How so?

'A survey, published this week but conducted just days before the Panama Papers leaks, finds that 77 per cent of the public believe David Cameron has a “moral responsibility” to ensure the UK’s overseas territories are as transparent on tax as possible.

The ComRes poll, commissioned by Christian Aid and Global Witness, also found that 81 per cent agree that all companies, whether registered in the UK or in overseas territories, should be legally required to reveal who owns them.'

Seems the majority of people would like a more honest approach to 'offshore' dealings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6970486.html

The bit in bold written by you clearly states that peoples opinions are being driven by their stance on the EU referendum. Like people do not have the clarity of thought to judge a situation on its own merits

Yet again, you attack posters personally rather than sticking to the topic.

Also please refrain from getting personal in your responses to me.

Yes of course they do because if we allow MP's and peers to cover over their off-shore tax dodging's, how can we, the electorate, decide if they are representing us or representing themselves and their friends/families.

like Dave says, "we are all in this together"...well Dave, transparency starts at the top and so you need to be the one turning over the stones.

[QUOTE=bitontheslide;8597703]"The bit in bold written by you clearly states that peoples opinions are being driven by their stance on the EU referendum. Like people do not have the clarity of thought to judge a situation on its own merits"

What are you talking about?

I CLEARLY said that peoples opinions on David Cameron and his closest cronies have become contradictory since he confirmed his pro-EU stance, NOT that those peoples opinions in their entirety per se are being driven by THEIR stance on the EU Referendum.

If you have a problem comprehending my posts that's your problem, but do not put words in my mouth or use 'Strawman' tactics to try to draw me into some argument for the later purpose of having me penalised by the Mods.

This is a discussion forum and I am airing my views.

"Yet again, you attack posters personally rather than sticking to the topic."


Pray enlighten me as why - in your erudite mind - there is a difference between some members criticising or disagreeing with my views and opinions and my criticising or disagreeing with other members views and opinions?

I was referring to some members VIEWS and OPINIONS - NOT those members PERSONALLY.

Again, you are attempting to persuade others that I am being personal because you have an ulterior motive.

"Also please refrain from getting personal in your responses to me."

This last above from you is LAUGHABLE - I DEFY you to prove HERE and NOW just where I have been PERSONAL with you in this thread?

I have been polite and civil because THERE IS NOTHING PERSONAL - IT IS A DISCUSSION FORUM.

You on the other hand, used an abreviated swear word in the form of an 'F' when there was no need to.

If you do not 'like' me but feel that you cannot 'out' argue with me when we are in opposite camps on a subject, then please just refrain from debating with me - there is really no need to use underhand tactics to try to get me infracted or banned by drawing me into arguments of your making.

And the above is an earnest request - nothing more.

The problem is Kirk, at every given opportunity you will try and turn a perfectly reasonable debate into some sort of veiled personal put down. Instead of discussing the issue, they want to discuss you want to discuss, with ridicule and accusational tone, the posters who are trying to concentrate on topic. This always moves us away from the debate and into some sort of psychological war on words with each other.

"These are the same people who for years on here, have called David Cameron and some of his closest cronies, every bad name in the book - from 'Evil', 'Dishonest' and 'Corrupt', to 'Uncaring' and 'Heartless' - UNTIL it comes to Cameron and his closest cronies stance on remaining in the EU, which just happens to coincide with their own viewpoint, and then they READILY accept EVERY one of Cameron's claims about the benefits of EU" [/B]

What you are suggesting here is, those people, the ones you're accusing of being 'turncoats' have made their decisions on staying in the EU because of what Cameron says and if they agree with what Cameron says, they are somehow retracting all the vile things they said about him previously.

Well I've got some news for you cupcake. I certainly didn't decide to vote out because of what Johnson said and I didn't decide to vote out of the EU because of what you said, in fact I never even read what you said, so its highly unlikely that the left leaning in voters are taking a lot of notice of Cameron and have done their own reading and their own research. Voting to remain 'in' Europe doesn't mean they agree with Camerons politics, it just means they agree with him regarding Europe. Since when did politics become all one camp?

How many years have people been joking about their Swiss bank accounts... or their dealings with the Cayman islands? It's like everyone has just woken up and realised there is a problem. Successive governments haven't done anything to end the practise. I'm astounded that everyone is so very shocked. It looks like people have suddenly woken up to it simply because David Cameron's family is involved and it's an excuse to be appalled by him. I've love to have a look at Blairs' accounts... just for my own interest.

We all knew there was a problem but that problem had never been unearthed like it just has.
I agree, NL were culpable for a lot of tax dodging. This is something that has been going on for a very, very long time.

Shocked? why would we be shocked? Delighted more like

And that says all that needs to be said about this thread.

There were countless examples of corruption and nepotism in the Blair years. Who can forget Cherie's investments in property or my personal favourite where she was invited to pick an item from a Knightsbridge fashion store, and helped herself to the shops contents :laugh:

I was more disgusted at the cash she made from the Human Rights Act, oiled through by her old man. Truth is, politicians are human and humans are fundamentally greedy.

Why is that all that needs to be said about this thread?
What have you misread into that statement that isn't what DR clearly stated here-
' if we allow MP's and peers to cover over their off-shore tax dodging's, how can we, the electorate, decide if they are representing us or representing themselves and their friends/families.'

Is this you justifying corruption?

You all should be like the Irish and realise that all Politicians are corrupt :hee:

Oh don't worry the scales are falling for many thick and fast :laugh:

Exactly I only vote for independents now that I know won't get a seat as I don't like the idea if not voting. :notimpressed:

Well I would never vote for Fine Gael/Fine Fael anyway, they may as well be the same party

It all comes down to morals and principals, I suppose some justify it by saying they pay enough tax, people can talk themselves out of paying anything, are cash in hand payments so different :think:

No, it was me replying to DR's comment that you're DELIGHTED that Cameron's father has been implicated. I don't know how you could have misinterpreted that.

No. In no way have I tried to justify anything. I stated a fact. But your misinterpreting skills are really coming on.... well done you.

On our PM Dave
he has confirmed he is not part of this.

So Put Up or Shut Up

His Dead Dad was , though.

:laugh: It must be the Irish quarter in me then, because I've been saying the same thing for years.

oops...
'Swiss police have raided Uefa’s headquarters in Nyon to seize details of a contract signed by the Fifa president, Gianni Infantino, following the Panama Papers leak.

The files, seen by the Guardian, show that Infantino – formerly director of legal services at Uefa – co-signed a television rights contract in 2006 with two businessmen who have since been caught up in football’s corruption scandal.'

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016...anni-infantino

Well I for one would like a nice easy little tax dodge, any money we can save the taxman taking from hubby's hard earned pensions would suit us very well at the minute.
Hopefully the accountant earns his money shortly. Legally of course.

In all honestly most people would, as long as it's legal, accountants would go out of business if this wasn't the case :fan: