FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A Russian Oligarch Question
A Russian Oligarch Question
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
A lot of people in these forums seem to think that the Russian oligarchs will remove Putin from power because he's hurting their money and lifestyle.
That remains to be seen. Frankly, given his ability to have any of them imprisoned, or murdered, at his command - and they know it - they'd have to grow much larger balls.
However, let's imagine that they do remove him, the Russian troops go home and we can all celebrate Ukraine's victory and slap ourselves on the back for our part in it.
The question then, is this:
Should the Tories - assuming they are still the UK government when Putin is removed from office - continue with the sanctions (however ineffectual they may appear to be) they are now taking against Russian oligarchs?
Or should they welcome them - and their unexplained wealth - back to London?
Telling them they're forgiven and we know it wasn't really your fault, there was nothing you could do until Putin was gone. A little like how the Americans gave Wernher von Braun a second chance.
I only ask because it doesn't seem like the people of the UK would be comfortable with such an arrangement, given their current mood.
And, if you don't think they should be welcomed back, wealth uninvestigated - why not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"A lot of people in these forums seem to think that the Russian oligarchs will remove Putin from power because he's hurting their money and lifestyle.
That remains to be seen. Frankly, given his ability to have any of them imprisoned, or murdered, at his command - and they know it - they'd have to grow much larger balls.
However, let's imagine that they do remove him, the Russian troops go home and we can all celebrate Ukraine's victory and slap ourselves on the back for our part in it.
The question then, is this:
Should the Tories - assuming they are still the UK government when Putin is removed from office - continue with the sanctions (however ineffectual they may appear to be) they are now taking against Russian oligarchs?
Or should they welcome them - and their unexplained wealth - back to London?
Telling them they're forgiven and we know it wasn't really your fault, there was nothing you could do until Putin was gone. A little like how the Americans gave Wernher von Braun a second chance.
I only ask because it doesn't seem like the people of the UK would be comfortable with such an arrangement, given their current mood.
And, if you don't think they should be welcomed back, wealth uninvestigated - why not?"
Given the way the British government welcomed their money without question I don't see any reason they wouldn't forgive and forget |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Its all going to depend on what the Conervative part 'advisory board' has to say on the matter. Im sure dual national Lubov Chernukhin, the 50-year-old wife of Putin's former deputy finance minister will have some imput.
I wonder if Churchill ever thought about having Rudolph Hess advise him when he turned up in Scotland during WW2?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"A lot of people in these forums seem to think that the Russian oligarchs will remove Putin from power because he's hurting their money and lifestyle.
That remains to be seen. Frankly, given his ability to have any of them imprisoned, or murdered, at his command - and they know it - they'd have to grow much larger balls.
However, let's imagine that they do remove him, the Russian troops go home and we can all celebrate Ukraine's victory and slap ourselves on the back for our part in it.
The question then, is this:
Should the Tories - assuming they are still the UK government when Putin is removed from office - continue with the sanctions (however ineffectual they may appear to be) they are now taking against Russian oligarchs?
Or should they welcome them - and their unexplained wealth - back to London?
Telling them they're forgiven and we know it wasn't really your fault, there was nothing you could do until Putin was gone. A little like how the Americans gave Wernher von Braun a second chance.
I only ask because it doesn't seem like the people of the UK would be comfortable with such an arrangement, given their current mood.
And, if you don't think they should be welcomed back, wealth uninvestigated - why not?
Given the way the British government welcomed their money without question I don't see any reason they wouldn't forgive and forget "
Indeed. But should the electorate allow it? Would they?
I fear they would. Mostly because, before the latest invasion, hardly any of them really gave a fuck about what happened in Crimea (2014), or Ukraine, in general.
Yes, their outrage now is justified - but it's a bit late and it's certainly inconsistent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"A lot of people in these forums seem to think that the Russian oligarchs will remove Putin from power because he's hurting their money and lifestyle.
That remains to be seen. Frankly, given his ability to have any of them imprisoned, or murdered, at his command - and they know it - they'd have to grow much larger balls.
However, let's imagine that they do remove him, the Russian troops go home and we can all celebrate Ukraine's victory and slap ourselves on the back for our part in it.
The question then, is this:
Should the Tories - assuming they are still the UK government when Putin is removed from office - continue with the sanctions (however ineffectual they may appear to be) they are now taking against Russian oligarchs?
Or should they welcome them - and their unexplained wealth - back to London?
Telling them they're forgiven and we know it wasn't really your fault, there was nothing you could do until Putin was gone. A little like how the Americans gave Wernher von Braun a second chance.
I only ask because it doesn't seem like the people of the UK would be comfortable with such an arrangement, given their current mood.
And, if you don't think they should be welcomed back, wealth uninvestigated - why not?
Given the way the British government welcomed their money without question I don't see any reason they wouldn't forgive and forget
Indeed. But should the electorate allow it? Would they?
I fear they would. Mostly because, before the latest invasion, hardly any of them really gave a fuck about what happened in Crimea (2014), or Ukraine, in general.
Yes, their outrage now is justified - but it's a bit late and it's certainly inconsistent."
And unfortunately in a week or two it will be forgotten we the price if gas and oil comes down |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A lot of people in these forums seem to think that the Russian oligarchs will remove Putin from power because he's hurting their money and lifestyle.
That remains to be seen. Frankly, given his ability to have any of them imprisoned, or murdered, at his command - and they know it - they'd have to grow much larger balls.
However, let's imagine that they do remove him, the Russian troops go home and we can all celebrate Ukraine's victory and slap ourselves on the back for our part in it.
The question then, is this:
Should the Tories - assuming they are still the UK government when Putin is removed from office - continue with the sanctions (however ineffectual they may appear to be) they are now taking against Russian oligarchs?
Or should they welcome them - and their unexplained wealth - back to London?
Telling them they're forgiven and we know it wasn't really your fault, there was nothing you could do until Putin was gone. A little like how the Americans gave Wernher von Braun a second chance.
I only ask because it doesn't seem like the people of the UK would be comfortable with such an arrangement, given their current mood.
And, if you don't think they should be welcomed back, wealth uninvestigated - why not?
Given the way the British government welcomed their money without question I don't see any reason they wouldn't forgive and forget
Indeed. But should the electorate allow it? Would they?
I fear they would. Mostly because, before the latest invasion, hardly any of them really gave a fuck about what happened in Crimea (2014), or Ukraine, in general.
Yes, their outrage now is justified - but it's a bit late and it's certainly inconsistent."
I remember Crimea being annexed but I'm surprised it was 8 years ago. Time flies.
I can't remember the world wide reaction, it clearly wasn't as strong as it is now but I don't remember there being lots of lives lost either.
We did very similar then as to now, it's not our war |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A lot of people in these forums seem to think that the Russian oligarchs will remove Putin from power because he's hurting their money and lifestyle.
That remains to be seen. Frankly, given his ability to have any of them imprisoned, or murdered, at his command - and they know it - they'd have to grow much larger balls.
However, let's imagine that they do remove him, the Russian troops go home and we can all celebrate Ukraine's victory and slap ourselves on the back for our part in it.
The question then, is this:
Should the Tories - assuming they are still the UK government when Putin is removed from office - continue with the sanctions (however ineffectual they may appear to be) they are now taking against Russian oligarchs?
Or should they welcome them - and their unexplained wealth - back to London?
Telling them they're forgiven and we know it wasn't really your fault, there was nothing you could do until Putin was gone. A little like how the Americans gave Wernher von Braun a second chance.
I only ask because it doesn't seem like the people of the UK would be comfortable with such an arrangement, given their current mood.
And, if you don't think they should be welcomed back, wealth uninvestigated - why not?
Given the way the British government welcomed their money without question I don't see any reason they wouldn't forgive and forget
Indeed. But should the electorate allow it? Would they?
I fear they would. Mostly because, before the latest invasion, hardly any of them really gave a fuck about what happened in Crimea (2014), or Ukraine, in general.
Yes, their outrage now is justified - but it's a bit late and it's certainly inconsistent.
I remember Crimea being annexed but I'm surprised it was 8 years ago. Time flies.
I can't remember the world wide reaction, it clearly wasn't as strong as it is now but I don't remember there being lots of lives lost either.
