David Cameron's father 'ran offshore fund that paid zero UK tax for 30 years'

Overwhelming majority said "so? It's his dad, not him".

And so what if a few did prove themselves to be idiots - do you think the right way to counter that is by sinking to their level? All that does is make everyone look like morons.

You want to raise the level of debate? Then do it. Not just empty rhetoric.

It's a reason to hate the son's hypocrisy.

I don't think they are the same - the coordinated campaign run by the Tories and their friends at the Sun and the Mail to blacken Ralph Miliband was mainly fiction. This story is mainly fact. Then we have the issue that the basis of those attacks was against patriotism and whilst that may or may not have been an issue with Miliband senior, we can see that it definitely is an issue with the Camerons and to make matters worse, Cameron jnr was a cheer leader in the 'Ed's family are not patriots' jeering match.

The slimy hypocrisy of leading Tory families like this has to be seen to be believed.

I did not think we held children to account for their father's actions. His father was clearly engaged in dodgy dealings, but Cameron was his son, not his business partner. There is no issue here unless Cameron is shown to have been directly involved. Christ we allow the relatives of terrorists less of a public hanging than Cameron is getting in this thread.

To all the lefties banging on about this as a reason to hate the son; what did you think, say and do when the story about Miliband's father came out?





Don't be hypocrites.

'it's a private matter'.

Milibands dad used an isa which is expressly allowed and intended by Parliament. There is no loophole.

On the contrary Cameron's family exploited a legal loophole, unintended by Parliament to avoid tax, going against the spirit of the law.

So David Cameron is at fault for something legal done by his father?

It really does astound me how people like @TimmonaPortella above come out of the woodwork to defend or at best apologise for the corruption that goes on.

Apparently it's all OK that we have the big four writing our tax code because they're all sooo smart only they can do it. It's one thing our government enlisting them when they are the sort of people who will personally benefit: it's quite another seeing useful idiots who will never have enough money to use these schemes, and who will therefore be paying for them, cheer them on.

It's pathetic the way people bow to big business and believe the propaganda about it: remember, these crooks are the sorts of people regularly referred to in the Tory media as "hard-working wealth creators"!

Make no mistake, this obsequity is something peculiar to the more servile, docile, stupefied populations of the West, chief among these the UK. We open our legs and our property market to the laundered money of Saudi oil sheikhs, Russian mafiosi and Chinese Communist Party mandarins, and our own elites cycle theirs through the most extensive network of tax havens on the planet, while our own elected Chancellor argues passionately and wields his veto mercilessly against vote after vote by the other EU member states to take multilateral action on tax avoidance.

In Iceland ten per cent of the entire voting population is protesting in front of the Althing right now demanding the removal of the prime minister, whose family, like Cameron's, has been implicated in the scandal, and who not a day after the scandal broke faces a vote of no confidence. That's the sort of contempt with which we should treat corrupt politicians.

Can any one of us here imagine anything even remotely like that happening over here? There is more chance of Cameron's dad rising from the grave and being appointed to a plum position on the Public Accounts Committee than of the average Brit holding any of these verminous elites, British or foreign, to account for their corruption.

After all, this has been known for years: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

Cameron hasn't denied being involved and when asked said 'it's a private matter' rather than no.

So he hasn't admitted being involved either...

Don't jump to conclusions and assumptions, just makes you look like an idiot.

So he hasn't admitted being involved either...

Don't jump to conclusions and assumptions, just makes you look like an idiot.

Milibands dad used an isa which is expressly allowed and intended by Parliament. There is no loophole.

On the contrary Cameron's family exploited a legal loophole, unintended by Parliament to avoid tax, going against the spirit of the law.

It's not 'jumping to conclusions'. Why didn't he just say no? Surely easier and clearer.

Cameron's dad lived here tax free. He didn't pay for the army, the navy, public roads and infrastructure, public parks, council services etc yet benefited from them like everyone else. That's the true definition of a scrounger.

Cameron has benefited from that money. He's had it passed down to him. And when he was asked how much he knew about it and whether he had shares he said 'it's a private matter'.

Cameron's dad lived in this country, benefited from our public services and infrastructure yet paid no tax whatsoever, that's the definition of a scrounger. Yet he has the nerve to criticise other scroungers.


Why is is that people exploiting he system at the bottom is disgusting but it's fine for people at the top?

And the regular response seems to be its 'legal'. Searching, exploiting and finding legal loopholes to avoid tax is unacceptable. If there was some technical legal loophole which made murder legal would that be okay? Marital rape used to be legal, was that acceptable?

Everyone should pay tax and we shouldn't allow huge accountancy firms to exploit loopholes to help people pay zero tax in this country. The whole thing is corrupt.

It's a reason to hate the son's hypocrisy.

I don't think they are the same - the coordinated campaign run by the Tories and their friends at the Sun and the Mail to blacken Ralph Miliband was mainly fiction. This story is mainly fact. Then we have the issue that the basis of those attacks was against patriotism and whilst that may or may not have been an issue with Miliband senior, we can see that it definitely is an issue with the Camerons and to make matters worse, Cameron jnr was a cheer leader in the 'Ed's family are not patriots' jeering match.

The slimy hypocrisy of leading Tory families like this has to be seen to be believed.

This is becoming quite a tired argument. No matter how rigorous the legal frameworks, if you put thousands of highly paid City people onto the case, you will find loopholes. The problem is not the laws but the corrupted system where an entire industry is devoted to offshoring a critical part of our national tax base, to the detriment of all of us.

I think a simple response would be to remove citizenship from all persons caught engaging in such conduct and prohibit them from ever receiving any access to public services. They would, for example, not be permitted to drive on British roads. Similarly, we should prevent all the tax-dodging corporations from having any access to things like police and fire protection, taxpayer-funded motorway connections or subsidised airports. (which is all of them)

How should those on payee carry out their patriotic duty to avoid tax?

So? that doesn't exonerate him.

OP: Tbh, I'm quite okay with fiscal conservatives or free-market conservatives dodging taxes. They think taxation and therefore government services and spending should be minimal. No problems with them as long as they don't vote for spending increases.

But Cameron is not that kind of conservative (apparently). He's a Big Society or "compassionate" conservative or whatever ******** term careerist politicians have invented to explain why they've got no principled stances on anything that might jeopardise their chances to rule.

Relevance?