positive ways forward in any other areas. Put the effort into making things better rather than just criticising others..." This. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society. "You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here" Oh I understand it all right. The actual issue is Labour trying to get at Cameron with a non issue because they can find sod all else. "The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident" A clue is in the word "partly" so it could have been partly founded by and American, Canadian, Italian, Frenchman and so on. So are those countries entitled to the tax from a Bahamas company as well? Or would it not just be better to wait until any income is drawn then charge tax. Which is what happens. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. Which he will have been paying on all personal income including drawings from any international investments. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. How can it be avoiding UK taxes when as you say yourself "it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents" You shoot down your own argument So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. Good sound bite but not really true. As you said yourself "partly" created by his father. An international investment company with an international clientèle and international owners can base itself where it likes. If you are suggesting that any international company with at least one British owner should be based in the UK. Then you really have no grasp whatsoever on how international finance works. Well outside of North Korea anyway As soon as you said this was cooked up by the Labour Party you were off on a flight of fancy. The rest was no better, sorry.
So Corbyn, Mann, and Watson are Tories then? Or maybe Ukippers?
The raw information may have come from the so called "Panama Papers" but it is those three who are flying the kite for all it is worth. Which is very little if anything really.
You seem to think the world's media, who are all covering this important story, are controlled by three men in the Labour Party. Like I said, a flight of fancy.
When the UK Prime Minister attempts to deceive the electorate, honest people consider it to be a major issue. Those who think deceit is normal will of course disagree.
I know you desperately, desperately, desperately want this all to go away, but it won't. So you may as well just try to deal with it.
How did he deceive the electorate?
His father left him some shares in an international company which he sold shortly afterwards. The few months delay will almost certainly be the time it took for the estate to go through probate. End. Punt. Period. Full stop.
As for desperately wanting it to go away? If anything I should be wanting it to hang around as more grist to the mill of the Brexit campaign, which I support.
However a non story is a still a non story. It's just that the Labour party and a few of their pet hacks are desperate to find anything, no matter how preposterous, they can chuck at the Tories.
Now let's talk about Tony Blairs dodgy dealing shall we.
"You want us to talk about anything other than the matter in hand. I understand why. When you find yourself stubbornly supporting a liar and a hypocrite it's bound to leave a bad taste in your mouth. I'm not going to discuss whether this is a non-story with you any more, your flight of fancy is so far removed from the reality of international journalism that it's wasting everyone's time. Cameron deceived the electorate by choosing to answer the question of his shares five different ways over five days. As he has said clearly today, it was his choice to do so. He made the choice to deceive the public over the issue of these shares - it's now your choice whether you wish to keep defending the actions of a liar and a hypocrite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets just say that Brexit, Port Talbot, Council Funding, Junior Doctor's dispute, the Middle East and Ukraine/Russia are all much more important than this (as are many other things!). Using 1984 speak is irrelevant in this discussion. Cameron has not been deceitful, he might have handled it better, but he does not merit the negativity and certainly not resignation. This is noise from people who can't come up with positive ways forward in any other areas. Put the effort into making things better rather than just criticising others..." Look over there...it's a dead cat! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How did he deceive the electorate? His father left him some shares in an international company which he sold shortly afterwards. The few months delay will almost certainly be the time it took for the estate to go through probate. End. Punt. Period. Full stop." Wrong. He acquired the shares in the 90's. He sold them before his father died. Unless probate now happens before death it has nothing to do with probate. Possibly selling while the profit was still a couple of hundred under Capital Gains Tax threshold might be a more pertinent reason for the sale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I am speechless at the amount of ignorance on this and the previous thread. It appears that to some on here anyone who invests "offshore" is some