Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

David Cameron admits to profiting from offshore fund !!! Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    I would love it if he is forced to resign, especially considering he didn't declare the interests like MPs are supposed to. He shouldn't be able to get away with not declaring financial interests like that - if he gets away with it, then it sends a message to other self serving politicians that this behaviour is fine. Something needs to happen even if resignation doesn't.

    That said, I feel it's unlikely he'll resign over this.
    But he sold it before he became PM so had no interests to declare?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    I can say whatever I want, you're not my superior. You tell me off for acting superior when in fact you're doing the exact same thing by telling me what to do, hypocrite. You're no better than David Cameron so a piece of advice would be to just watch your words, not telling you what to do, just advice you don't have to follow it.
    I don't know why you think my posts sounds like I am superior in any way because no one is complaining except you. If you wanna whine I advise you to go somewhere else, not telling, advising. I don't want to sound like I am "superior".

    I didn't say 'Labour do no wrong' read my posts carefully. Nothing in my posts suggests that I am saying Labour haven't done anything wrong, of course they've done lots of things wrong but you see, they're not the topic of the conversation... it's the Tories.

    I could say 'Don't interject into conversations' but I don't want to be on your level telling people what to do, that would again make me sound "superior"... no offense. I don't know you, you're not my boss or person of authority, I will take telling from someone else thanks.
    I'm just advising you from an argumentative viewpoint that it may not be the best idea to label someone as a tory fanboy, no offence intended; although you obviously took it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by banterboy)
    But he sold it before he became PM so had no interests to declare?
    He was an MP before he was PM, he didn't declare it because he didn't have to.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Was funny watching the video of the tax lawyer on the BBC saying what Cameron did doesn't actually avoid tax and isn't designed to either, it's the last thing he would advise a client to use. Unsurprisingly the BBC anchor had no idea what to ask him because he game the complete 'wrong' answer to the question.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheGrammarGuru)
    I'm just advising you from an argumentative viewpoint that it may not be the best idea to label someone as a tory fanboy, no offence intended; although you obviously took it.
    Nice, you changed your tone, at least you learnt something. Ummm, thanks for the advice but I don't take back that. I think it was right to call someone a Tory fanboy if that person was sticking up for the PM despite his loss in reputation and credibility, because that is what fanboys do, they are deluded.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Nice, you changed your tone, at least you learnt something. Ummm, thanks for the advice but I don't take back that. I think it was right to call someone a Tory fanboy if that person was sticking up for the PM despite his loss in reputation and credibility, because that is what fanboys do, they are deluded.
    Despite the fact the only plausible reason you could possibly try to say his actions were anything more than slightly dishonest was the inheritance and he has no control of that? Believe me I don't support David in any way but he was by far not the worst offender as it was not a considerable amount and he did pay tax on it, and the people calling on him to resign are, quite frankly, ridiculous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    None of this is news though, psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, the self obsessed, and arrogant, none of these are weeded out, whilst many of these go all the way, especially the `paths. It is one enormous old boys club, and it is most definitely one exclusively for the rich. The bottom line though, most of us are either mainly out for ourselves, or otherwise, thought of as lame ducks.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kates David)
    None of this is news though, psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, the self obsessed, and arrogant, none of these are weeded out, whilst many of these go all the way, especially the `paths. It is one enormous old boys club, and it is most definitely one exclusively for the rich. The bottom line though, most of us are either mainly out for ourselves, or otherwise, thought of as lame ducks.
    Except you too could have done exactly as Cameron did, avoiding a grand total of £0 of tax and arguably increasing your nominal tax liability.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It's called opportunism. The most frequent practitioners of which, as this thread shows, are those who don't tire of denouncing it in others.
    I don't think it is. He had shares in a company set up to tax avoid yet a few years ago he was calling tax avoidance immoral and regularly boasts about how great the Tories are at clamping down on tax avoidance.

    Also after seeing the likes of ed milliband and other labour leaders utterly demonised by the press in witch hunts over half truths, irrelevances and lies, it's hard to have sympathy for double standards Dave. Would he call his dad immoral?

    the same people on here complaining of opportunism are the same people who are increisbly opportunistic when they get a chance to slate left wing politicians.

