Lily Allen is appalled by Cameron having had an investment (just over £12,000) with an offshore company…..she herself just bought the shore…in a random moment of drunken extravagance she bought a beach…as you do when you are a multi-millionaire….
Lily Allen owns a private beach in Jamaica. The singer, 23, made the property investment after having a few drinks. ‘I bought a beach! she tells BBC 6 Music host George Lamb. ‘It’s in Jamaica. I’m not gonna tell you the road. ‘I’m happy I bought the beach, best drunken buy ever!’
She could of course just stay at home in her mansion in the Cotswolds and count her money…..and this was in 2010…
According to the Sunday Times Rich List, she is the ninth richest music star under 30, with an estimated £5m in her bank account.
Now she’s apparently worth $20 million.
I imagine she has been well advised in her investments…perhaps by her lawyers who can ‘assist both financers and those seeking finance and broker and structure deals that protect our clients’ interests.‘
Maybe she has terrific professional advice from the various media investment companies that she has an association with….one of which offers the chance to reduce your tax with some splendid investments…
Key Benefits:
Income tax relief of 50% of the value of the SEIS investment;
Ability to elect to carry back investments made in 2013/14 to 2012/13;
50% relief against gains realised in 2013/14;
100% relief against gains realised in 2012/13 where carry back election is made;
Capital Gains tax exemption on the disposal of shares when held for at least 3 years; and
Up to 100% inheritance tax relief after 2 years.
Another multi-millionaire equality campaigner has her say, though didn’t get off her arse to actually protest in person this time…
Do one Dave.
Charlotte Church
I meant the Dave that copulates with pig faces.
Where’s your tax return Lily? Where’s your tax return Charlotte?
ax avoidance is legal.
Tax evasion is illegal.
To the BBC/Left, tax avoidance is somehow illegal if it applies to a Tory. But not if to a BBC Luvvie.
Biased BBC and double standards.
David Cameron brought up the morality of avoidance with Jimmy Carr.
He was right then hence the reason he is being pilloried now.
it is immoral, whoever does it. Let’s agree that.
So, as some of the most vacuous and rich lefties are attacking him for what they are also clearly doing on a much larger scale, then we need to see their full tax returns too. I would also include Hodge, Mandelson, Livingston, Corbyn, Tom Hypocrite etc. Where are their tax returns? What about your rich BBC bosses who avoid tax like the plague, plus their so-called Market-Rate “Talents” who are turned into companies for the sake of avoiding tax? What are you hiding LDV?
Demon, LDV is not here to debate, just enrich us with his sermon on the lefts angelic like teachings on morality and just causes. The fact those being targeted for doing legal acts are all from one side of the political spectrum is irrelevant to privileged, self-righteous scumbags like him. LDV is preaching and swallowing the ‘rich are the cause of all evil’ is the agenda of the left for the masses. It’s events like this shit-eating vermin like LDV, and the professional hypocrites/luvvies Church and Allen thrive on to make themselves feel better about their own existence.
This one story confirms the very purpose of this website. The bias of the reporting is what the issue is, not the fact rich are ‘wrong’ in what they are doing which is legally not pay anymore tax than necessary. Like the Al Beebs reporting of ROPer activities it’s just another example of politicised agenda to achieve self benefiting goals
LDV , were fucking shit vans anyhow , made by some sub , former commie state 7 year plan production targets. LDV on here comes from the same mindset .
Certainly not. It’s legal and therefore not immoral. How does being legal prove it as immoral ?
All a government has to do is pass a law to make it illegal, so it counts as evasion in the future.
What a warped perspective lefties like LDV have. They pontificate about tax avoidance being immoral yet go schtum as soon as you raise the issue of gender-based abortions – a crime yet to be punished because the CPS consider it would be ‘against the public interest’. Where’s the BBC outrage with the law on that, when it’s clearly classed as a crime?
You are quite right LDV. Although there is nothing wrong with taking good tax-advice it ill behooves a standing Prime Minister to attack Jimmy Carr over it in terms of morality. Cameron is now getting all he deserves even if those attacking him are champagne socialist tax-dodging hypocrites themselves. I saw a Sunday paper headline today asking about Samantha Cameron’s financial affairs. Now this could really get interesting. Dave is a Conservative, the fact that he utilises financial advice comes with the Tory territory, but Sam Cam is a quasi-Marxist from what I can gather and she has a great deal of money apparently. Personally speaking, I would love to see this horrible hypocrite hung out to dry.
ISAs are immoral?
And Jimmy Carr’s response on Twitter was, “I’m going to keep it classy. It would be ‘morally wrong’ and ‘hypocrytical’ to comment on another individual’s tax affairs.”
Cameron deserved that, at least.
But it isn’t immoral to avoid paying more tax than is necessary. In that respect you’re simply wrong, LDV! Tax receipts to the government are like drugs to the drug addicted. The government slap taxes on everything and make the tax system so complicated it is no longer fit for purpose. The tax system itself messes with free market economics. If anything is making people worse off it is the tax system itself.
It needs simplifying, but no government will do it because it would require letting go of their power over our money. It would require them cutting down on the drug they are so addicted to – spending taxpayers money on things we don’t need.
“To the BBC/Left, tax avoidance is somehow illegal if it applies to a Tory. But not if to a BBC Luvvie”.
But , to the BBC, TV Tax evasion is the worst!
You are all still failing to understand the issues here!
This is not about whether Cameron had overseas assets. It is not about whether tax was avoided or evaded.
The issue is that Cameron was not open and honest when he was questioned about it! Even Cameron himself is reported as saying “I could have handled it better”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36004856
“Prime Minister David Cameron has said he could have handled the row over his financial affairs “better”, admitting it had “not been a great week”.
Addressing the Tories’ spring forum, he said he was to blame for the handling of revelations about his holding in his late father’s offshore fund.
Days after questions were first raised, the PM admitted this week he had owned and later sold units in the fund. ”
I do hope that this clarifies the issue and that posters begin to understand that this is nothing to with tax, and everything to do with late disclosure.
He also said: “Don’t blame Number 10 Downing Street or nameless advisers, blame me.”
It is also the hypocracy, he is banging on about that which is entirely legal. It must be, he has done it. No one is obliged to pay more than he must, legally and it is quite correct to use the Law as it stands. The good thing about these tax havens is that it can/may keep governments honest…..I wish.
With respect the issue is much deeper and greater than Camerons affairs, this was made clear by Corbyn who made reference to “an entire ethos”
The “entire ethos” referred to appears to be for people to have private money and assets and the right to dispose of those private assists for personal advantage.
Of course all this should take place within a legal framework that has been democratically validated.
Think very hard about this, because the Beeboid, SJW and leftist position is that private wealth is bad.
And private wealth in Soviet times meant a bucket of grain more than your neighbour, and the Gulag for the “rich”.
Camerons flailing around of course has done him no credit and his previous comments about the morality of tax dodging have come back to haunt him and left him open to this leftist narrative that the “ethos” that allows private wealth to be accumulated…..is wrong and immoral. Not a million miles from the Marxist slogan “all property is theft”.
If Cameron has broken the law….throw him to the dogs if he hasn’t, then like him or not (and I am not a fan), the principle of the right to private wealth within a reasonable taxation framework must be defended.
First they came for those with unit trust portfolios…..then they came for the homeowners.
The crux of the matter as you say. The cultural marxist left does not accept that private wealth is permissable unless doled out by the state. Thus Cameron’s money above his salary as PM is illegitimate in their eyes.
The salaries paid to the BBC’s cultural marxists and the rakes of lefty quangocrats and teachers is another matter. Just rewards for honest endeavour. The hypocrisy of the left is as usual breathtaking.
Thoughtful.
IT IS about whether taxes was avoided or evaded.
The first is perfectly legal, the second isn’t.
It is the blurring of that distinction by such as the BBC that is the problem.
I always imagine Billy Bragg telling his accountant not to worry too much about minimising his tax bill for him as the government needs it.
Then I wake up and realise no one pays more tax than they have to, as evidenced by even the holier than thou the BBC getting caught a year or two ago advising their talent how to minimise what they paid!
Mallard, Last night while the BBC were still wittering on about Camerons tax papers “going to be released” Sky was reporting the details.
Part of the coverage has been around gifts given to Cameron by his mother. Now his mother is still alive, so there is no tax interest and no public interest in this private transaction. The coverage however was all about him having to answer questions now about these gifts and to pay tax on these gifts if she died within a certain time period.
Quite apart from the outright bad taste implied by this coverage the fact is that he was given a private gift by his mother that has now had to be disclosed publicly…..just in case.
I repeat, this is about the right to private property. Private wealth. If the tax authorities have an interest here it’s a private matter unless it goes to court.
These cuckservatives are so wet, they are, in effect, submitting to the leftist idea that private assets are bad or evil unless proved otherwise, “all property is theft”as they say. This is a fundamental attack on a free society.
Marxist and Fascist tyrannies are where all private wealth has to be approved by the state…..that’s where all this rush by politicians to show us their tax returns is coming from. Soon they will want us all to do the same.
People need to be careful what they wish for. Everything we own may be opened to public scrutiny, all in the name of “fairness” and, of course, there will always be an “in group” possibly BBC “talent” among them, who will be exempt.
For a PR man , Cameron is useless .
Uselessness is a prerequisite for a career in PR, as one of those ‘jobs’ created to provide employment for failures.
Envy, that dark heart of socialism bubbling to the surface again.
I just watched Angus Robertson say on Murnaghan (Sky) that he was an ordinary parliamentarian with no savings, no Isa, nothing.
He must live very high on the hog! An MP’s pay is decent enough, fantastic if you live up north or in Scotland and even better if you can claim all your expenses off the public purse.
Somehow I just don’t believe him!
He could be right, nofan. He probably has a mortgage. Edinburgh is not cheap.
When the Panel except for Frank Field on Any Questions was alleging that ‘we are all in this together with Dave’ and ‘everyone with a pension has shares in these sorts of companies and places’ I was suddenly reminded of some recent statistics that indicated:
– a high proportion of the UK population is in debt, beyond that of any mortgage (think it may be 40% of working population
– a majority of the UK population has no pension provision beyond the State Pension
– only about a fifth of the working population has any significant savings
– the Government is so concerned about pension provision that they have made it compulsory (via recent quickly forgotten legislation) to save for an occupational pension or deliberately opt-out.
We are very definitely not all in this together. To anyone with a notion on economics the future looks quite worrying for the UK in that respect.
And how much money has the average smoker burned in front of their eyes their lifetime?
And the proportion who have smoked at some time is probably more than half of the population.
We all have choices. To some extent the fare well state has removed a lot of personal responsibility to providing for yourself.
Are you including graduated contributions, SERPS, S2P or whatever in the “state pension”? In which case most will be reciving more than the basic state pension, which is underpinned by minimum income guarantees.
Anyone who has worked in the public sector at any time in their life will have some element of final salary pension.
One of the problem of TATA steel is they have a workforce of a few thousand and 130,000 pensioners (and their spouses, assuming they live longer) to provide for. Lots of private ompanies ran final salary schemes.
Home ownership peaked at 70% with most current home owning pensioners having had a really generous hand out via tax relief to help them pay for it, which the current generation do not get.
The present generation of pensioners are much better off than their predecessors, and their desire to maintain that comfortable life is playing hell with the generations now coming through having to pay for it.
Most ” ordinary” recent pensioners I know seem to spend their life planning their next short break rather than hunched up over their one bar electric fire as Labour, and their broadcast friend, try to portray it.
Just posted this on the main thread but possibly it belongs here:
“Ha Ha Ha…. you have to laugh! BBC: RANK Hypocrisy at its finest. Even supposedly serious political programme, like the Marr show, funded by our taxes!
This morning’s programme attempting like hell, by the mere fact highlighting as their main story, that Cameron is suspiciously under the Tax dodging umbrella. No evidence whatsoever!
Still, let not the facts stand in the way! They even got leader of opposition and hypocritical Toynbee, no less, non-stop innuendo that the Prime Minister has somehow done wrong, when Prime Minister even now put his last 6 years tax returns into the Public realm!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b077s7ls
My God this is the same Tax Funded Broadcaster that had an in-house ‘Tax Avoidance’ policy to encourage their own outrageously overpaid stars and staff to erroneously declare their Tax Funded earnings as self employed receipts! YES Massive amounts of tax avoidance by Tax Funded body that should not be doing it!
Yes that is right, actual PUBLIC tax funded body being used to avoid tax!
“Please, we should be all be outraged by this rank hypocrisy!
So much so I am winging off a tweet right now and it would be great if others would also do the same, or complain and let them know we have had enough!
@MarrShow Rank hypocrisy – non stop -Tax Funded broadcaster, paying own v high paid staff as self employed in tax avoidance scheme! Please!— 10 April 2016
charlatans: “My God this is the same Tax Funded Broadcaster that had an in-house ‘Tax Avoidance’ policy to encourage their own outrageously overpaid stars and staff to erroneously declare their Tax Funded earnings as self employed receipts!”
Indeed, although they did try to put a stop to that (during Mark Thompson’s time?) and some notables took quite a hit. I think it may be good, as the BBC has majored on Dave for a whole week or more, that letters are now sent by Licence Fee payers and others to the current DG asking for confirmation that all BBC employees and all contractees are now paid via PAYE.
Poor Cameron. He has toadied to the BBC on Europe, on Islam, grovelled before the BBC’s favourite US President, supported the BBC campaign for gay marriage and sold the conservatives in the once Conservative party down the river. And now the BBC lie about him and try to derail him. Karma.
Quite right GWF. Cameron just does not get it does he?
The left are insecure bullies and thrive on their endless hatred and lovingly foment grudges against anyone deemed to be ‘off message’. In this respect they behave very similarly to everyone’s favourite religion.
Certainly there is no point in trying to appease them. It is a waste of time and only makes you look weak and foolish; as our Dave has perfectly illustrated time after time.
Unfortunately, as he is merely a useless PR man (who can’t even do PR – how more pathetic can he get?) without any guiding principles, he is never going to realise that rolling over to reveal his tummy is not going to make the bullies stop. The only thing they respect is power and displays of violence (as these are the things the left crave themselves).
I remember predicting this when Cameron was appointed (and posting about it, too). The theory at Tory High Command was that they needed someone who was ‘media friendly’ to counter the ‘Nasty Party’ image and avoid the constant barrages that eventually sunk Major, IDS and Howard. An Etonian spiv with more slick on him than a week old kebab was their bizarre idea of ‘media friendly’.
It was a stupid, doomed plan from the outset, as anyone with actual experience of the BBC would have known. Jesus Christ himself would have been hated by the BBC had he sported a blue rosette. Better to have declared outright war. The BBC has numerous vulnerabilities (t is as wide open to scandalous revelations about the conduct of its employees as any political party, as Savile et al showed), its financial affairs are ripe for investigation and its nepotistic and corrupt management style could have provided super ammunition if fed to the right newspapers.
Once public trust had been sufficiently demolished an hour or two’s work with the secateurs on the Corporation’s budget would have worked wonders.
This is just one of many reason why the Conservative Party must go. It is run by fools.
Unfortunately – Many Tory politicians and especially Cameron appear totally gutless (with a few notable exceptions such as IDS) and have become media whores sucking up to and constantly trying to please the BBC and its approved accolytes.
By trying to project a BBC friendly image they are constantly leaving themselves vulnerable to attack from a swollen monster which will never be satisfied unless you are left wing, ethnic, gay or some other minority which the BBC approves of.
A more sensible approach would have been to say ” I am a toff and believe in this so what”. Instead we have these chimps trying to talk mockney, rolling their sleeves up (cos that what us workers do) and generally trying to ingratiate themselves to a bunch of self serving wankers who they have just empowered. Unfortunately like their media chums they will never have to live with the direct consequences of their own actions
None of them will ever be living in central Luton thats for sure.
I hold no brief for Cameron, especially with regard to the EU, but I am appalled how, spurred on by Labour, the BBC has pursued smear after smear after smear against him. One might expect a degree of caution, after each one in turn is found to be baseless, but oh no, they move on to the next one. Even now, after he has published his tax return, their website declares “Pressure is mounting on the prime minister…” Pressure from whom? Labour and their BBC puppets.
There can be no doubt that the BBC is now wholly in the grip of the extreme left, who consider that Cameron’s crime is that he comes from a wealthy background.
Exactly so but it might backfire on them. Cameron is a fully paid up sympathizer to the cultural marxist agenda.
The Corbyn tendency is clearly unfit for office so we could have a vacuum created expecially as I expect the EU to implode this summer.
I hope we will see a realist come to power soon. Who and where from is as ever a mystery.
Dave S, if this person had already declared their hand they would have been destroyed by the establishment and MSM (look what has happened to Trump, Farage and Sir Robinson). The fairytale, fantasy world of smoke and mirrors and self delusion is ending, with help from no other than our death cult ROPer friends. The establishment will have to adapt/appear to appease the masses that WILL rise up against the ROPers, and this will be the time to strike. Trump is the first sign of what many western countries are going to do and that’s to go against the establishment/left.
If Cameron doesn’t have sufficient Conservative principles to say that his financial affairs and the income derived therefrom are between him and HMRC only, and certainly not the BBC; and that if they wish to suggest that he has not declared income in accordance with the law they should produce the evidence or shut up – if he can’t bring himself to do that then it would be best he is forced out. Perhaps then a proper Conservative prepared to take on the BBC might emerge. From where, I can’t see but perhaps Cameron’s treatment would act as a valuable lesson.
So when the hate-fuelled assortment of anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxists, teachers, university lecturers, hardline Islamists, Labour politicians etc. etc.march behind a banner saying ‘Homes for the rich’ containing a picture of hundreds of graves marked with crosses, they meant the likes of Lily Allen?
What has the poor girl done to deserve that?
I forgive her most things.
Her dad is Keith Allen, who`s barely as funny as Alexei Sayle.
Just a nasty thug who served as The Youngs ones bit of rough, and has dined off it ever since.
Tax avoidance is every decent citizen’s moral duty. Governments, of any persuasion but particularly the left, are incapable of spending our money wisely so don’t give them any more than you are legally obliged to.
11,000,000 files were stolen from Panama, yet the BBC, who have had their hands on the files and have been sifting and sorting them for months, have focussed on one person and one person only – Cameron – carefully conflating his entirely legal, HMRC registered and approved (unlike that of Jimmy Carr), tax-paid investments with tax avoidance and money laundering. It is a smear, no more, no less.
The tax dodging Guardian and the BBC have declared open season on Cameron (and Osborne – Norman Smith’s fishing expedition on him was outrageous given that there was no evidence that he had any investments – had there been that would have been a different matter).
I wonder who else appeared in those eleven million files? We may never know, it’s the BBC who decide what we are permitted to know and what not. But what sauce for the goose!….perhaps it’s time for us to demand from the likes of Smith, Gameshow et al, sight of their tax returns and details of all of their investments.
Cameron should have dealt with the matter better, but this has gone too far. On the substantive issue he has done nothing wrong.
So Cameron is setting up a tax evasion task force. Perhaps he might approach his BBC superiors and ask ‘Pretty please, can my Task Force see your Panama Papers’. My guess is, like Winteringbam, he will accept whatever the BBC say.
I hope the tax issue brings him down. If we cannot see the back of him one way, then get him on tax, like Al Capone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36009432
Agreed. This is the flaw in the entire ‘leaking’ scam. These self-styled ‘investigative journalists’ carefully and calculatedly released their data to Left wing media outlets which have chosen who gets busted with predictable partiality.
As others have said, I hold absolutely no brief for the wretched David Cameron, in fact the sooner he is gone, the better. But what we are witnessing here is a complete mockery of the idea of impartiality.
I should add, my ‘agreed’ was intended to follow Number 88’s comment.
Quite.
What makes me want to throw up is the army of hand wringing moralists (some have surfaced on this site) who, while signalling their moral virtues and superiority, do not get the sheer injustice and immorality of condemning a man who has done nothing wrong.
If they were honest that the real reason for their faux outrage is simply grubby partisan politicking, perhaps there wouldn’t need to be so much hypocrisy. But then again hypocrisy is what defines lefties.
C’mon Alan. You’ll be trying to convince us all that we should vote to stay IN the EU if you keep up this relentless defence of Cameron over offshore bank accounts and stuff that I have no interest in, or knowledge of (even though my own parents might have similar offshore funds – shhh!).
It’s been a disastrous week for Dave ‘We’re All in this Together’ Cameron. What with offshore investments and the controversial decision to spend £9M on a propagandist EU leaflet that will be delivered to every home in the country, Dave must be regretting his lack of training in the political equivalent of The Magic Circle. You can cover up one mistake, but you can’t cover up two within a week. That’s when you lose ALL credibility.
This is a small gift to the ‘Brexit’ campaign. I believe people will be asking who exactly benefits from our EU membership if David Cameron is so keen to stay in.
Is it the steel workers? HA!!!
Or is it those with offshore investments?
I know this is juvenile stuff, but that is how a good portion of the UK’s population see politics. It beggars belief that Labour EVER get into power these days, but that’s the failure of government to inform and the ignorance of the lower classes who vote for ‘nice’ people rather than sound political policies.
Despite being a Conservative voter (I voted for Anna Soubry last year and I already regret it!) I hope this issue will push people more towards a Brexit. I’m sure it will.
I do NOT support Cameron over his handling of the EU issue. I do not believe that he negotiated in good faith and he has failed to deliver the new relationship with the EU that he promised. I cannot for the life of me see how, in one breath he is prepared to walk away from the EU and in the next claim that if we leave there’ll be disease, pestilence, earthquakes and our first born will die! It is not credible. I will vote ‘OUT’.
BUT I strongly support Cameron over the off-shore issue. He deserves our support – he has done nothing wrong and is being targeted by the BBC, on behalf of his political enemies, who are smearing him. In doing so they are abusing their position and are threatening our democratic processes. If the BBC can get away with this and force a PM out of office, they can get away with anything and will become an even bigger monster. We should all sit up and take notice.
The two matters are separate issues, but there is a connection. I want out of the EU because I believe in democracy, I defend Cameron, over the assault on him, for exactly the same reason.
Bullshit.
David Cameron is not the wealthy bloke next door. He is not a pop star (although he would prefer to be). He is not a talented footballer. He is not an inventor of sliced bread. He is not a high-profile comedian.
He is the Prime Minister and so-called “leader” of our nation, and the only reason he is in such a position is because he was the best of a SHIT bunch! Miliband literally handed the leadership to Camron on a plate.
If this had happened BEFORE the general election, Miliband would be in power now.
This may be true, but this would be because of the position adopted by the BBC, not because of what Cameron has done.
Cameron is a moron, but this matter is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. If this was Jeremy Corbyn would the BBC be headlining the news for days and days on this non-story?
The issue is, not what Cameron has done/not done. The issue is that the BBC has taken upon itself the role of chief propagandist to discredit him and the Tory party whenever it can. This is not the role of a state broadcaster that should be – and is legally obliged to be – impartial.
Dead right manchester lad.
Milibands dad managed to evade inheritance tax by creating some blind trust/deed of variation kinda vehicle…probably as suggested by the Benns who similarly passed the taxman by to ensure THEIR kids got their wealth, without any of that “charity” “state supporting” “paying your dues to the party” crap that they`d spout at public meetings…and then box clever with the tax authorities.
Typical Lefty hypocrites-and, of course this would therefore NOT have been an issue to the BBC and Guardian before the election-because their Lefty mates might have been embarrassed…as indeed would THEY?
Do we REALLY think that Dimbleby. Attenborough etc will pay their full whack of tax…as Leona Helmsley once said “only the little people pay their taxes”
There are certain ways to capture attention and encourage the reader to delve further and be persuaded.
Like BBC headlines, this is not one.
Just me and the pro-EU Daniel Hannan then Edward….David Cameron has done nothing wrong on tax
Cameron on the EU referendum is entirely untrustworthy and always has been…he didn’t get a majority in 2010, I believe, because he backed down on his first promise for a referendum….so does my criticism of the BBC’s attack on Cameron give the EU an edge? Hardly…The BBC’s position is that the EU is the good guy here who will crack down on tax evasion whilst Cameron is painted as the bad guy letting his rich chums get away with it…therefore the BBC says, hints…vote to stay in the EU if you want to smash the rich, sorry, if you want to tackle tax evasion.
The local elections and the EU referendum are coming up very soon…any reason why the ICIJ, the BBC and the Guardian released these documents now after having had them for over a year?
Germany, many other countries and the EU Council itself wanted to block the EU parliament amendments on trusts……so why is Cameron to blame? His letter was not a secret, it was the government position, and the whole issue was discussed in parliament and was common knowledge reported at the time. So why is the BBC making such a song and dance about Cameron’s innocuous letter claiming that he was the only one who had issues with the EU amendment?
The majority of people who are going to be voting in the referendum do not think like we do, Alan. That’s why I said this is a small gift to the Brexit campaign – in fact, it could be a LARGE gift. I can’t agree with you that the BBC have been biased on the EU front with this issue, but I would agree with you that the BBC and Guardian have shown their usual political bias as far as attacking those who are most likely to represent the right of politics.
But the timing of the two is counter to both Cameron’s and the BBC/Guardian’s objective. I’m not sure what world-view you have, but to the people who have ‘next-to-nowt’, the correlation between a prime minister who has benefitted from an offshore investment (nothing wrong with that, but something that wealthy people do) and a nationwide leaflet-drop full of pro-EU propaganda, sent from Cameron himself, will not go unnoticed.
Forget everything else, the message is this: Vote to stay in the EU because wealthy people will benefit. Only today the IMF have stepped into the discussion saying we should stay in the EU. Barak Obama has stated we should remain in the EU.
These fuckwits are not concerned about Britain – they are concerned about their own interests. “Please don’t leave the EU, it’ll mess with our economies. The EU ‘s economy is on the verge of bankruptcy as it is without you Brits leaving!”
Why do you think all the people I know who voted Labour last year are intending to vote to leave the EU this year? And that was before the offshore investment debacle.
I’m not talking about the legalities of offshore investments. As I said – ” (even though my own parents might have similar offshore funds – shhh!).”
At the end of the day, I don’t see any BBC bias here, because any bias that might have been intended was negated by the unfortunate turn of events last week.
The Labour Party have announced that they are going to have a “closer look” at how inheritance tax works following the revelation that David Cameron “received money from his parents that wasn’t subject to inheritance tax.” Thus reported the BBC this morning on the 0630 news on Today.
First they came for the holders of shares in offshore companies and I did nothing because I had no shares in offshore companies (except the ones my pension fund held that I knew nothing, nothing about)
Then they came for the holders of unit trusts but I did nothing because I didn’t have a unit trust (except in my pension fund that I knew nothing about).
Then they came for people who received gifts from their living parents but I didn’t have any living parents.
Then they came for people who received inheritances, paid tax on them but were still thought to be a “bit fishy” so to be on the safe side paid a backdated further 45% just to be sure, but I didn’t have an inheritance other than a few bits of jewellery and my folks house and……oh o.k. I’ll pay too if I must. I suppose it isn’t fair that my folks worked for 40 years to make some money for the future, when they could have claimed benefits.
Then they came for the savers and confiscated 20% to bail out the collapsing Euro and the banking system that needed liquidity.
When they came for home owners and pensioners there was no one to argue the case so my spare room was handed over to a migrant family and my pension compulsorily “shared” with someone who had preferred not to invest in a pension fund because that was a game for the rich.
And as everyone knows “all property is theft” so I didn’t deserve to have any of my own property unless the government granted it to me.
Perhaps the BBC could explain in a calm and logical manner, using graphics as necessary, what Cameron has done regarding his inheritance and sale of assets. Having established the facts of the matter, they could then explain what he has done wrong. These days that seems to be asking too much of our national treasure and the reason it should be abolished.