[DemolitionRed]

Whilst Cameron is not accountable for his fathers actions, he does have a duty to answer questions about whether or not he still has links to this offshore company. He can't claim its a private matter when tax evasion is of public interest and very much a public concern.

Lets also not forget that Cameron has a very privileged background which was financed by his fathers offshore dealings. If my parents stole the crown jewels and left them to me in their will, I wouldn't be allowed to keep or benefit from those jewels because they never really belonged to my parents, they belonged to the country.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Whilst Cameron is not accountable for his fathers actions, he does have a duty to answer questions about whether or not he still has links to this offshore company. He can't claim its a private matter when tax evasion is of public interest and very much a public concern.

Lets also not forget that Cameron has a very privileged background which was financed by his fathers offshore dealings. If my parents stole the crown jewels and left them to me in their will, I wouldn't be allowed to keep or benefit from those jewels because they never really belonged to my parents, they belonged to the country.

You cannot prosecute the son for the sins of the father and David Cameron has no duty whatsoever to speak for his father's actions, whether he's Prime Minister or not. Seems to me that Cameron's biggest crime is to be considered "privileged".

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

You cannot prosecute the son for the sins of the father and David Cameron has no duty whatsoever to speak for his father's actions, whether he's Prime Minister or not. Seems to me that Cameron's biggest crime is to be considered "privileged".

Don't put words in my mouth Livia, nobody said prosecute Cameron; I said Cameron needs to answer questions regarding his current interests in his inheritance.

Originally Posted by Livia

Of course tax evasion is a crime. I can't imagine anyone saying it isn't.

The deliberately muddled terms between “tax evasion” and "tax avoidance" tend to get used interchangeably, even by conservative MP's.

Originally Posted by Livia

So... this kind of action is okay in your books, respectable even. But terrorists can continue to use their cellphones with impunity knowing that the security services can't touch them. And let's face it, you're making up your own story here about the noble hacker doing it for the greater good and what the government can and can't access when you know no more about this story or who is responsible than any of us.

One rule of unlawful whistle-blowers, another for the security services.

Absolutely. The whistle-blower in this case has done the British nation a huge service. They have very decently just confirmed what we already suspected but it needed a vigil anti with more guts than a xmas turkey to reveal the corruption going on by billionaires around the globe. Now Cameron has to be seen to be doing something because the majority of the nation won't allow this one to be swept under the carpet.

The British bourgeoisie and aristocracy have been benefiting from these arrangements for a very long time. Half this country is now owned by offshore investors and so no, I don't accept that the few crumbs the government throws at the British electorate is enough to pacify me. Why should the minions who humbly pay their taxes have to subsidise these massive tax avoiders.

So... NO, I don't trust this corrupt government to gain access to our privacy and I don't believe for a second that they want access to encryption because of terrorism.