kind of tax dodger, charlatan, or any other noun you care to mention. Millions of people have international investments (the clue is in the word "international") They invest globally, their clients are international so why the hell should they pay UK tax? What makes Britain so special that it should think that the whole of the worlds investment markets should pay its taxes to Osbourne or Darling, or Brown or whichever pillock is sat in No.11? Try telling a German or American, or whoever that his investment has been based in London (although many are) so that Britain can claim extra tax. The reality is that Cameron or any other individual do pay their personal taxes in their country of residence including any personal income from international investments. International company's and/or investments pay their corporation taxes in their home country, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here. The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. This is very damaging to David Cameron, and rightly so. Many people will now regard him as clearly a crook - not by transgressions against our state laws, but against our moral laws in a fair and decent society. "You are another person who doesn't understand the actual issue here" Oh I understand it all right. The actual issue is Labour trying to get at Cameron with a non issue because they can find sod all else. "The shares in question came from a company partly founded by David Cameron's father Ian, who was a UK resident" A clue is in the word "partly" so it could have been partly founded by and American, Canadian, Italian, Frenchman and so on. So are those countries entitled to the tax from a Bahamas company as well? Or would it not just be better to wait until any income is drawn then charge tax. Which is what happens. So as a UK citizen he was using resources paid for with UK taxes. Which he will have been paying on all personal income including drawings from any international investments. His company, Blairmore, paid no UK taxes in 30 years, because it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents - to enable it to avoid UK taxes, amongst others. This is called tax avoidance, and while not illegal, no-one worth a damn doesn't believe it to be immoral. How can it be avoiding UK taxes when as you say yourself "it was incorporated in the Bahamas and had a directorate made up mainly of overseas residents" You shoot down your own argument So David Cameron profited from selling shares in a company created by a UK resident to enable that resident to avoid UK taxes. While not illegal, it is only legal because people who benefit from it's legality, like David Cameron, personally intervene to keep it so. And this form of complex tax avoidance is certainly not available to all. Good sound bite but not really true. As you said yourself "partly" created by his father. An international investment company with an international clientèle and international owners can base itself where it likes. If you are suggesting that any international company with at least one British owner should be based in the UK. Then you really have no grasp whatsoever on how international finance works. Well outside of North Korea anyway As soon as you said this was cooked up by the Labour Party you were off on a flight of fancy. The rest was no better, sorry.
So Corbyn, Mann, and Watson are Tories then? Or maybe Ukippers?
The raw information may have come from the so called "Panama Papers" but it is those three who are flying the kite for all it is worth. Which is very little if anything really.
You seem to think the world's media, who are all covering this important story, are controlled by three men in the Labour Party. Like I said, a flight of fancy.
When the UK Prime Minister attempts to deceive the electorate, honest people consider it to be a major issue. Those who think deceit is normal will of course disagree.
I know you desperately, desperately, desperately want this all to go away, but it won't. So you may as well just try to deal with it.
How did he deceive the electorate?
His father left him some shares in an international company which he sold shortly afterwards. The few months delay will almost certainly be the time it took for the estate to go through probate. End. Punt. Period. Full stop.
As for desperately wanting it to go away? If anything I should be wanting it to hang around as more grist to the mill of the Brexit campaign, which I support.
However a non story is a still a non story. It's just that the Labour party and a few of their pet hacks are desperate to find anything, no matter how preposterous, they can chuck at the Tories.
Now let's talk about Tony Blairs dodgy dealing shall we.
You want us to talk about anything other than the matter in hand. I understand why. When you find yourself stubbornly supporting a liar and a hypocrite it's bound to leave a bad taste in your mouth.
I'm not going to discuss whether this is a non-story with you any more, your flight of fancy is so far removed from the reality of international journalism that it's wasting everyone's time.
Cameron deceived the electorate by choosing to answer the question of his shares five different ways over five days. As he has said clearly today, it was his choice to do so.
He made the choice to deceive the public over the issue of these shares - it's now your choice whether you wish to keep defending the actions of a liar and a hypocrite.". I think we are talking about some shares which were held by David Cameron's father and subsequently sold after his father's death in 2010. As it was all completely legal and above board I do not think too many people will get too excited about it . We all have more important issues to worry about than the shares which David Cameron's father owned . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think we are talking about some shares which were held by David Cameron's father and subsequently sold after his father's death in 2010. As it was all completely legal and above board I do not think too many people will get too excited about it . We all have more important issues to worry about than the shares which David Cameron's father owned . " Wrong. See the post above. The shares were owned by Cameron and his wife for over 10 years before he sold them in early 2010. His father died several months later. The Icelandic PM did nothing illegal but deceived the people about the true facts. It is the deceit that is the problem, not the share ownership. If Cameron thought there was nothing to be ashamed of why did he lie so many times about it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think we are talking about some shares which were held by David Cameron's father and subsequently sold after his father's death in 2010. As it was all completely legal and above board I do not think too many people will get too excited about it . We all have more important issues to worry about than the shares which David Cameron's father owned . Wrong. See the post above. The shares were owned by Cameron and his wife for over 10 years before he sold them in early 2010. His father died several months later. The Icelandic PM did nothing illegal but deceived the people about the true facts. It is the deceit that is the problem, not the share ownership. If Cameron thought there was nothing to be ashamed of why did he lie so many times about it?" You won't get any answer to that question out of Cameron's cheerleaders here. They are like the policeman in Naked Gun. "Nothing to see here! Please disperse!" (Meanwhile Cameron's career explodes in the background.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cameron has not been deceitful, he might have handled it better, but he does not merit the negativity and certainly not resignation. This is noise from people who can't come up with positive ways forward in any other areas. Put the effort into making things better rather than just criticising others..." Really? Off the top of my head... Pre 2010 election... We wont raise tuition fees, or change state support for poorest students. Then raised tuition fees and did away with what was left of the maintenance grant. Pre 2015 election... We wont impose top down changes on the NHS. Now imposing new contract on junior doctors. Pre 2015 election... We wont cut family credit or help to the most vulnerable in our society. How did that go? Lords revolt and threw out the bill to cut benefits twice and finally a Tory backbench revolt to kill that lot of cuts off. But still -£30 a week from the sick to pay for a cut in capital gains tax for the richest 2% of the country. 1997 to 2010 failed to declare on the Register of Members Interests he had made investments in his fathers offshore tax dodging company in direct contravention of the public standards rules governing disclosure of MPs outside interests. Want me to continue? There was of course his involvement with Coulson, Brooks, Maxwell and News International. I'm sure if I spend a little time thinking I can up with more for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cameron has not been deceitful, he might have handled it better, but he does not merit the negativity and certainly not resignation. This is noise from people who can't come up with positive ways forward in any other areas. Put the effort into making things better rather than just criticising others... Really? Off the top of my head... Pre 2010 election... We wont raise tuition fees, or change state support for poorest students. Then raised tuition fees and did away with what was left of the maintenance grant. Pre 2015 election... We wont impose top down changes on the NHS. Now imposing new contract on junior doctors. Pre 2015 election... We wont cut family credit or help to the most vulnerable in our society. How did that go? Lords revolt and threw out the bill to cut benefits twice and finally a Tory backbench revolt to kill that lot of cuts off. But still -£30 a week from the sick to pay for a cut in capital gains tax for the richest 2% of the country. 1997 to 2010 failed to declare on the Register of Members Interests he had made investments in his fathers offshore tax dodging company in direct contravention of the public standards rules governing disclosure of MPs outside interests. Want me to continue? There was of course his involvement with Coulson, Brooks, Maxwell and News International. I'm sure if I spend a little time thinking I can up with more for you. "& you do everything you say you will....? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think we are talking about some shares which were held by David Cameron's father and subsequently sold after his father's death in 2010. As it was all completely legal and above board I do not think too many people will get too excited about it . " No! We are talking about the 5% of his fathers company he bought in the 90's failed to disclose and sold in 2010 before becoming PM! It is not a nothing and it is something to get very excited about! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You won't get any answer to that question out of Cameron's cheerleaders here." It's strange isn't it that the 2 most vocal in his defence are trotting out the untruth that he inherited the shares from his dead father and then immediately sold them. Those lies seem to fit their agenda better than the truth though - Tory Central Office? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....?" I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. " Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents..." You hear what you choose to hear, it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... You hear what you choose to hear, it seems." I think we both agree on that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents..." Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a wanker, most wealthy people are wankers, they weren't born wankers but that's what being wealthy does to you!. It's just one of those tragedies of life!." I dare say they won't overly concern themselves with that enlightening gem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a wanker, most wealthy people are wankers, they weren't born wankers but that's what being wealthy does to you!. It's just one of those tragedies of life!. I dare say they won't overly concern themselves with that enlightening gem" and I think some wealthy are utter cunts, then again, I think some poor are as well. their bank balance doesn't drive my opinion on them, their actions do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote "You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a wanker, most wealthy people are wankers, they weren't born wankers but that's what being wealthy does to you!. It's just one of those tragedies of life!. I dare say they won't overly concern themselves with that enlightening gem and I think some wealthy are utter cunts, then again, I think some poor are as well. their bank balance doesn't drive my opinion on them, their actions do" So you're okay with the Prime Minister deceiving the public. Got it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one? "Err it's correct | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a wanker, most wealthy people are wankers, they weren't born wankers but that's what being wealthy does to you!. It's just one of those tragedies of life!. I dare say they won't overly concern themselves with that enlightening gem and I think some wealthy are utter cunts, then again, I think some poor are as well. their bank balance doesn't drive my opinion on them, their actions do So you're okay with the Prime Minister deceiving the public. Got it." did I say that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one?
Err it's correct"I didn't think you'd bother reading that link. No, it's quite incorrect, as you'd know if you looked things up for yourself, rather than believing serial Tory liar Grant Schapps. Just like with the X-Files...the truth is out there! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If any of the people criticising cameron were ex tories i might take notice. " You seem to be taking a lot of notice, you can't stay out of these threads no matter how hard you try! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one?
Err it's correct
I didn't think you'd bother reading that link.
No, it's quite incorrect, as you'd know if you looked things up for yourself, rather than believing serial Tory liar Grant Schapps.
Just like with the X-Files...the truth is out there!"Nothing to do with Grant Schapps. You should try to read things from an unbiased perspective | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one?
Err it's correct
I didn't think you'd bother reading that link.
No, it's quite incorrect, as you'd know if you looked things up for yourself, rather than believing serial Tory liar Grant Schapps.
Just like with the X-Files...the truth is out there!
Nothing to do with Grant Schapps. You should try to read things from an unbiased perspective"There is no bias in fact. What you said was demonstrably historically wrong. I posted a link for you to read proving the actual historical fact rather than the sound bite you got from Grant Schapps, you didn't bother to read it. That's fine. Pretending that has anything to do with bias is a bit pointless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one?
Err it's correct
I didn't think you'd bother reading that link.
No, it's quite incorrect, as you'd know if you looked things up for yourself, rather than believing serial Tory liar Grant Schapps.
Just like with the X-Files...the truth is out there!
Nothing to do with Grant Schapps. You should try to read things from an unbiased perspective
There is no bias in fact.
What you said was demonstrably historically wrong. I posted a link for you to read proving the actual historical fact rather than the sound bite you got from Grant Schapps, you didn't bother to read it.
That's fine. Pretending that has anything to do with bias is a bit pointless."Ok, post here which term labour spent in office when unemployment was lower at the end of their time in office than at the beginning and what the figures were | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a wanker, most wealthy people are wankers, they weren't born wankers but that's what being wealthy does to you!. It's just one of those tragedies of life!. I dare say they won't overly concern themselves with that enlightening gem and I think some wealthy are utter cunts, then again, I think some poor are as well. their bank balance doesn't drive my opinion on them, their actions do" . You've mistaken me for somebody who gives a shit!. Im just stating things as I've found them in life, not trying to convince anybody of anything! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one?
Err it's correct
I didn't think you'd bother reading that link.
No, it's quite incorrect, as you'd know if you looked things up for yourself, rather than believing serial Tory liar Grant Schapps.
Just like with the X-Files...the truth is out there!
Nothing to do with Grant Schapps. You should try to read things from an unbiased perspective
There is no bias in fact.
What you said was demonstrably historically wrong. I posted a link for you to read proving the actual historical fact rather than the sound bite you got from Grant Schapps, you didn't bother to read it.
That's fine. Pretending that has anything to do with bias is a bit pointless.
Ok, post here which term labour spent in office when unemployment was lower at the end of their time in office than at the beginning and what the figures were "You can read that link if you wish to know. The answers are there, and I've already taken the time to provide them for you. Alternatively, if you want to keep believing and repeating a lie, that's entirely up to you too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one?
Err it's correct
I didn't think you'd bother reading that link.
No, it's quite incorrect, as you'd know if you looked things up for yourself, rather than believing serial Tory liar Grant Schapps.
Just like with the X-Files...the truth is out there!
Nothing to do with Grant Schapps. You should try to read things from an unbiased perspective
There is no bias in fact.
What you said was demonstrably historically wrong. I posted a link for you to read proving the actual historical fact rather than the sound bite you got from Grant Schapps, you didn't bother to read it.
That's fine. Pretending that has anything to do with bias is a bit pointless.
Ok, post here which term labour spent in office when unemployment was lower at the end of their time in office than at the beginning and what the figures were
You can read that link if you wish to know. The answers are there, and I've already taken the time to provide them for you.
Alternatively, if you want to keep believing and repeating a lie, that's entirely up to you too."Which term? If you are right its quite simple surely? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one?
Err it's correct
I didn't think you'd bother reading that link.
No, it's quite incorrect, as you'd know if you looked things up for yourself, rather than believing serial Tory liar Grant Schapps.
Just like with the X-Files...the truth is out there!
Nothing to do with Grant Schapps. You should try to read things from an unbiased perspective
There is no bias in fact.
What you said was demonstrably historically wrong. I posted a link for you to read proving the actual historical fact rather than the sound bite you got from Grant Schapps, you didn't bother to read it.
That's fine. Pretending that has anything to do with bias is a bit pointless.
Ok, post here which term labour spent in office when unemployment was lower at the end of their time in office than at the beginning and what the figures were
You can read that link if you wish to know. The answers are there, and I've already taken the time to provide them for you.
Alternatively, if you want to keep believing and repeating a lie, that's entirely up to you too.
Which term? If you are right its quite simple surely?"Yes it is...but I'm not spoon feeding you here. I'm encouraging you to learn something. By reading the whole article you will not only find out which Labour administrations reduced employment, but you'll also find out that the Tory administrations have performed roughly the same in terms of reducing employment (and arguably worse), since 1923, when the first Labour directed government sat in power. Knowledge is a wonderful thing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one?
Err it's correct
I didn't think you'd bother reading that link.
No, it's quite incorrect, as you'd know if you looked things up for yourself, rather than believing serial Tory liar Grant Schapps.
Just like with the X-Files...the truth is out there!
Nothing to do with Grant Schapps. You should try to read things from an unbiased perspective
There is no bias in fact.
What you said was demonstrably historically wrong. I posted a link for you to read proving the actual historical fact rather than the sound bite you got from Grant Schapps, you didn't bother to read it.
That's fine. Pretending that has anything to do with bias is a bit pointless.
Ok, post here which term labour spent in office when unemployment was lower at the end of their time in office than at the beginning and what the figures were
You can read that link if you wish to know. The answers are there, and I've already taken the time to provide them for you.
Alternatively, if you want to keep believing and repeating a lie, that's entirely up to you too.
Which term? If you are right its quite simple surely?