We did very similar then as to now, it's not our war "
It's not our war??? Are you serious? Do you have no understanding of history? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its all going to depend on what the Conervative part 'advisory board' has to say on the matter. Im sure dual national Lubov Chernukhin, the 50-year-old wife of Putin's former deputy finance minister will have some imput.
I wonder if Churchill ever thought about having Rudolph Hess advise him when he turned up in Scotland during WW2? "
He did! Or are you not aware of history? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
TV Alice ... I did wonder something similar having just seen that Dilbar the $600m super yacht has just been seized from Alisher Usmanov. It was docked in Hamburg for repairs. It's not like they are going to tear it apart - maybe some bitcoiner will snap it up?
A positive is they are for the moment taking assets. Yellen has just announced more sanctions too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
There is this. Sanctions means ($)Trillions of wealth managers not investing in Russia:
Russia has been turfed out of the indexes used by many fund managers to decide where to invest after provider MSCI declared the country “uninvestable”.
The decision is likely to result in the wholesale dumping of Russian shares by western investors.
Many have already pledged to sell out of Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, but the process has been made more difficult because the Moscow stock exchange has been closed all week.
In a statement, MSCI said the decision followed consultation with institutional investors and will take effect from next Wednesday.
During the consultation, MSCI received feedback from a large number of global market participants, including asset owners, asset managers, broker dealers, and exchanges with an overwhelming majority confirming that the Russian equity market is currently uninvestable and that Russian securities should be removed from the MSCI Emerging Markets Indexes.
Consultation participants highlighted several recent negative developments that led to a material deterioration in the accessibility of the Russian equity market to international institutional investors, to such an extent that it does not meet the Market Accessibility requirements for Emerging Markets classification as per the MSCI Market Classification Framework.”
MSCI said it would maintain a standalone index of the Russian market.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should the Tories - assuming they are still the UK government when Putin is removed from office - continue with the sanctions (however ineffectual they may appear to be) they are now taking against Russian oligarchs?
"
If Putin was removed, there would be a power vacuum and a period of chaos until someone took charge, and I believe it likely that said person would be more "amenable" to The West. The oligarchs would pressure this to be the case, is my guess.
And I suspect the deal done by the UK and put to the Oligarchs would be "You can have your toys, wealth and access to all your funds back, and trading again IF you ensure Putin's replacement is going to immediately roll back his predecessor's actions. This includes allowing Ukraine and any other ex-Soviet state the right to self-determination.
Oh there will be "conditions" all right...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The thing is I don’t trust any political leader at all.
If the west really wanted to do something then get the oligarchs onside
There are enough special forces soldiers worldwide who would take the cash to assassinate Putin then let the Russian money men move in and run the country |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems to be a lot of Tory bashing on this thread. Tory oligarch mates and all that.
Quick question. Who was PM when Abramovich bought Chelsea?"
What's that got to go with the Tories working for the interests of Russian billionaires?
Are you suggesting Blair had something to do with the sale of Chelsea? And that this in some way justifies the Tories prioritising the interests of the ultra wealthy over that of British people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems to be a lot of Tory bashing on this thread. Tory oligarch mates and all that.
Quick question. Who was PM when Abramovich bought Chelsea?
What's that got to go with the Tories working for the interests of Russian billionaires?
Are you suggesting Blair had something to do with the sale of Chelsea? And that this in some way justifies the Tories prioritising the interests of the ultra wealthy over that of British people?"
Are they? I've never seen any real evidence of that. Just accusations, rumours and innuendo from Labour supporters.
Did Blair have anything to do with Abramovich buying Chelsea? Maybe, maybe not, but it was on his watch. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems to be a lot of Tory bashing on this thread. Tory oligarch mates and all that.
Quick question. Who was PM when Abramovich bought Chelsea?
What's that got to go with the Tories working for the interests of Russian billionaires?
Are you suggesting Blair had something to do with the sale of Chelsea? And that this in some way justifies the Tories prioritising the interests of the ultra wealthy over that of British people?
Are they? I've never seen any real evidence of that. Just accusations, rumours and innuendo from Labour supporters.
Did Blair have anything to do with Abramovich buying Chelsea? Maybe, maybe not, but it was on his watch."
Excellent distraction work.
Also, for the record, not everyone who discusses government nepotism and their prioritisation of corporate and ultra wealthy interests, over those of British people, is a Labour supporter.
And they absolutely are. Have a look at government policy, who benefits, who donates money to them etc. It's not a secret, it's all public domain info. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem "
How do you separate clean from dirty, what's the criteria.
Just Russian money or would you want all properties and land owned in every prosperous area checked.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems to be a lot of Tory bashing on this thread. Tory oligarch mates and all that.
Quick question. Who was PM when Abramovich bought Chelsea?
What's that got to go with the Tories working for the interests of Russian billionaires?
Are you suggesting Blair had something to do with the sale of Chelsea? And that this in some way justifies the Tories prioritising the interests of the ultra wealthy over that of British people?
Are they? I've never seen any real evidence of that. Just accusations, rumours and innuendo from Labour supporters.
Did Blair have anything to do with Abramovich buying Chelsea? Maybe, maybe not, but it was on his watch.
Excellent distraction work.
Also, for the record, not everyone who discusses government nepotism and their prioritisation of corporate and ultra wealthy interests, over those of British people, is a Labour supporter.
And they absolutely are. Have a look at government policy, who benefits, who donates money to them etc. It's not a secret, it's all public domain info."
Just making the point that Russian oligarchs were well established in the UK long before 2010.
And let's face it, Teflon Tony and his mate (I'm Mandy buy me) have plenty of form when it comes to cosying up to dodgy despots and billionaires. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"Seems to be a lot of Tory bashing on this thread. Tory oligarch mates and all that.
Quick question. Who was PM when Abramovich bought Chelsea?
What's that got to go with the Tories working for the interests of Russian billionaires?
Are you suggesting Blair had something to do with the sale of Chelsea? And that this in some way justifies the Tories prioritising the interests of the ultra wealthy over that of British people?
Are they? I've never seen any real evidence of that. Just accusations, rumours and innuendo from Labour supporters.
Did Blair have anything to do with Abramovich buying Chelsea? Maybe, maybe not, but it was on his watch."
I'm not a Labour supporter and I asked a legitimate question.
If it seems like Tory bashing, I guess you'd have to let us know why we shouldn't be considering what they might do, after Ukraine is liberated?
Particularly in light of their negligible reaction to the invasion of Crimea, in 2014. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"Seems to be a lot of Tory bashing on this thread. Tory oligarch mates and all that.
Quick question. Who was PM when Abramovich bought Chelsea?
What's that got to go with the Tories working for the interests of Russian billionaires?
Are you suggesting Blair had something to do with the sale of Chelsea? And that this in some way justifies the Tories prioritising the interests of the ultra wealthy over that of British people?
Are they? I've never seen any real evidence of that. Just accusations, rumours and innuendo from Labour supporters.
Did Blair have anything to do with Abramovich buying Chelsea? Maybe, maybe not, but it was on his watch.
Excellent distraction work.
Also, for the record, not everyone who discusses government nepotism and their prioritisation of corporate and ultra wealthy interests, over those of British people, is a Labour supporter.
And they absolutely are. Have a look at government policy, who benefits, who donates money to them etc. It's not a secret, it's all public domain info."
Expected. Not excellent.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems to be a lot of Tory bashing on this thread. Tory oligarch mates and all that.
Quick question. Who was PM when Abramovich bought Chelsea?
What's that got to go with the Tories working for the interests of Russian billionaires?
Are you suggesting Blair had something to do with the sale of Chelsea? And that this in some way justifies the Tories prioritising the interests of the ultra wealthy over that of British people?
Are they? I've never seen any real evidence of that. Just accusations, rumours and innuendo from Labour supporters.
Did Blair have anything to do with Abramovich buying Chelsea? Maybe, maybe not, but it was on his watch.
Excellent distraction work.
Also, for the record, not everyone who discusses government nepotism and their prioritisation of corporate and ultra wealthy interests, over those of British people, is a Labour supporter.
And they absolutely are. Have a look at government policy, who benefits, who donates money to them etc. It's not a secret, it's all public domain info.
Just making the point that Russian oligarchs were well established in the UK long before 2010.
And let's face it, Teflon Tony and his mate (I'm Mandy buy me) have plenty of form when it comes to cosying up to dodgy despots and billionaires."
Does Tony Blair being a PM so shit that he was basically a Tory, in some way justify the current governments policies and actions? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem
How do you separate clean from dirty, what's the criteria.
Just Russian money or would you want all properties and land owned in every prosperous area checked.
"
Anyone who is above board have no worries as everything is checkable.
And seeing as they have been using shell companies then it will need to be done.
There are other areas that will need looking at as well.
But the emphasis should be on Russian money and not get bogged down in points scoring against so called Tory money that some are so obsessed with.
Russia is the focal point at this time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"Should the Tories - assuming they are still the UK government when Putin is removed from office - continue with the sanctions (however ineffectual they may appear to be) they are now taking against Russian oligarchs?
If Putin was removed, there would be a power vacuum and a period of chaos until someone took charge, and I believe it likely that said person would be more "amenable" to The West. The oligarchs would pressure this to be the case, is my guess.
And I suspect the deal done by the UK and put to the Oligarchs would be "You can have your toys, wealth and access to all your funds back, and trading again IF you ensure Putin's replacement is going to immediately roll back his predecessor's actions. This includes allowing Ukraine and any other ex-Soviet state the right to self-determination.
Oh there will be "conditions" all right...
"
I'd expect that to be the deal, too.
However, we live in a democracy and our politicians would have to sell it to us.
I fear that far too many UK voters wouldn't care that much - after all, they didn't in 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea; nor did they for the 8 years after it.
If there's no permanent change to remove as much dirty money as possible from our politics and economy; then what's going on now is just faux rage and gesture politics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem
How do you separate clean from dirty, what's the criteria.
Just Russian money or would you want all properties and land owned in every prosperous area checked.
Anyone who is above board have no worries as everything is checkable.
And seeing as they have been using shell companies then it will need to be done.
There are other areas that will need looking at as well.
But the emphasis should be on Russian money and not get bogged down in points scoring against so called Tory money that some are so obsessed with.
Russia is the focal point at this time "
Why only Russian money? What about the Saudis? Or the Chinese? Or anyone else corrupting our politics with their cash?
I know you can't stop it entirely - but there's more than enough home grown corruption in the UK without allowing the conditions to make it easy for foreign interests to join in.
The checks you suggest make sense - but they should be applied equally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem
How do you separate clean from dirty, what's the criteria.
Just Russian money or would you want all properties and land owned in every prosperous area checked.
Anyone who is above board have no worries as everything is checkable.
And seeing as they have been using shell companies then it will need to be done.
There are other areas that will need looking at as well.
But the emphasis should be on Russian money and not get bogged down in points scoring against so called Tory money that some are so obsessed with.
Russia is the focal point at this time "
If only life and money was that simple.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem
How do you separate clean from dirty, what's the criteria.
Just Russian money or would you want all properties and land owned in every prosperous area checked.
Anyone who is above board have no worries as everything is checkable.
And seeing as they have been using shell companies then it will need to be done.
There are other areas that will need looking at as well.
But the emphasis should be on Russian money and not get bogged down in points scoring against so called Tory money that some are so obsessed with.
Russia is the focal point at this time
Why only Russian money? What about the Saudis? Or the Chinese? Or anyone else corrupting our politics with their cash?
I know you can't stop it entirely - but there's more than enough home grown corruption in the UK without allowing the conditions to make it easy for foreign interests to join in.
The checks you suggest make sense - but they should be applied equally."
Agreed it needs a big clean up! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem
How do you separate clean from dirty, what's the criteria.
Just Russian money or would you want all properties and land owned in every prosperous area checked.
Anyone who is above board have no worries as everything is checkable.
And seeing as they have been using shell companies then it will need to be done.
There are other areas that will need looking at as well.
But the emphasis should be on Russian money and not get bogged down in points scoring against so called Tory money that some are so obsessed with.
Russia is the focal point at this time
Why only Russian money? What about the Saudis? Or the Chinese? Or anyone else corrupting our politics with their cash?
