Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Of course your second point is true, but I don't see how you get to your first - she's had no history of being disbelieved or deceitful, I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt on what she says the reasons were.

    Clearly what's needed is a mechanism for allowing people targeted by possible stalking, etc, to keep their names secret on the Land Registry, then she wouldn't need to do this. However, I obviously agree that what goes on in the tax havens is ridiculous and contrary to our interests, I just don't like seeing her singled out for attacks on this when it's not to do with tax.
    I edited in stuff

    The notion that the uber wealthy and famous should avoid paying tax in order to avoid being attacked by the plebs is absurd. It's the kind of cynical argument you would expect from a horrible Tory that just doesn't want to pay tax. Not something I would expect from a self described socialist

    If it;s that bad I'm sure she can hire her own private security team :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Pfft, as if you'd even get the chance. Stop feeling so entitled. Women aren't your play things.
    Looooooool mate i'm just sayin... she won't be getting it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So Emma Watson is a terrorist now?
    Who knows where her money ends up, she seems to support a system that gives them a place to hide.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limaed)
    'While a spokesman for the actress confirms that Watson set up an offshore company, they say it was set up for the sole purpose of ‘protecting her anonymity and safety’. The spokesman tells Steerpike that the actress receives ‘no tax or monetary advantages from this offshore company’
    They all say that.

    (Original post by limaed)
    ^ read the article correctly before jumping to conclusions, mate. Also, Emma Watson is trying to raise awareness of the issues that women still face. There's nothing wrong with that. But people are going to hate no matter what, particularly when it concerns feminism.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What does it have to do with creating a company in a tax haven?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    You are the reason feminism is even relevant yet like your average *****y male you probably ***** and cry about that movement.
    i am joking. calm down boy
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    I love how all of you are just focusing on how attractive or not she is. Literally just proving why her speeches and comments, and feminist attitudes generally, were necessary.

    Saying she isn't pretty, lmfao, grow up - your standards are beyond the clouds.

    Oh and by the way, I do think what has happened is wrong but you're all showing yourselves to be utter pricks. Focus on the issue under scrutiny, not whether or not she manages to help you get your penis up in the morning. Ridiculous.
    You missed the point with your invalid one.

    Did you hear her UN speech?????

    Probably not. I quoted her when she said (now I have to repeat myself) she had been "sexualised" while playing Hermione. I have every right to interpret her "feminism" as bitterness toward Hollywood hiring women who give them boners, which she is quite incapable of doing. No need for you to be so indirect and whiny in your post.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Indirect and whiny? Look at your ********ty and tenuous point. They didn't hire a 10 year old because they got boners from her - grow the **** up. I have heard her speech and she hit the nail on the head.
    You swear so much in your posts...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    Lol i wouldn't though
    subpar rack + aggressive feminist + too thin = It's a no from me
    Each to his own I guess.

    I agree about the aggressive feminism, but I am just fantasising about giving her a good seeing to?.

    Boning more than boring bien pensant politics...

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Of course your second point is true, but I don't see how you get to your first - she's had no history of being disbelieved or deceitful, I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt on what she says the reasons were.

    Clearly what's needed is a mechanism for allowing people targeted by possible stalking, etc, to keep their names secret on the Land Registry, then she wouldn't need to do this. However, I obviously agree that what goes on in the tax havens is ridiculous and contrary to our interests, I just don't like seeing her singled out for attacks on this when it's not to do with tax.
    Get real.

    I suppose you utterly condemn all the attacks the leftards at the BBC and Guardian made re Cameron's father too??

    That was nothing to do with tax either (it was all repatriated to the UK and declared to HMRC) and it wasn't even Cameron doing it.

    It was his father!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=ChaoticButterfly;64713129]http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05...a-papers-leak/

    What a surprise. :rolleyes:

    Another so called champion of women that ignores the complexity of intersectionalism. Her feminism is that of the "apolitical" women's party. A play thing for well off women and feminists that offers little to a working class single mother.

    I bet it's hard being an opresed female millionaire.[/QUOTE

    The most apt response to your post is simply STFU!!

    Wtf are you doing for feminism?

    You're a net minus to the cause I'd say.

    By ****ging off one of the only public figures of the young generation who is openly feminist (possibly the only one), I'm unsure what you hoped to achieve.

    I'm sorry you're a working class single mother and bitter about it.

    The only type of person who could represent working-class single mother feminists would be yourself... and how do you do it, ****ging off another woman because she was born into privilidge?

    Misogyny at its finest.

    The whole point of feminism is women supporting other women (much more in dire need of nowadays than men supporting women).

    I'm not sure how Watson offends you or what she could do to appease you... give away her cash and have a child with a random?

    Could you not imagine how difficult it must be to come out as a feminist nowadays when you have as much spotlight as her?

    She received multiple death threats after that UN speech.