Yes it is...but I'm not spoon feeding you here. I'm encouraging you to learn something. By reading the whole article you will not only find out which Labour administrations reduced employment, but you'll also find out that the Tory administrations have performed roughly the same in terms of reducing employment (and arguably worse), since 1923, when the first Labour directed government sat in power.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing!"In other words you can't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Few people have the necessary skills to become pm .. I'm not sure that Cameron had them either "Don't need no GCSE to be prime min.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has said David Cameron's admission that he owned shares in an offshore fund set up by his late father has undermined public trust in him. . . "After years of calling for tax transparency and attacking complex offshore tax arrangements as 'morally wrong', the prime minister has been shown to have personally benefited from exactly such a secretive offshore investment," . . On Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale. He said the firm, Blairmore Holdings, had not been set up to avoid tax. But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the PM had "misled the public" and "lost the trust of the British people". Mr Cameron's actions had showed there was "one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us". . . So have you lost faith in your leader due to this, or did you never have faith in the first place? . . Can you ever believe what he says and now that he is fighting to remain in EU, can you believe he has the UK at heart or is this to ensure he goes on and makes more millions once he stands down as PM, exact same as Blair (Remember him? the multi millionaire)." I lost faith in David Cameron on his pathetic EU renegotiation. He promised us "fundamental change to our relationship with the EU" and that he would reform the EU. What a load of crap, the renegotiation was rubbish, he has failed to deliver fundamental change and he has failed to reform the EU. What he asked for was weak to begin with and he came back with less than what he asked for. He said If he didn't get what he wanted from the EU then he would "rule nothing out". By that I thought he meant he would campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get what he asked for. He didn't get what he asked for in full and now he is campaigning to stay in the EU, the guy is full of shit. The recent shambles budget over cuts to the disabled and IDS resignation damaged Cameron and now this leaked Panama tax dodge thing has weakened him further. If he loses the EU referendum he will be gone. I'll be voting to leave the EU for my own reasons but if Cameron gets kicked out of 10 Downing street as a result that will be an extra added bonus as far as I'm concerned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Hypocrite? Not if he also told his father that he thought it was morally wrong, surely If he sold the shares passed on to him as soon after his fathers death as possible, and paid the correct level of tax on this as either an inheritance or capital gain, then you're simply advocating punishing the children for the iniquities of the father, aren't you? There is much play about "just before he came into power", but I hardly think his Dad died in 2010 deliberately, these things just happen you know
Mr ddc"the thing is. he sold his shares in Jan 2010 - his father past away Sept 2010 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a wanker, most wealthy people are wankers, they weren't born wankers but that's what being wealthy does to you!. It's just one of those tragedies of life!. I dare say they won't overly concern themselves with that enlightening gem" . There was a native cree Indian wrote a very fine good book I read many years ago about Columbus and his effect on cree culture!. You see he explained that they'd got to a point in culture where they realised that greed was inherent in humans, they controlled this problematic human nature by shunning tribesmen who showed signs of greed and accumulation, being shunned out of the pack(the name for their little village) which provided safety for the individual, helped push the instinct out of Cree society!. The tribes had a very troubled attitude to the "white man" for they saw his inherent need for greed and they knew this would only lead to bad things!. However the Cree also excepted a philosophy of you become your enemy. So they also knew fighting the white man would just make them the same as the white man!.. So you become "wetiko" by life's tribulations! . . I can't for the life of me think of his name but his book was very beautiful! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a wanker, most wealthy people are wankers, they weren't born wankers but that's what being wealthy does to you!. It's just one of those tragedies of life!. I dare say they won't overly concern themselves with that enlightening gem. There was a native cree Indian wrote a very fine good book I read many years ago about Columbus and his effect on cree culture!. You see he explained that they'd got to a point in culture where they realised that greed was inherent in humans, they controlled this problematic human nature by shunning tribesmen who showed signs of greed and accumulation, being shunned out of the pack(the name for their little village) which provided safety for the individual, helped push the instinct out of Cree society!. The tribes had a very troubled attitude to the "white man" for they saw his inherent need for greed and they knew this would only lead to bad things!. However the Cree also excepted a philosophy of you become your enemy. So they also knew fighting the white man would just make them the same as the white man!.. So you become "wetiko" by life's tribulations! . . I can't for the life of me think of his name but his book was very beautiful!" And some people say unrestricted immigration does no harm eh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If any of the people criticising cameron were ex tories i might take notice. You seem to be taking a lot of notice, you can't stay out of these threads no matter how hard you try! "Says the man that's had more to say than any other contributor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Camaron has done nothing wrong it is the most pathetic political story of the year" Oh, I don't know....the Cameron fucking a pigs head was pretty cool. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Camaron has done nothing wrong it is the most pathetic political story of the year Oh, I don't know....the Cameron fucking a pigs head was pretty cool. " That's true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Omg you sad people. This is unreal, sex and politics don't mix. Grow up" I suggest you tell Cameron that. He fucked the pigs head, not me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Omg you sad people. This is unreal, sex and politics don't mix. Grow up" . Is that sarcasm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Omg you sad people. This is unreal, sex and politics don't mix. Grow up. Is that sarcasm "Maybe it's a subtle reference to the Green Party's local government party political broadcast. 
I doubt it, somehow..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's a wanker, most wealthy people are wankers, they weren't born wankers but that's what being wealthy does to you!. It's just one of those tragedies of life!. I dare say they won't overly concern themselves with that enlightening gem. There was a native cree Indian wrote a very fine good book I read many years ago about Columbus and his effect on cree culture!. You see he explained that they'd got to a point in culture where they realised that greed was inherent in humans, they controlled this problematic human nature by shunning tribesmen who showed signs of greed and accumulation, being shunned out of the pack(the name for their little village) which provided safety for the individual, helped push the instinct out of Cree society!. The tribes had a very troubled attitude to the "white man" for they saw his inherent need for greed and they knew this would only lead to bad things!. However the Cree also excepted a philosophy of you become your enemy. So they also knew fighting the white man would just make them the same as the white man!.. So you become "wetiko" by life's tribulations! . . I can't for the life of me think of his name but his book was very beautiful!" . Jack Forbes...I had to look it up, memories gone these days  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Camaron has done nothing wrong it is the most pathetic political story of the year" your righ he has done nothing wrong that isn what got him in to trouble as usual with in politics it's the cover up that has got him into trouble .if he had come out and said on day one what he had done where and when he would of been fine but he didn't he lied he obfuscated and that's what has done the damage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The prime minister's salary was steady at £142,500 from 2010 to 2015, but there were tax variations due to treatment of his pension contributions and the different approaches to his £20,000 tax-free allowance. In terms of rent earned on the Notting Hill house, Mr Cameron's 50% share, minus expenses, was £45,041 in 2011-12, £46,700 in 2012-13, £47,764 in 2013-14 and £46,899 last year. The new tax task force announced by Mr Cameron will have initial funding of £10m and involve staff from the Serious Fraud Office and Financial Conduct Authority as well as HMRC and the NCA. The government said the agencies had leading technology, experts and resources to tackle money laundering and tax evasion " I don't think I'm awake enough yet, as I don't get what point you are making. Are we supposed to be reading between the lines? Sarah | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"& you do everything you say you will....? I do not hold Public Office! nor have I made promises in order to gain Public Office. If I did I did any of the above I would! It is called integrity, something sadly lacking in the people we now have governing us and their rabid supporters. Im only hearing rabid from the opponents... Lol, the funny thing is, they are getting all excited about it to what end? He's leaving soon anyway. After the referendum vote
You're back! Got anything to say about your incorrect assertion that unemployment always rises under Labour, or are you hoping we've forgotten about that one?
Err it's correct
I didn't think you'd bother reading that link.
No, it's quite incorrect, as you'd know if you looked things up for yourself, rather than believing serial Tory liar Grant Schapps.
Just like with the X-Files...the truth is out there!
Nothing to do with Grant Schapps. You should try to read things from an unbiased perspective
There is no bias in fact.
What you said was demonstrably historically wrong. I posted a link for you to read proving the actual historical fact rather than the sound bite you got from Grant Schapps, you didn't bother to read it.
That's fine. Pretending that has anything to do with bias is a bit pointless.
Ok, post here which term labour spent in office when unemployment was lower at the end of their time in office than at the beginning and what the figures were
You can read that link if you wish to know. The answers are there, and I've already taken the time to provide them for you.
Alternatively, if you want to keep believing and repeating a lie, that's entirely up to you too.
Which term? If you are right its quite simple surely?
Yes it is...but I'm not spoon feeding you here. I'm encouraging you to learn something. By reading the whole article you will not only find out which Labour administrations reduced employment, but you'll also find out that the Tory administrations have performed roughly the same in terms of reducing employment (and arguably worse), since 1923, when the first Labour directed government sat in power.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing!
In other words you can't"Are you scared to read it for some reason? You can read, can't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I love these threads not ,,,,,, at least I can keep on topping up my block list ,,,,, I hate politics at the best of times , even bloody worse on fab "Be sure to keep us all informed, please! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So all this bollocks because he invested in a hedge fund... Brilliant i best tell off my pension company to. " That's certainly what Downng Street want people to think the story is about, yes...and many people will reliably fall for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The prime minister's salary was steady at £142,500 from 2010 to 2015, but there were tax variations due to treatment of his pension contributions and the different approaches to his £20,000 tax-free allowance. In terms of rent earned on the Notting Hill house, Mr Cameron's 50% share, minus expenses, was £45,041 in 2011-12, £46,700 in 2012-13, £47,764 in 2013-14 and £46,899 last year. The new tax task force announced by Mr Cameron will have initial funding of £10m and involve staff from the Serious Fraud Office and Financial Conduct Authority as well as HMRC and the NCA. The government said the agencies had leading technology, experts and resources to tackle money laundering and tax evasion I don't think I'm awake enough yet, as I don't get what point you are making. Are we supposed to be reading between the lines? Sarah " Is he still using the old wheeze of using 'advisors' from MNCs while laying off more HMRC staff? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So all this bollocks because he invested in a hedge fund... Brilliant i best tell off my pension company to. That's certainly what Downng Street want people to think the story is about, yes...and many people will reliably fall for it." I still reckon it's a smoke screen so you forget about the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So all this bollocks because he invested in a hedge fund... Brilliant i best tell off my pension company to. That's certainly what Downng Street want people to think the story is about, yes...and many people will reliably fall for it. I still reckon it's a smoke screen so you forget about the NHS." Not all voters are stupid, and many people can keep more than one political story in their heads at a time. Besides that, Cameron committing political blunders is simply par for the course, rather than strategy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has said David Cameron's admission that he owned shares in an offshore fund set up by his late father has undermined public trust in him. . . "After years of calling for tax transparency and attacking complex offshore tax arrangements as 'morally wrong', the prime minister has been shown to have personally benefited from exactly such a secretive offshore investment," . . On Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale. He said the firm, Blairmore Holdings, had not been set up to avoid tax. But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the PM had "misled the public" and "lost the trust of the British people". Mr Cameron's actions had showed there was "one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us". . . So have you lost faith in your leader due to this, or did you never have faith in the first place? . . Can you ever believe what he says and now that he is fighting to remain in EU, can you believe he has the UK at heart or is this to ensure he goes on and makes more millions once he stands down as PM, exact same as Blair (Remember him? the multi millionaire)." Well it was obvious that Cameron was upto no good long before he became PM. A lot of Tax news regarding the pig fucker went under the mainstream radar. Tory policy. Fuck the country over and watch everyone suffer whilst smiling on the side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still like him "Must say he's gone up in my estimations. Ill probably vote blue in the locals this time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still like him
Must say he's gone up in my estimations. Ill probably vote blue in the locals this time. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So all this bollocks because he invested in a hedge fund... Brilliant i best tell off my pension company to. " Do you (or your pension fund) hold public office? Do you (or your pension fund) get to frame and vote on the laws that govern hedge funds? Have you (or your pension fund used your public office, parliamentary and government position to attack a private citizen for doing something you were doing up to the point where you became prime minister? I think not! This is not about you or any other nobody or average joe this is about a person in high public office acting in a corrupt and deceitful way. The fact is those who hold public office and govern the rest of us need utterly impeccable standards of property. This caMoron has singularly proven himself to be incapable of on more than 1 occasion. He and his corrupt cronies should go! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