    Try not to act all uppity like you're better than everyone else.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheGrammarGuru)
    Despite the fact the only plausible reason you could possibly try to say his actions were anything more than slightly dishonest was the inheritance and he has no control of that? Believe me I don't support David in any way but he was by far not the worst offender as it was not a considerable amount and he did pay tax on it, and the people calling on him to resign are, quite frankly, ridiculous.
    It's not David's fault he was drawn into this, I can say yes to that but the fact it took him 5 days to tell the truth suggests he has something to hide. I don't care if it's not his fault that has not got anything to do with how long it took him to respond and he also lied during those 5 days. It's not even slightly dishonest, it is just dishonest, period.

    People say that he is a hyprocrite and untrustworthy because of what's happening. He is not the worst offender but what some people are trying to say (slightly going off) if someone from Labour did it everyone would be shaming them and you would hear the Tories coming down hard on that person. I don't agree with that but I do think that it's bad people make this pass because this shows that he's not credible. So people who still think he's a credible PM are deluded, hence the reason why people want him to resign.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't think it is. He had shares in a company set up to tax avoid yet a few years ago he was calling tax avoidance immoral and regularly boasts about how great the Tories are at clamping down on tax avoidance.
    To get straight to the point: do you, or do you not, believe that he avoided paying due UK tax on the sale of those shares? The whole thing is critically dependent on this one fact, mutterings about immorality and hypocrisy aside.

    Also after seeing the likes of ed milliband and other labour leaders utterly demonised by the press in witch hunts over half truths, irrelevances and lies, it's hard to have sympathy for double standards Dave.
    You either believe that unfair portrayals in the press are wrong, or you don't. There's little integrity in advancing the argument that, although you're oh-so-principled in your opposition to the gutter press, two instances of demonisation of party leaders that sit on opposite benches in Parliament cancel each other out.

    (Although, given our last conversation and the paltry understanding of ethics you demonstrated during it, it comes as no surprise that you're comfortable with taking the position that Cameron somehow deserved this because it's happened to Labour leaders, too.)

    the same people on here complaining of opportunism are the same people who are increisbly opportunistic when they get a chance to slate left wing politicians.
    Leave aside 'people' for a moment. You're talking to me right now. When have I endorsed opportunism when a left-wing politician has suffered an embarrassment in public? I know it's easy for you to forget these things, but I think my position on the whole 'bacon sandwich scandal' is vindication enough.

    Try not to act all uppity like you're better than everyone else.
    I haven't, although I do admit that I think I'm better than many of the people who've replied to this thread thus far in some respects. Feel free to show where I implied that in my previous post, though. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    To get straight to the point: do you, or do you not, believe that he avoided tax on the sale of those shares? The whole thing is critically dependent on this one fact, mutterings about immorality and hypocrisy aside.



    You either believe that unfair portrayals in the press are wrong, or you don't. There's little integrity in advancing the argument that, although you're oh-so-principled in your opposition to the gutter press, two instances of demonisation of party leaders that sit on opposite benches in Parliament cancel each other out.

    (Although, given our last conversation and the paltry understanding of ethics you demonstrated during it, it comes as no surprise that you're comfortable with taking the position that Cameron somehow deserved this because it's happened to Labour leaders, too.)



    Leave aside 'people', for a moment. You're talking to me right now. When have I endorsed opportunism when a left-wing politician has suffered an embarrassment in public? I know it's easy for you to forget these things, but I think my opposition to the whole 'bacon sandwich scandal' is vindication enough.



    I haven't, although I do admit that I think I'm better than many of the people who've replied to this thread thus far in some respects. Feel free to show where I implied that in my previous post, though. :rolleyes:
    You always seem to come down ten times harder on the left than the right.
    Unlike the attacks on ed milibands kitchen, or his nannies, or his dad 'hating britain' (despite fighting in the navy) this story about Cameron and his family does have merit to it.

    His dad set up a company for the purpose of avoiding tax. He called Jimmy Carr immoral, he never called his dad immoral.

    He bought shares in a company set up to avoid tax, guilty by association. He then spent four days being dishonest and not giving the public a clear answer. If our PM has been involved in tax avoidance schemes that's very relevant, it's not relevant that milliband has two kitchens.

    I don't call this opportunism or gutter press, I call it holding the prime minister to account for being dishnonest, evasive and a hypocrite.

    But I wonder how many on here who are upset about questioning the PM on legitimate issues like his financial affairs and interests were all too keen to rip into bacon sandwich, bow gate and two kitchcens,
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Everybody saying tax has been avoided or even evaded, hoe come everybody I've seen the BBC get in who's job it is to know about these things, and not just a strongly opinionated student online who likely doesn't like the man anyway, say there was no avoidance, let alone evasion; further, why has one hone so far to say that they would never suggest what Cameron did if they wantto avoid tax BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AVOID TAX?!

    https://www.facebook.com/rob1972/vid...4110453578000/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    He may be innocent but does that mean that he is free from criticism of trying to dodge questions about his involvement?He lied to the British public and he could have owned up on the same day, that's why people are suggesting he has something to hide. Surely, if you got involved in something dodgy and people were asking you questions would you answer them immediately or try and hold it off and hide? That's what he did.This is why the public is so ticked of and demanding the PM to resign because they are angry that they were lied to. This brings up questions about his credibility as a PM and suggests that he could be hiding more things. There are still more questions to be answered, but people who are demanding him to resign are definitely not juveniles and sensationalists.
    Asking him to resign is sensationalist. When it boils down to it the only thing Cameron did wrong was make misleading press statements, and even that in itself was clearly to temper the sensationalist public, because the fact is the Cameron's did nothing wrong in the slightest. The public hear 'offshore' and jump to all sorts of false conclusions. You say the innocent have nothing to hide, but that is not the case in the UK where the left will condemn a Tory for the sake of condemning a Tory.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    EU Referendum is much more of a bigger issue the the Panama issue. He'll suvive

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You always seem to come down ten times harder on the left than the right.
    As far as gaffes and other nonsense is concerned, I call it out where I see it regardless of any left/right distinction. After that, the criticism naturally becomes lopsided given my obvious disagreement with the left on the issues of the day. I also think there's an element of you only noticing my criticism when it's of the left. :holmes:

    Unlike the attacks on ed milibands kitchen, or his nannies, or his dad 'hating britain' (despite fighting in the navy) this story about Cameron and his family does have merit to it.

    His dad set up a company for the purpose of avoiding tax. He called Jimmy Carr immoral, he never called his dad immoral.
    The salient point is that Cameron didn't avoid any tax himself (again, feel free to dispute that). That he didn't call his dad immoral is not the great surprise that people pretend it is; most of us are given to various degrees of favouritism when it comes to family/friends.

    Even granting that the lack of a condemnation of his own father is an appalling sin, I'd be interested to hear why this is justification for demanding his resignation.

    He bought shares in a company set up to avoid tax
    That was the purpose of the company? Link? :holmes:

    guilty by association.
    You are aware that this is the weakest kind of mud ever to be slung, aren't you? :erm: To be 'guilty', if it can even be called that, by association is neither a crime, nor fundamentally immoral. Guilt by association is not much different to the bottom-of-the-barrel of politics that you claim to oppose in other circumstances.

    He then spent four days being dishonest and not giving the public a clear answer. If our PM has been involved in tax avoidance schemes that's very relevant, it's not relevant that milliband has two kitchens.
    So he has avoided tax, in your view?

    I don't call this opportunism or gutter press, I call it holding the prime minister to account for being dishnonest, evasive and a hypocrite.
    I don't recall you having the same view of Corbyn's associations with unsavoury individuals when they were reported in the press immediately following his election as leader.

    But I wonder how many on here who are upset about questioning the PM on legitimate issues like his financial affairs and interests were all too keen to rip into bacon sandwich, bow gate and two kitchcens,
    I don't know; you'd have to ask them.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Asking him to resign is sensationalist. When it boils down to it the only thing Cameron did wrong was make misleading press statements, and even that in itself was clearly to temper the sensationalist public, because the fact is the Cameron's did nothing wrong in the slightest. The public hear 'offshore' and jump to all sorts of false conclusions. You say the innocent have nothing to hide, but that is not the case in the UK where the left will condemn a Tory for the sake of condemning a Tory.
    I could say the exact same thing for the right-wingers. If this was Labour you wouldn't even hear them breathe because all the right-wingers would be shaming them.

    Yes he did do something wrong. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. The law doesn't outline everything that is morally right and wrong. This is wrong, he lied, he is a hypocrite and he deserves all the criticism coming at him and investigations because the exact same thing would happen if it was Labour. People think because it's the Tories it can just pass and it's fine, no it's not fine. I can't believe right-wingers are so deluded thinking he has done nothing wrong, you said it yourself he mislead the press and lied to the British public, how is that not wrong in any form? If you don't think that's wrong then don't bother replying back because I will just say the same thing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    I could say the exact same thing for the right-wingers. If this was Labour you wouldn't even hear them breathe because all the right-wingers would be shaming them.

    Yes he did do something wrong. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. The law doesn't outline everything that is morally right and wrong. This is wrong, he lied, he is a hypocrite and he deserves all the criticism coming at him and investigations because the exact same thing would happen if it was Labour. People think because it's the Tories it can just pass and it's fine, no it's not fine. I can't believe right-wingers are so deluded thinking he has done nothing wrong, you said it yourself he mislead the press and lied to the British public, how is that not wrong in any form? If you don't think that's wrong then don't bother replying back because I will just say the same thing.
    He deserves criticism for the misleading/false press statements.
    His tax affairs were neither legally nor morally wrong.
    If you disagree on that point I'd be happy to outline why, but I assure you it's more than simply 'he gets a pass for being a Tory'.
    That has been my stance from the beginning. A misleading/false press statement is in itself not worthy of an investigation or his resignation and it is indeed sensationalist to suggest so.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    He deserves criticism for the misleading/false press statements.
    Agreed.

    His tax affairs were neither legally nor morally wrong.
    Agreed.

    If you disagree on that point I'd be happy to outline why, but I assure you it's more than simply 'he gets a pass for being a Tory'.
    No thanks. If it was Labour you would be hearing the same thing.

    That has been my stance from the beginning. A misleading/false press statement is in itself not worthy of an investigation or his resignation and it is indeed sensationalist to suggest so.
    I mean that his tax affairs should be investigated. He said he will publish his tax returns - great. But there are still many questions not answer, cba to list them on here but I'm sure you can look for it yourself.

    You're still not getting it. People are saying he must resign because he not only gave misleading/false press statements but he took a rather long time to reply to questions which he could have answered from the day he got them, which suggests he could have something to hide, wouldn't it? Ask yourself if you were involved in dodgy dealings, would you not want to hide it? Wouldn't you hesitate (which is exactly what he did) answering questions? Wouldn't you try to delay it and wait for the press attention to go away? He said it himself, he waited.

    It's not sensationlist to demand for a resignation for the reasons above, it's not just misleading/false statements. If you still find this hard to understand you can say so and I will copy and paste it again. Even if he doesn't resign they still need to do something.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    As far as gaffes and other nonsense is concerned, I call it out where I see it regardless of any left/right distinction. After that, the criticism naturally becomes lopsided given my obvious disagreement with the left on the issues of the day. I also think there's an element of you only noticing my criticism when it's of the left. :holmes:



    The salient point is that Cameron didn't avoid any tax himself (again, feel free to dispute that). That he didn't call his dad immoral is not the great surprise that people pretend it is; most of us are given to various degrees of favouritism when it comes to family/friends.

    Even granting that the lack of a condemnation of his own father is an appalling sin, I'd be interested to hear why this is justification for demanding his resignation.



    That was the purpose of the company? Link? :holmes:



    You are aware that this is the weakest kind of mud ever to be slung, aren't you? :erm: To be 'guilty', if it can even be called that, by association is neither a crime, nor fundamentally immoral. Guilt by association is not much different to the bottom-of-the-barrel of politics that you claim to oppose in other circumstances.



    So he has avoided tax, in your view?



    I don't recall you having the same view of Corbyn's associations with unsavoury individuals when they were reported in the press immediately following his election as leader.



    I don't know; you'd have to ask them.
    I suspect there may well be more to come out. He's been incredibly shady, telling a series of half truths and evasive statements and it makes you wonder what he has to hide.
    Our Prime Minister being dishonest and evasive merits criticism. Do I think he avoided tax himself? At the moment no, (although i'm sure there's more to come out) but that doesn't mean he's done nothing wrong.

    He bought shares in a company which he knew was set up to avoid tax. It makes him a hypocrite, he's been going on about how immoral tax avoidance is and about how this tory government has done more than any other government ever and how 'tax avoiders' have nowhere to hide, about 'how sunlight' is the best medicine, all this time he knew he had shares in a company set up to avoid tax and he knew his father was avoiding tax.

    He's a hypocrite and dishonest and that calls for criticism. We have a right to know about the financial dealings of our Prime Minister and any vested interests he may have. He famously said recently 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hear'. He wants to invade into our private lives yet when he was initially asked he responded 'this is a private matter'.

    I've been very critical of Corbyn, but I also am keen to separate the fact from the fiction.

    I don't think Cameron should resign though.
 
 
 
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: April 11, 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

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