    I'm a working-class regular feminist and even I find it difficult in a non-judgemental working-class pro-women community.

    I sincerely hope you are a troll.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Get real.

    I suppose you utterly condemn all the attacks the leftards at the BBC and Guardian made re Cameron's father too??

    That was nothing to do with tax either (it was all repatriated to the UK and declared to HMRC) and it wasn't even Cameron doing it.

    It was his father!
    I don't think my point is being understood. I will simplify:

    1/ I'm against offshore tax havens full stop.

    2/ I'm against people who use them to evade or avoid tax.

    3/ Emma Watson says that isn't what she's doing.

    4/ Until someone can demonstrate that she's lying, I think we should believe what she says - she isn't a politician or a national leader and she has no reputation for lying.

    5/ That still doesn't make it right, but she is being attacked for the wrong thing.

    I suspect the reasons people are piling into her are (1) jealousy - lots of that on display in this thread and (2) sexism - a woman has no right to defend her privacy if she's rich and famous.
    Offline

    17
    #FreeForShe

    Free of tax, at least
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I don't think my point is being understood. I will simplify:

    1/ I'm against offshore tax havens full stop.

    2/ I'm against people who use them to evade or avoid tax.

    3/ Emma Watson says that isn't what she's doing.

    4/ Until someone can demonstrate that she's lying, I think we should believe what she says - she isn't a politician or a national leader and she has no reputation for lying.

    5/ That still doesn't make it right, but she is being attacked for the wrong thing.

    I suspect the reasons people are piling into her are (1) jealousy - lots of that on display in this thread and (2) sexism - a woman has no right to defend her privacy if she's rich and famous.
    I understood you perfectly and I agree with you actually about the jealousy animus.

    My point was simply that the attacks on Cameron through his father were unfair for EXACTLY the same reason.

    He wasn't setting up a tax avoidance scheme either. AND it wasn't his doing, it was someone for whom he could not be responsible for since he was a child at the time. The Bible may talk about the sins of the fathers living on through the generations in Deuteronomy, but we tend to take a more balanced view, nowadays, surely?.

    And your distinction that he is a national leader and she isn't is specious. A distinction without a difference.

    It is true that she isn't a politician, but if it is wrong to pillory her for tax avoidance when she hasn't done so, so also is to pillory him for something he didn't do either. Or rather his father didn't do either.

    Avoid tax.

    Do you agree that the attacks on Cameron were similarly unfair? And if you don't, why not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    5/ That still doesn't make it right, but she is being attacked for the wrong thing.

    I suspect the reasons people are piling into her are (1) jealousy - lots of that on display in this thread and (2) sexism - a woman has no right to defend her privacy if she's rich and famous.
    I'm criticising her for avoiding tax and the hypocrite implications I think that has for her feminism.

    I'm no more or less jealous of her than any other rich famous person. Same with the right to defend her privacy. If I'm being any form of prejudice it is classicism, not sexism.

    As to all the feminism bashes in this thread. That isn't my fault.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    You swear so much in your posts...
    He's feisty.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Indirect and whiny? Look at your ********ty and tenuous point. They didn't hire a 10 year old because they got boners from her - grow the **** up. I have heard her speech and she hit the nail on the head.
    Are you slow?
    Again she played Hermione till she was a grown adult!

    I quote her, she said she when she was 15.

    And 2nd, it's called a transcript of her speech!
    She literally said Hollywood did that to her.

    You know jack that's why you're resorting to the keyboard warrior thing. Pfffft lmao.

    And I bet you didn't read/hear the speech; you just googled the summary or read one line retweets
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    She should have kept her money in Gringotts. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't judge a book by its cover. Who would have believe that under the cover of being a champion of all women, she turn out to be a tax evader :argh:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    I understood you perfectly and I agree with you actually about the jealousy animus.

    My point was simply that the attacks on Cameron through his father were unfair for EXACTLY the same reason.
    ...............

    Avoid tax.

    Do you agree that the attacks on Cameron were similarly unfair? And if you don't, why not?
    I don't agree. I think it's clear that in the case of Cameron's father, the purpose up and down was tax avoidance. I agree there's an issue about the relevance of what his father did, but it was clearly a matter of public interest to report that the Prime Minister's father was a tax haven user and to enquire if this meant that the PM himself is a likely beneficiary of it.

    The Emma Watson case is not about tax evasion as such, unless we think she's a liar, which as I've already said, there's no evidence for. Her case is about using offshore generally for rich people to hide ownership. I don't agree with people doing that, but there probably should be an exemption for people in the public eye to have privacy. Of course, that might also be abused and difficult to implement, I realise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    (2) sexism - a woman has no right to defend her privacy if she's rich and famous.
    You what? She did defend her privacy, how are us plebs supposed to defend ours?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 14, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.