I know you can't stop it entirely - but there's more than enough home grown corruption in the UK without allowing the conditions to make it easy for foreign interests to join in.
The checks you suggest make sense - but they should be applied equally."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem
How do you separate clean from dirty, what's the criteria.
Just Russian money or would you want all properties and land owned in every prosperous area checked.
Anyone who is above board have no worries as everything is checkable.
And seeing as they have been using shell companies then it will need to be done.
There are other areas that will need looking at as well.
But the emphasis should be on Russian money and not get bogged down in points scoring against so called Tory money that some are so obsessed with.
Russia is the focal point at this time
Why only Russian money? What about the Saudis? Or the Chinese? Or anyone else corrupting our politics with their cash?
I know you can't stop it entirely - but there's more than enough home grown corruption in the UK without allowing the conditions to make it easy for foreign interests to join in.
The checks you suggest make sense - but they should be applied equally. "
Well, all we have to do is make it a manifesto issue - for every UK political party. Who knows, that might even get things cleaned up?
Not holding my breath on that one - but it seems to me that the opportunity to root out as much foreign corruption as we can, has presented itself.
If we don't act, we'll be the ones to blame. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
the recent anouncement is for foreign owners of property to be registered. this means that all the golden passport buyers won't need to register. the conservative and unionist party government corruption continues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If my mate Vlad gave me a few quid to buy up some properties, is that ok.
Keep them empty but pay full council tax.
What about Vald and I opening a company in Gibraltar and me putting all the money in, buying UK property.
Vlad can give me his share in a property he paid for in say, Croatia.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem
How do you separate clean from dirty, what's the criteria.
Just Russian money or would you want all properties and land owned in every prosperous area checked.
Anyone who is above board have no worries as everything is checkable.
And seeing as they have been using shell companies then it will need to be done.
There are other areas that will need looking at as well.
But the emphasis should be on Russian money and not get bogged down in points scoring against so called Tory money that some are so obsessed with.
Russia is the focal point at this time
Why only Russian money? What about the Saudis? Or the Chinese? Or anyone else corrupting our politics with their cash?
I know you can't stop it entirely - but there's more than enough home grown corruption in the UK without allowing the conditions to make it easy for foreign interests to join in.
The checks you suggest make sense - but they should be applied equally.
Well, all we have to do is make it a manifesto issue - for every UK political party. Who knows, that might even get things cleaned up?
Not holding my breath on that one - but it seems to me that the opportunity to root out as much foreign corruption as we can, has presented itself.
If we don't act, we'll be the ones to blame."
agree but we need manifestos to be legally binding first |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"They should go theough Knightsbridge and size any house not bristish owned and make the owner prove where the money came from.
Any lawyers who tries to intervien or act for them can be named and shamed in the papers because thats what the russian Govermennt would do.
Time bristain stopped fucking about and just did it.
If it's clean money then ne problem
How do you separate clean from dirty, what's the criteria.
Just Russian money or would you want all properties and land owned in every prosperous area checked.
Anyone who is above board have no worries as everything is checkable.
And seeing as they have been using shell companies then it will need to be done.
There are other areas that will need looking at as well.
But the emphasis should be on Russian money and not get bogged down in points scoring against so called Tory money that some are so obsessed with.
Russia is the focal point at this time
Why only Russian money? What about the Saudis? Or the Chinese? Or anyone else corrupting our politics with their cash?
I know you can't stop it entirely - but there's more than enough home grown corruption in the UK without allowing the conditions to make it easy for foreign interests to join in.
The checks you suggest make sense - but they should be applied equally.
Well, all we have to do is make it a manifesto issue - for every UK political party. Who knows, that might even get things cleaned up?
Not holding my breath on that one - but it seems to me that the opportunity to root out as much foreign corruption as we can, has presented itself.
If we don't act, we'll be the ones to blame.agree but we need manifestos to be legally binding first "
As opposed to being able to trust our politicians to do what they tell us they'll do, in order to get them to vote for us?
Even if they were legal, I wouldn't trust the current shower and their kind not to break the law.
It's not like they haven't given me cause to doubt their integrity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
