The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TimmonaPortella
An argument that was specifically addressed in the article I linked. As was your 'roads and sewers' argument.

I'm afraid I'm not particularly interested in going around in circles at the surface of this issue.


Except it wasn't addressed convincingly. As someone who has studied public law and parliamentary intention I can tell you that the intention of Parliament IS very much a thing and the courts when determining the scope or any ambiguities look a.) to the intention of the legislative scheme and b.) proceed on a basis that Parliament didn't intend to legislate contrary to fundamental rights - that was from Lord Hoffman himself in the case of ex parte simms

The courts as a matter of principle look beyond the words to the intention of Parliament, that's basic, public law.

His argument doesn't hold and essentially all comes back to the same point - that it's legal.
But NO ONE is arguing that it's not legal, that's not the issue.



And his 'roads and sewers' argument again is poor. It's essentially 'we don't the exact know the cost so it's fine for them to pay next to nothing'.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Quantex
Looks like Caneron has done a u turn and now admits he did profit from his father's tax avoiding scheme.

I've never understood why politicians do this damage limitation denial thing when it comes to scandal, it just makes you look even worse when are have to admit the truth.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-admits-he-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers


Because merely the allegations do the vast majority of the damage.
Its not just cameron that does this, theres probably a lot of people in parliament that do this, lionel messi did it, and a whole host of other footballers
This thread is so hilarious, people trying to find a way not to blame the Conservatives for this by insulting Labour.
Original post by Craig1998
This thread is so hilarious, people trying to find a way not to blame the Conservatives for this by insulting Labour.


Just as hilarious, people trying to laugh of the fact that Labour had 13 years to try to sort things out and did very little.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Because merely the allegations do the vast majority of the damage.


Except, by Cameron's own admission, they are more than mere allegations. He's spent the last few days being evasive with the truth, a massive indication that there are more than mere allegations, although it hasn't stopped his obedient followers from defending him.

The Tory party earned itself a reputation for sleaze and infighting in the 90s, allowing labour in and casting themselves into the wilderness. They seem determined to repeat the same mistakes and better be hopeful Labour remain a useless opposition.
Original post by Quantex
Except, by Cameron's own admission, they are more than mere allegations. He's spent the last few days being evasive with the truth, a massive indication that there are more than mere allegations, although it hasn't stopped his obedient followers from defending him.

The Tory party earned itself a reputation for sleaze and infighting in the 90s, allowing labour in and casting themselves into the wilderness. They seem determined to repeat the same mistakes and better be hopeful Labour remain a useless opposition.


Infighting is an inevitability of politics, especially when there is a contentious issue involved and the party has been in power for so long, you got Maastricht and the fall of Thatcher starting the infighting, you got a highly probable loss regardless from Black Wednesday, but even without that majorities dwindle and are generally hard to get back while in power.

As said though, the damage was done by the allegations, damage limitation mode potentially limits damage. Even in disarray though, Labour have their own in fighting and remain weak, they are well behind where they were under Miliband as a consequence and the same tactics can be employed in the next election if we leave the EU, if we stay then there is the UKIP problem except worse than last time.
Well now he's involved in it. I think David Cameron might resign http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35992167
So after evading questions for days he finally admits he did benefit from tax avoidance.

Shady shady Dave.
Jeremy Corbyn's proposal to take direct rule against the UK dependencies that are tax avoidance havens makes some sense, even if it was only a temporary measure.
Original post by MrMackyTv
Well now he's involved in it. I think David Cameron might resign http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35992167


Unlikely, although it will make his resignation after the EU referendum more likely, but that will be the main thing rather than the tax code being badly written.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Unlikely, although it will make his resignation after the EU referendum more likely, but that will be the main thing rather than the tax code being badly written.


I changed my views on that, I think this might help him resign after the EU because either way he hasn't done a good job. I think he will definitely resign if we vote out, which I think is ever more likely as the days pass.
Original post by MrMackyTv
I changed my views on that, I think this might help him resign after the EU because either way he hasn't done a good job. I think he will definitely resign if we vote out, which I think is ever more likely as the days pass.


He will resign if we vote out because he would rather resign than be forces out, just like Blair decided, he will likely also resign if it is a close (within a few per cent) win for in because he will be accused of rigging the referendum by having the government outspend the out campaign.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Just as hilarious, people trying to laugh of the fact that Labour had 13 years to try to sort things out and did very little.


You have just proven my point.
Original post by Jammy Duel
He will resign if we vote out because he would rather resign than be forces out, just like Blair decided, he will likely also resign if it is a close (within a few per cent) win for in because he will be accused of rigging the referendum by having the government outspend the out campaign.


I thought we were actually going to have a pro-EU majority but the polls are narrowing. I think after today's events there will be more Brexit voters.

They are already being accused of buying results and fixing the referendum. People will say might start saying it's a spoilt ballot if there's a pro-EU majority.
Original post by Jammy Duel
He will resign if we vote out because he would rather resign than be forces out, just like Blair decided, he will likely also resign if it is a close (within a few per cent) win for in because he will be accused of rigging the referendum by having the government outspend the out campaign.


Tbh I reckon he'll resign shortly after the referendum even if 'in' win comfortably. He looks and sounds like he's had enough.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I can't wait to see how Corbyn cocks up this open goal too. This, the steel industry, by next week no one will care like with the disability screw-up unless...


This could be something the tabloids run with, and potentially damaging in the eyes of the public, even if all is legally above board (for all the talk I still don't know if this is actually illegal or simply just not cricket.)
Original post by Craig1998
You have just proven my point.


And you're proving mine. You're making a big deal out of legal activity and seem to be declaring that all blame lies on the Tories and Labour are infallible, they have done nothing wrong. The very logic used in OP is that Tories have avoided taxes, you should not vote Tory. This can be extended to Labour, who have also avoided taxes, so they should not be voted for either. Further, you're acting as if Labour are innocent, if Labour were innocent then more action would have been taken when they had the opportunity to, as it was they would also have lost out, so let is slide.
Original post by Truered
I can't wait to see how Corbyn cocks up this open goal too. This, the steel industry, by next week no one will care like with the disability screw-up unless...


This could be something the tabloids run with, and potentially damaging in the eyes of the public, even if all is legally above board (for all the talk I still don't know if this is actually illegal or simply just not cricket.)


Perfectly legal, people just believe there is a moral obligation to pay all the tax you possibly can, probably because they don't have the money to be able to avoid the tax.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Perfectly legal, people just believe there is a moral obligation to pay all the tax you possibly can, probably because they don't have the money to be able to avoid the tax.


A lot of what people on benefits do, like buy fags and booze is perfectly legal, doesn't stop an outrage....

Why is exploiting the system okay at the top but not at the bottom. It's a double standard.

People's issue here isn't the legality or lack of it, it's that they see the same types of people who profess to 'love britain' and are described as 'wealth creators' are effectively leaching money away offshore. We're then told that we have to make cuts due to a lack of money while allowing hundreds of millions to be floated offshore.

And then you have Cameron himself who in 2012 called tax avoidance immoral... I wonder if he still thinks that now.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you