Panama Papers

Hambut_Bulge said:
Because you are attempting to refute my argument by refuting an argument I haven't made. In this instance your logical fallacy also attempts to claim the moral high ground by advancing an emotive, and irrelevant, subject.
Click to expand...

I really think you're reading a little too far into it, and then trying to come off as a forum supreme logical gentleman. I think you need to calm down Elliot Rodger. All I said was look, I can use the same excuse too. Saying "oh it's legal" isn't enough of an excuse. That's basically it....

But whatever floats your boat skipper.
 
Last edited:
:p:p

8xuemb.jpg
 
joeyjojo said:
If that's supposed to be a slur it's misplaced. A barrister (especially a QC) should represent anyone without bias and regardless of personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

Jolyon Maugham (the name rang a bell and Google is my friend) was name checked by the two Ed's (Balls and Milliband) in separate interviews last election as an 'independent' tax expert. Turned out he'd drafted the party's non-dom policy going into that election. More embarrassing, he'd advised (and defended) a bunch of celebs (inc Sir Alex Ferguson, and Take That) in the Eclipse 35 tax avoidance scheme, subsequently ruled invalid.

He's not entirely without bias
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Fascinating juxtaposition.

My first opening point to you was that this "scandal" is much bigger than just Cameron's family. Top reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

No, your first reference to me was this:

Dj_Jestar said:
https://panamapapers.icij.org/

Plenty of information available there, with an informative video on why this tax dodging is bad for people, let alone economies.

Just lol at the likes of Pudney sticking their fingers in their ears "lalalalal I can't hear you lalalalala"
Click to expand...

I then happily responded, with me continuing on the basis of my previous posts (talking about Blairmore). Your response:

Dj_Jestar said:
You clearly don't, because this is much bigger than just tax avoidance. There are corrupt government officials (from around the world, before you spout out "ERMERHGERD WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE OF UK GOVERTMENT DOING THIS?!?") syphoning public money into offshore account via this company... etc.
Click to expand...

At which point you seemed to take offence and told me I was talking out of my backside when I said I hadn't been talking about general issues only Blairmore.

So yes, surprising lack of maturity.
 
joeyjojo said:
Judgeneo said:
Not a single American has been named so far.
Click to expand...
If they're anything like Canadians there'll be hundreds of them, just nobody noteworthy. At least that's what the CBC says about their populace.

Or could be due to the fact that Panama is shady with most countries but not the USA. They've had a data sharing agreement since 2010. There was probably an exodus of Statesians around that time to other havens.
Click to expand...

In this analysis article over at the Telegraph AEP mentions that the "'red-hot' dossier on US citizens" is yet to come...
 
Hambut_Bulge said:
Jolyon Maugham (the name rang a bell and Google is my friend) was name checked by the two Ed's (Balls and Milliband) in separate interviews last election as an 'independent' tax expert. Turned out he'd drafted the party's non-dom policy going into that election. More embarrassing, he'd advised (and defended) a bunch of celebs (inc Sir Alex Ferguson, and Take That) in the Eclipse 35 tax avoidance scheme, subsequently ruled invalid.

He's not entirely without bias
Click to expand...

He can still be independent while advising on policy.

Also it's not "embarrassing" for him to be representing tax avoiders. As I wrote above barristers are meant to represent whoever comes along to the best of their ability. He even says something along those lines in the second link you shared:

Mr Maugham told The Telegraph that he believes "everyone is entitled to a fair hearing". He told The Telegraph: "I was for the alleged tax avoiders. I've done my bit for the fifth [estate] by losing a lot of tax avoidance cases in recent times. I was trying to do the best by my clients, you will understand.

"I square that in a couple of ways. Barristers traditionally say we have the cab rank rule, which means I'm obliged to accept whatever instructions come my way. I don't find that particularly satisfactory as an answer.

"I do think everyone is entitled to a fair hearing. I've applied many, many times to do work for the government. It was only very recently I was accepted onto the government panel. I have made my services available to Her Majesty. There's not much more I can do than that."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pudney said:
No, your first reference to me was this:



I then happily responded, with me continuing on the basis of my previous posts (talking about Blairmore). Your response:



At which point you seemed to take offence and told me I was talking out of my backside when I said I hadn't been talking about general issues only Blairmore.

So yes, surprising lack of maturity.
Click to expand...

Yet you still ignore that this thread isn't only about Blairmore, but the scandal at large. How dare you reply to a thread about anything other than the topic that suits you!

And of course, all of this now on an tangent from the original point - that there is immoral tax avoidance, by Cameron's own definition of immoral, going on in his name yet he wants that to remain private whilst he publicly lambasts other people for doing exactly the same, which has been brought up to you as a direct point but you continue to ignore, with your fingers in your ears, about "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! NO I WON'T READ/WATCH THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF <insert excuse>"
 
Last edited:
Iceland PM resigned. If he did nothing wrong, why bolt of the doors so quickly (however his case differs from the rest as it sounds like conflict of interest was at play)?
 
doodah said:
Iceland PM resigned. If he did nothing wrong, why bolt of the doors so quickly (however his case differs from the rest as it sounds like conflict of interest was at play)?
Click to expand...

He campaigned on a transparency platform, and failed to declare his interest when entering parliament. When asked in 2009 (before becoming PM) if he'd ever owned off-shore companies, he said "No". Leaked documents show that to be a flat lie. He'd sold his share to his wife for $1. Its always the cover up that gets 'em
 
Last edited:
Dj_Jestar said:
Yet you still ignore that this thread isn't only about Blairmore, but the scandal at large. How dare you reply to a thread about anything other than the topic that suits you!
Click to expand...

Would you like to know my opinion about it in general? You could try to ask me normally?

And of course, all of this now on an tangent from the original point - that there is immoral tax avoidance, by Cameron's own definition of immoral, going on in his name yet he wants that to remain private
Click to expand...

You assume. But I suppose moral outrage makes assumptions correct in your world view.

whilst he publicly lambasts other people for doing exactly the same, which has been brought up to you as a direct point but you continue to ignore, with your fingers in your ears, about "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! NO I WON'T READ/WATCH THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF <insert excuse>"
Click to expand...

I haven't ignored the point. Jimmy Carr's scheme was found to be ineffective by the courts and didn't work (I think it was one of the Icebreaker or film schemes). The offshore investment company is neither. They are different.
 
Lol. Around we go again? Paying less than 2% tax on your earnings is "less than effective" is it? Is that why he backed out from the K2 scheme after settling with HMRC for £500k?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom