On time and awaiting your contributions! This is where you detail BBC bias!

From the ICIJ:

The Council of the European Union issued a statement May 14 calling for efforts at the national, EU and international levels “to combat tax fraud and tax evasion” and “aggressive tax planning.” The statement noted that the council’s presidency plans to ask ICIJ to supply EU member states “with the names and details regarding all EU citizens on the ‘offshore leaks’ list.”

ICIJ has said that it will not turn over the data to government agencies, but that it is exploring the possibility of publicly releasing some entity ownership data.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the BBC and the Guardian have been on a bit of a moral crusade, or so it seems.  They have launched into David Cameron for having written to the EU to propose further discussions on disclosures regarding Trusts.  Apparently only he, in secret, opposed, or tried to water down the proposals.  But that’s not true as I point out below.  Many countries, such as Germany, opposed public disclosure of trust information, as did the EU Council itself.  Why no mention of that in the BBC reports as they target Cameron?  The BBC mention Cameron’s letter as if this was a secret ploy by him personally to undermine tax evasion legislation when in fact it was merely the very public evidence of the government position which everyone knew anyway……it had after all been discussed in Parliament and the House of Lords…many Labour Lord’s taking part and the LibDem Lord Newby, the Treasury spokeman in the Lords, defending the government position (see below for more on this).

The reporting, the mis-reporting of this, has been devastingly effective in manipulating public perceptions about Cameron personally and has been instrumental in whipping up a public storm of discontent…but is in fact based upon lies and misinformation which the BBC has helped propagate.  The protests outside Downing street were organised by a pro-Labour, pro-Corbyn, activist who says she was motivated by Cameron’s letter to the EU…

She clearly does not have any idea about what was really going on but has managed to catch the headlines and create yet more bad publicity for Cameron based upon a story that is total nonsense….as others have noted…

Ironically her latest tweet is this article on political journalism…an Australian article but it looks like journos are the same the world over…..maybe it’s talking about the BBC’s Jon Donnison……

Why Political Coverage is Broken

How often the Australian press reframes politics as entertainment, seizing on trivial episodes that amuse or titillate and then blowing them up until they start to seem important.

 In politics, our journalists believe, it is better to be savvy than it is to be honest or correct on the facts. It’s better to be savvy than it is to be just, good, fair, decent, strictly lawful, civilized, sincere, thoughtful or humane.  Savviness is what journalists admire in others. Savvy is what they themselves dearly wish to be.

On that note…..who has genuinely been blocking investigations into tax avoidance and criminality?  Who has been refusing to hand over information that would enable governments to tackle such issues?  Step forward the ICIJ, the BBC and the Guardian.

What are their motives for reporting on tax evasion?  Is it to bring into the open a potential area of criminality and tax abuse, is it a politically motivated targeting of those in government they do not like, or is it merely the journalistic imperative to get a scoop, to reveal an ‘exclusive’ and if possible bring down a politician?  Are they looking for a big political scalp?  Iceland’s PM has gone…..who are they after next?

You be the judge….this is what the ICIJ said about a similar ‘bombshell’ disclosure of information in 2014….

Why we are not turning over the offshore files to government agencies

One of the many reactions from our series on offshore tax havens has been government agencies from Germany, Greece, South Korea, Canada and the U.S. asking for access to the 2.5 million files that form the basis of our reporting.

We are declining to do so.

The long-standing policy of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and our parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity, is not to turn over such material.

The ICIJ is not an arm of law enforcement and is not an agent of the government. We are an independent reporting organization, served by and serving our members, the global investigative journalism community and the public.

Once we have finished publishing a planned series of stories over a two-week period, our attention will turn to countries where we still have investigative work to do. A number of other media organizations have reached out to us offering help and support, and we welcome these new offers of collaboration.

If there are more stories to find, we want to find them.

It does rather look like they are more interested in getting a major story than in ‘tax justice’.  The latest leaked documents, the Panama Papers, haven’t been made available to the authorities either…nor have they been released to the public.  Now that’s a bit of an irony when you consider that the big rumpus now is that Cameron supposedly blocked public disclosure of trust beneficiaries.  Let’s have some public disclosure of everything in the Panama Papers.

But of course the ICIJ, the BBC and the Guardian don’t want that because they then lose control of the story and the Public may find out what they have been hiding….where are the big disclosures about Labour politicians for instance?  Why does it seem to be mostly Tories that are in the headlines?  Targeting?  The BBC and its mates are stage managing the release of information for effect…and you have to question the timing…just before local elections and the EU referendum…..we are being told that the EU is cracking down on tax abuse but the UK is blocking it…therefore if you want to stop tax abuse vote to stay in the EU.   Is that too cynical?….the BBC and friends have had the information for over a year and the fact about the government’s position on trusts and the EU has been public knowledge for years…just that no one made a fuss about it before now…so why now?

Speaking of which here’s the BBC report on Cameron and his letter to the EU…….

Panama Papers: Cameron faces questions over trust letter

David Cameron is facing questions about his attempt to exclude offshore trusts from an EU crackdown on tax avoidance.

The PM wrote to EU officials in 2013 to say trusts should not automatically be subject to the same transparency rules as companies.

Labour said this showed he did not take tax avoidance seriously.

But the government said he had felt forcing trusts to reveal who gained financially from them would “distract” from action in more pressing areas.

Critics have said trusts can also be used to hide wealth, with one Dutch MEP saying Britain’s efforts to exclude them from transparency legislation had created a “huge loophole”.

In a letter to former European Council president Herman Van Rompuy in November 2013, Mr Cameron expressed reservation about extending such regulations, designed to reduce secrecy and limit the scope for abuse, to trusts, both those registered offshore and in the UK.

Here the BBC reports a Today programme interview…an interview in which only one side was put and we got no context or opposing voices……

Asked whether a loophole remained Dutch MEP Judith Sargentini, who led the European Parliament’s work on the draft law, told the BBC: “Oh most definitely. Not only in Britain but elsewhere in Europe where they use trusts.”

The British government was, she said, at the “forefront” of the lobbying.

German Green MEP Sven Giegold said the British government had been vital in securing the EU-wide beneficial ownership register for companies.

But he said the exemption for trusts meant “wealthy corporations are able to use this loophole so that poor people have to make up for the missing tax payments”.

So let’s look at that letter and the government position.  Read the letter and you will see that it is hardly controversial and in fact lays out the government’s position as determined to crack down on tax abuse.

Back in 2013 the ICIJ praised the UK government’s position…

The United Kingdom has vowed to push ahead with its plan for a new public register on company ownership to track beneficial owners of British companies. The move, first announced by Prime Minister David Cameron in mid-2013, will force companies to provide details about individuals with an interest in more than 25 percent of shares or with voting rights or control of how a company is run. The information would need to be updated at least once every 12 months, and would include details such as the name, date of birth, and nationality of the owners. New legislation will also limit situations where corporate entities can be listed as directors of other companies. British business secretary Vince Cable said the register will end “the darker side of capitalism”.

So far, only the UK has formally pledged to create a public ownership registry of companies.

Unlike the UK, neither the United States nor the European Union has announced plans to require public disclosure of company ownership.

But is it just the UK government that is reluctant to implement open disclosure measures for trusts?

The Germans weren’t keen as Tax Justice points out……

This got close to being a real breakthrough until the UK opposed the proposed wide scope of registration of trusts; and countries led by Germany resisted the public nature of the registry.

Here they are writing to the German government pleading with them not to block the legislation…and not just the Germans and other countries but the EU Council wanted to block the move by the EU Parliament……

Dear Bundesfinanzminister Schäuble – please don’t block public registries

European transparency and anti-corruption campaigning organisations have sent the following letter to German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble requesting that his government should support demands by the European Parliament that information about the ultimate beneficial owners (the true, warm-blooded humans hiding behind shell companies with nominee directors and nominee shareholders) should be made available on public registry.  The German government is apparently resisting this move.

Last week during negotiations the European Parliament called unequivocally for the introduction of such a register, and demanded that there should be no watering down of the proposal, as the European Council and particularly the German government have been proposing.

And here’s another report on that….

Federal government blocks EU Money Laundering Reform
A very worthwhile article in the Tagesspiegel and Zeit.de informed us today on a new chapter in the history of Germany’s less than credible efforts to combat money laundering and tax evasion.

In contrast to full-bodied rhetoric Tagesspiegel explains the true attitude of the Federal Government.

What about the EU….does it actually facilitate ‘tax efficiency’ measures and offshoring?  Why did companies like the one that Cameron’s dad owned, and indeed Pimco, now the employer of Gordon Brown, move to Ireland?  Because the EU passed legislation that encouraged such companies to come into the EU, the EU tax haven……

The fund was redomiciled in 2012, moving from Panama to Ireland.

A spokesperson for Smith & Williamson said the move came after the introduction of new rules in Europe governing retail investment funds known as Ucits.

These rules enabled funds that were registered in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Panama, to move to an onshore European country, typically Luxembourg or Ireland, and adopt the Ucits structure.

Ucits funds have become one of the most popular investment structures for retail and institutional investors globally in recent years as they are considered safe and transparent. The industry has grown rapidly in size to around €8tn of assets globally today.

The Tax Justice Network  tells us…….

The EU is planning to make it easier to own offshore shell companies

Just as the Panama papers reveal the mayhem that can be caused by secret shell companies, the European Union is set to relax ownership transparency requirements for shell companies in its forthcoming Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive.

So despite cracking down on tax abuse the EU is facilitating it.

What about that infamous Cameron letter?….who knew?  It was secret wasn’t it?……..Maybe not so much……

UK demands exemption from EU trust registry plan

Monday, 7 April, 2014

The UK government has confirmed that it will oppose clauses in the EU’s Fourth Money Laundering Directive that would force all trusts to identify their beneficiaries in publicly accessible registries.

 

And here we have the House of Lords discussion in 2014 on that very subject as Lord Newby lays out the government’s case for more discussions on trusts…….secret?  Perhaps not…..

EU: Money-laundering Directive

Lord Newby (LibDem) In September 2012, he was appointed Treasury spokesman in the House of Lords.

The EU’s fourth money-laundering directive is an opportunity to build on that momentum. The directive seeks to implement the revised standards of the Financial Action Task Force and the European Commission’s review of the implementation of the third money-laundering directive. We are committed to ensuring that the directive implements the FATF standards in full. As the Prime Minister wrote to European Heads of Government last year, our first collective step should be to mandate public central registries of company beneficial ownership as the benchmark for transparency of ownership and control. At the same time, the UK recognises that it is equally vital to prevent the potential misuse of trusts and similar legal arrangements.

The FATF sets the global standards to improve the transparency of the beneficial ownership of corporate and legal entities, including companies, and legal arrangements such as trusts. In setting those standards, the FATF recognises that preventing the misuse of trusts is critical but also explicitly recognises that trusts are different from companies. In particular, it is vital to understand that, unlike companies, common law trusts, such as those established under English and Welsh law, are not created by the state. Furthermore, trusts, unlike companies, are used for a range of purposes, such as benevolence, inheritance, protecting vulnerable people and family support. As such, the implications for privacy are far greater, and trusts therefore warrant different treatment.

Measures placed on trusts must therefore be different from those that apply for companies in order to be proportionate and effective. The Government support a mandatory requirement for trustees to know the beneficial ownership of their trusts. That, together with tax reporting to HMRC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, referred, and future automatic exchange of tax information agreements, will offer more transparency on trusts than ever before. In particular, through automatic exchange agreements, financial institutions will report information to national tax authorities on trusts holding accounts with them where the beneficiary is a resident of a partner jurisdiction. That information is then automatically shared with ​the partner jurisdiction. There are already 44 signatories to this international standard on automatic exchange, which creates a web of information exchange that will provide greater transparency on trusts than ever before.

This approach provides a proportional and effective means of enhancing transparency on trusts holding financial assets, given that they pose the greatest money- laundering risk. The Government oppose the mandatory registration requirement for trusts, which, together with the creation of central registries of trusts, was recently adopted as the European Parliament’s position on the directive. Given the transparency afforded by automatic transfer of information agreements, we consider registration of trusts to be a disproportionate approach and, in particular, one which undermines the common-law basis of trusts in the UK. As such, we continue to work with other member states, civil society and the private sector to ensure effective treatment of trusts.

In response to the question from my noble friend Lord Dykes, trusts would not become default alternatives to companies because there are the requirements to report financial information to HMRC and to pay tax where appropriate and also for the automatic exchange of information where the beneficiary is a foreign national.

To sum up, given that my time is very brief, the UK is leading from the front on an agenda that places a practical emphasis on transparency and accountability. ​The Government are working to ensure that the EU shows similar ambition on what is a cross-border issue, with serious implications for developed and developing countries alike. We want the outcome to be fair and proportionate, but we also require it to be effective. That is what we are working towards and what I am optimistic that we will achieve.

So to sum up…the ICIJ, the BBC and the Guardian are blocking information that would help the EU tackle tax evasion, Cameron’s letter wasn’t secret and nor was it an attempt to block regulations, he wanted more discussions and different methods that might be more effective.  Germany, the EU council and other EU countries wanted to block the regulation, the UK government’s position was well known and widely talked about, and the EU itself has facilitated tax avoidance creating an EU tax haven.

And yet Cameron is to blame for everything.   Merely bad reporting or is something else going on?

The Beebs new favourite Corbyn babe, Abi Wilkinson has tweeted this…

• Abi Wilkinson Retweeted

  anya ‏@anyabike 21h21 hours ago

  The tireless @JolyonMaugham on what the Prime Minister has and hasn’t disclosed https://waitingfortax.com/2016/04/09/the-prime-ministers-tax-returns/ …

Maugham praises Labour’s John McDonnell for publishing his tax return whilst suggesting Cameron’s maybe didn’t give the full picture.  What McDonnell’s doesn’t show is any union subsidies such as the £8000 he got from a Union in 2015 nor the £130,000 odd a year that gets in Parlaimentary expenses……much goes on staff…but who are the staff?  One is Jeremy Corbyn’s son on a possible £40,000 a year…..

The Labour leader’s son, Seb Corbyn, has been made chief of staff to the shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell.

Mr Corbyn, 25, worked in his father’s campaign team during the Labour leadership election and previously as a researcher for Mr McDonnell.  His role was described as “bag carrier and all-purpose aide” by the New Statesman. His appointment as Mr McDonnell’s chief of staff means he could get a pay rise or a slight reduction as the salary band is £30,000 to £41,212.

McDonnell says…

The Panama Papers highlight the growing concern that there is one rule for the very rich and another for everyone else.

Yep….bet you’d like to get a job for your boy or girl or your boss’s boy or girl and pay them £30-40 grand out of expenses.  One rule for the rich and privileged. Another rule for the rest of us.

Here is a guest post from Nibor…

“As the Battle of Brexit moves into higher and higher gear the selective reporting by the Beeb would be worthy of a Panorama, Cause For Concern , Analysis or even better a Crimewatch programme by itself.

Today there has been several ” luminaries ” on the BBC radio explaining why we should never leave the EU including a conceited woman who runs a large multinational who opines that she knows what they are thinking on the continent because she is important in some business dealings there .
She maybe right . She maybe half right . She maybe be totally wrong .
The trouble is one of perspective .

A She who speaks preponderantly to other luminaries in the multinational business world will gauge her outlook on that . Now I run up and down the country and abroad and and get a different perspective . In good old Blighty , I would declare that eight out of ten opinion owners who expressed a preference want out. Mind you I can be a bit forceful at times , and agreeing with me , signing the paperwork for loads delivered and expediting my egress from the premises means their break times are not missed . A trick that can be used by any marketing company or the BBC .
At least my vox poll is not tainted by direct reward for remaining in or leaving the EU . For sure there are the unquantifiable consequences of Brexit ; more or less taxes , more or less jobs , more or less “influence ” ( for that read civil servants and ministers ) , more or less security . These are debated by the two sides .What though , if you know the outcome has a definite effect on your wallet , like the first in a horse race you have bet on ?

Page 18 of the Sunday Times should be given prominence , which is an issue the BBC would omit . EU tax judgements could cost Britain £50bn . If you read the small article another way to headline it is ; Some companies will get money if Britain remains in the EU . Quite right and proper for the companies and their duties to shareholders , but why don’t we get such facts from the lefty BBC ?’

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…

•  

  Charlotte Church ‏@charlottechurch Apr 8

  Do one Dave.

• Charlotte Church ‏@charlottechurch Apr 8

  I meant the Dave that copulates with pig faces.

The BBC has been canvassing the views of the anti-Cameron protestors outside Downing Street….

Downing Street protest organiser, journalist Abi Wilkinson, told BBC Radio 5 live the week’s revelations raised questions about Mr Cameron’s commitment to tackling tax avoidance.

Abi Wilkinson, a journalist…well, yes, sort of…one that mostly does man bites dog type stories and who refuses to criticise Corbyn publicly because the poor lad has had such a rough time….

I’ve mostly avoided ever criticising Corbyn publicly.

It’s not that I don’t have any criticisms. It’s just, with the Tory media attacking everything from the depth of his bow to his choice of tracksuit, and most centre-left commentators being almost as antagonistic towards the Labour leader as those on the right, not to mention the fact the parliamentary Labour party has effectively been in a state of civil war since he was elected and even members his own shadow cabinet are briefing against him, I’ve tended to feel it would be unhelpful to add to the negativity.

But then again it could just be that she is a hardcore Labour supporter who hates the Tories….

7 ways to make a difference if you oppose the Conservative government

Now is the time to get active in your opposition to the Conservative government and its cruellest policies

Not sure her protest outside Downing Street is altogether the honest and principled stand she makes out….just the usual renta-mob who use any excuse to bash the Tories.

Shame the BBC once again presents such a person as a legitimate voice without an axe to grind.

• Abi Wilkinson Retweeted

  Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 Apr 7

  David Cameron repeatedly, deliberately lied by omission about whether he personally profited from the offshore Panama trust. That’s serious.

Only he didn’t lie…he never said he didn’t once have shares…..as the BBC notes….

What Cameron said when:

Asked on Monday whether she could confirm that no family money was still invested in the fund, Mr Cameron’s spokeswoman said: “That is a private matter”

Then in an interview on Tuesday, Mr Cameron said: ” I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And, so that, I think, is a very clear description”

Downing Street issued a statement later that day: “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares. As has been previously reported, Mrs Cameron owns a small number of shares connected to her father’s land, which she declares on her tax return”

No 10 then released a further clarifying statement on Wednesday, saying: “There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future”

On Thursday the PM told ITV News: “We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010”

Quite clear, Cameron said he does not have shares.  Not sure how that is a lie.

Curious how the BBC can totally ignore its own ‘facts’ and still intimate he has done something wrong in its reporting.

The BBC tells us that…

David Cameron remains adamant that he did not break any rules and that his father’s Bahamas-based business had not been established for the purpose of avoiding tax.

But he is well aware that taking several days to confirm that he used to hold shares has allowed his political opponents to accuse him of “misleading” the public.

But Cameron was first asked if he still had investments in his father’s company….

‘….the issue of whether the Cameron family still had funds in offshore investments was a “private matter”.’

So the questioner by the  nature of the question accepts Cameron’s family had shares in the company once, so not a secret, and the only thing Cameron ‘hid’ was the fact that he didn’t have any shares…not sure how that qualifies as hiding a big guilty secret by omission.

The BBC knows this is a non-story and yet continues to stir the pot and not come out and say there’s nothing to show here.

What do you get when you mix a man who wrote songs for Elvis, £3m, and a mysterious set of Chinese-owned offshore companies?

The answer: A company called Gate Ventures which is in a joint venture with Ensygnia…which has close business contacts with the BBC.

Ensygnia’s customers include Visa Europe, PlayJam, O2, Waitrose, and BBC Worldwide.  Ensygnia is the start-up in residence at BBC Worldwide and is collaborating with BBC Worldwide on a number of initiatives including the online BBC Shop, which currently has around 4 million users per annum, and its new flagship product BBC Store. 

 Dr Johnny Hon, Chairman of Gate Ventures PLC, said:

“The Board of Gate is very excited to make our first investment in the e-commerce space through Ensygnia.  We believe that Ensygnia’s Onescan technology is a game changer as its platform can be easily adapted unlike many others in the market, which puts Ensygnia in a great position.  Ensygnia has won important accounts for Onescan since its launch in March 2014, including the recent contract with BBC Worldwide.

On listing, Gate Ventures revealed in its prospectus that it had 10 shareholders, all of whom held exactly 8.75 per cent of its shares each. No beneficial owner was named for any of the investors. All but two of these stakes were owned by high net worth Chinese investors who had invested through specially constructed British Virgin Island shell companies, a person familiar with the listing said. The remaining two shells were owned by associates of Mr Morrow.

The BBC, losing the faith and trust of the British Public?

Panama Papers reveal offshore secrets of China’s red nobility

Disclosures show how havens such as British Virgin Islands hide links between big business and relatives of top politicians…

…and the BBC.

The BBC reports…

Labour says PM ‘losing trust’ over offshore fund row

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the PM had “misled the public” and “lost the trust of the British people”.

He said Mr Cameron’s actions had showed there was “one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us”.

Who made offshore funds more ‘user-friendly’ for Brits?…….wealthy Brits presumably…one rule for…..

12:01AM GMT 04 Dec 2002

Revenue plans offshore overhaul

Regulations for non-qualifying funds are being relaxed, at the chancellor’s request. Paul Farrow unravels the details

The Government is to overhaul the tax regime for offshore funds in a move that could make them more user-friendly for British investors.

In the pre-Budget report, Gordon Brown said he had asked the Inland Revenue to bring tax rules governing offshore funds into line with those for UK onshore funds.

And which company praised Gordon Brown’s move to make offshore investing easier?

On the face of it, this looks to be good news for investors. Andrew Faulkes, senior tax specialist at Smith & Williamson, the accountant, believes that many investors have avoided sophisticated non-qualifying investment funds, such as hedge funds, because of the onerous tax treatments.

That’ll be Smith & Williamson who now runs Blair Global Investments….ie Cameron’s dad’s company.

Smith & Williamson Blairmore Global Equity Fund

Small world.

The BBC is after David Cameron….his father had a business that was based offshore…shock horror.

Simon Jenkins in the Guardian says this…

If all of us sold any of our savings traded offshore we would need to sit up all night scanning our pension funds. As the financial pundit James Quarmby told the BBC this morning, millions benefit from offshore funds – and if they do not know, they cannot complain.

And of course he is right.

John Humphrys, who laid into Cameron’s dad for ‘setting up a company to avoid tax’, depsite all the people who actually know what they are talking about saying that wasn’t the case, probably has a BBC pension which profits from offshore investments.  Spot the problem?   The BBC has a £13 bn pot….how much of that is dirty money?

About the BBC Pension Scheme

Let’s look at some of the BBC’s Top 100 Investments…

How about Amazon…which we all know pays little to no tax.

Imperial tobacco..the BBC trading in lung cancer and death.

Oh what about those oil companies like BP and Shell despite the BBC’s ethical green investment policy?

How about BAE….flogging weapons to Saudi Arabia.

How about the BBC’s investment in Tesla…a car manufacturer who has been getting a lot of BBC coverage recently…indeed on the Today programme this morning.  Conflict of interest?

And so on…

But also there are the banks and financial investment companies which of course have vast investments offshore…..HSBC, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Lloyds, Citigroup, BNP Paribas, Bank of Ameirca, Goldman Sachs and many more including many insurance companies.

All have offshore businesses.

How can the BBC set out to denounce Cameron’s dad, and thereby Cameron when their own investments are so questionable on their own terms?

Hypocrisy and cant?  Plenty of.

Here’s a story, ironically on the BBC, about a company that the BBC invests in…..

Argentina demands HSBC repay $3.5bn in offshore funds

Sue at Is the BBC biased? spotted this revelation from the BBC….it’s from 2015 but somehow never goes out of date…..

Thousands have now mocked a British Muslim leader’s comments by using the satirical slogan “Mossad Stole My Shoe” – but the man behind the hashtag says it was intended to expose anti-Semitic attitudes in Muslim communities.

It all began with a Facebook post by Asghar Bukhari, a founding member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPAC) – a UK pressure group which works to counter Islamophobia and Zionism, among other aims.

Rather than investigate MPACUK and their unsavoury views the BBC is looking into the people who started the satire campaign against him, one in particular who happens to be from the, hated by Muslims, Quilliam Foundation…Maajid Nawaz…and as the BBC tells us…. ‘Bukhari called Nawaz an “Uncle Tom nut job” and accused him of getting funding from pro-Israel supporters’.   Now that has a familiar ring to it…oh yes, today Guido reports another of the BBC’s favourite groups, Cage has got one of its ‘ex’ boys into C4 News…and look what he has Tweeted in the past…..

Funny how the BBC ignores or discounts the real views of such people…not everyone does…not even the very PC NUS…

In 2004, MPACUK was the subject of a no-platform order by the National Union of Students, because of its publication of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, provocative racist material, and further material on its website encouraging activists to break the law.

Even the Guardian knows a bad ‘un when they see one...though they still call him a ‘Muslim leader’….

One of Britain’s most prominent speakers on Muslim issues is today exposed as a supporter of David Irving, the controversial historian who for years denied the Holocaust took place.

Asghar Bukhari, a founder member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), which describes itself as Britain’s largest Muslim civil rights group, sent money to Irving and urged Islamic websites to ask visitors to make donations to his fighting fund.

 

The All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism said this about MPACUK….

The use of ‘Zionist’ as a replacement for ‘Jewish’ is common on the MPACUK website. The CST submitted evidence that in one explicit case of this the Talmud, a Jewish religious text written many centuries ago, was described as a “Zionist holy book”. The website also posed the question: “Is this the most Powerful and Racist book in the world?!”  MPACUK has also articulated Jewish conspiracy theories through the language of Zionism describing it as an “octopus that now penetrates every western nation and pushes it to start world war three upon Muslims” and warning that “Any man who knows anything of Zionists, knows that they will not stop until the Muslims ‘followed bymankind’ are dead or enslaved”.

So when the BBC allows MPACUK to get away with claiming to be defending Jews against anti-Semitism, ‘ intended to expose anti-Semitic attitudes in Muslim communities’  and then blandly describes their aims like this… ‘a UK pressure group which works to counter Islamophobia and Zionism, among other aims’, you have to ask why the BBC is so wilfully blind when the evidence is there for them to see.

MPACUK are a small bunch of extremist scumbags to be blunt.  The BBC has long treated them as if they are a respectable and authoritative voice of the Muslim community and it shows the huge problems that Britain faces when the Media, in particular the massively powerful and influential BBC, gives such people credibility and treats their pronouncements on how Muslims are being treated as gospel with the result that politicians fall into line and dare not make real attempts to rein in the Muslim Islamist subornment of society.

The slippery Islamist Mehdi Hasan, another BBC favourite, told Muslims that they should infiltrate the media in order to shill for Islam, indeed the BBC’s own Mishal Husain said she was glad to get the job on the Today programme so that she could present a more positive face of Islam.

MPACUK seem to be very successful in fooling the BBC, a willing dupe you have to think.  The below is an urgent message to British Muslims from MPACUK that was on the frontpage of their website until it started being noticed…it has now vanished and even the good old Wayback Machine has been stopped by MPACUK from digging it back out….

Anyway here’s my copy…….

The Obligation of Jihad

“Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) hath Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,” Quran Chapter 4: The Women, verse 95

A high rank, forgiveness and mercy are gifted from our beloved for those who are the Mujahideen. Those that struggle and strive to protect the religion, that protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), that protect our brothers and sisters in Islam and humanity are gifted with these amazing favours!

Are we aware of the consequences of not partaking in this strive and struggle to protect the Ummah? By forsaking ourselves of the duty of Jihad we risk the wrath of God, we expose Islam to harm and defeat at the hands of its enemies. Islam is one of the largest, if not the largest religion in the world yet simultaneously we are the most persecuted people on earth– how can this be so when it is this very religion that endorses the protection of human life as a rooted principle? The answer is simple; when Muslims abandon the obligation of Jihad, preferring a life of ease, concentrating on worldly gains and pleasure we face degradation, ridicule, enslavement, humiliation and consequently all our affairs are corrupted.

Those who do not observe Jihad are indeed committing a grave sin because there is much harm that emanates into society when it is abandoned. Those that neglect Jihad will be disobeying something God has commanded us all to partake in; they have not aided in protecting the Religion of God, they have not defended the Book of God, its messages and His law, they have not helped the Ummah against the enemy who wants to destroy them.

If any of us find our hearts at this stage; as a matter of urgency we must change for not only are we exposing ourselves to humiliation and harm in this life, but also in the Hereafter; for the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “He who dies without having fought in the way of Allah or without having felt it to be his duty, will die having a trait of hypocrisy”

These are MPACUKs real views on those who condemned the attack on Lee Rigby……

This is what MPACUK’s Facebook page [strangely again this page has been vanished]  says about Muslims who apologise for acts of terror:

This is the sad state of affairs we Muslims are in.

All day yesterday I hear Muslims apologising and condemning this act as if it was the most abhorrent act ever committed on British soil, and “we are sorry because yes it is our fault that a man reacted to tyrannical oppression”

Yet these same Muslims don’t even bat an eye lid when these same soldiers kill our kids in our people’s homeland.

They are only cowards worried about their own reputation and image. “Oh no brother this is really bad for ‘the dawah’, we must publicly condemn these acts, Islam means peace”

Traitors!