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

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

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lolakirk)
    Why should anybody be surprised by Tory millionaires not paying their taxes?
    Ummm, given that didn't happen how exactly is it relevant? Or do you simply ignore all the experts the BBC and others have tried to make say tax has been avoided (much less than the evasion you are insinuating with your wording) who have gone on to say "not a penny was avoided of evaded" because they disagree with you?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    It wasn't a company set up for tax avoidance. It's a legitimate hedge fund, established in a foreign country. It doesn't pay UK tax because it isn't British and doesn't operate in the UK.
    A Briton starting a foreign business overseas isn't tax avoidance. The UK has no 'moral' claim to any taxes from Blairmore as a company, only income tax on dividends paid to British investors. That was paid, in full. The idea that the company was a tax-avoidance vehicle is a myth perpetuate by shoddy Guardian journalism.
    The sheer ignorance of so many people on this matter is staggering.
    Even if the company wasn't set up for tax avoidance it still avoided tax, that doesn't steer away any attention.

    I've now actually looked at the statements Cameron gave, having originally taken your word for it that he 'lied'. Where exactly is the lie? Every statement is factually correct and a reasonable answer.
    Not releasing a detailed biography of his life within minutes of the story breaking does not imply anything.
    And 94% of who? Guardian readers? Sounds highly dubious.
    - Monday: "that is a private matter"
    - Tuesday: "I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And, so that, I think, is a very clear description"
    - Wednesday: "To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares. As has been previously reported, Mrs Cameron owns a small number of shares connected to her father's land, which she declares on her tax return"

    "There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future"

    - Thursday: "We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010"

    If that's not lying and misleading you're deluded and I cannot help you.

    Agreed, although I doubt he'd be any less 'effective' as a PM than Cameron. The policies would probably be the same too.
    Okay we agree on something.

    He did...
    Literally. His statements were that he'd already sold all shares in Blairmore, paid all taxes in full, that he doesn't have any other offshore stakes and that Blairmore is a legitimate business.
    Where's the lie? Where in there warrants his resignation.
    Please look at the response before the one above. He did not tell the truth at the beginning.

    How does that disprove sensationalism? The fact that people are getting aggro over something that didn't actual happen (tax avoidance, lies) proves it is sensationalism.
    And 80,000 isn't impressive in the relative scheme of online petitions.
    80,000 signatures in just a few hours of the news breaking out is impressive. I predict it is much higher than that now since 24 hours has gone.

    You are so deluded, he did lie how many times do I have to say this? He mislead the public, he lied to us, he lied to his country after we asked him questions. He also took way too long to answer them, suggesting he had something to hide. Therefore, some of the British public believe he has lost his credibility and reputation as a Prime Minister, thus there's a demand for him to step down. He's not going to resign now, he might be ousted by his own party after the EU referendum no matter what the result (which is probably going to be really close).

    I'm not saying he should resign, maybe when the news came out I went overboard out of pure shock and disgust. But even if he doesn't resign he must do something, which he actually has (published tax returns) - so that's good.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Even if the company wasn't set up for tax avoidance it still avoided tax, that doesn't steer away any attention.



    - Monday: "that is a private matter" true
    - Tuesday: "I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And, so that, I think, is a very clear description" true
    - Wednesday: "To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares. As has been previously reported, Mrs Cameron owns a small number of shares connected to her father's land, which she declares on her tax return" true

    "There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future" true

    - Thursday: "We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010" true

    If that's not lying and misleading you're deluded and I cannot help you.



    Okay we agree on something.



    Please look at the response before the one above. He did not tell the truth at the beginning.



    80,000 signatures in just a few hours of the news breaking out is impressive. I predict it is much higher than that now since 24 hours has gone.

    You are so deluded, he did lie how many times do I have to say this? He mislead the public, he lied to us, he lied to his country after we asked him questions. He also took way too long to answer them, suggesting he had something to hide. Therefore, some of the British public believe he has lost his credibility and reputation as a Prime Minister, thus there's a demand for him to step down. He's not going to resign now, he might be ousted by his own party after the EU referendum no matter what the result (which is probably going to be really close).

    I'm not saying he should resign, maybe when the news came out I went overboard out of pure shock and disgust. But even if he doesn't resign he must do something, which he actually has (published tax returns) - so that's good.
    i don't see the lie.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by banterboy)
    i don't see the lie.
    "no offshore funds, nothing like that" - that's not a lie? Or at least misleading? Or if not misleading telling us half-truths? Even if it's not a lie, it's dishonest.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    "no offshore funds, nothing like that" - that's not a lie? Or at least misleading? Or if not misleading telling us half-truths? Even if it's not a lie, it's dishonest.
    It was in the present tense. Also, this was a perfectly legitimate and completely unshady business venture.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Even if the company wasn't set up for tax avoidance it still avoided tax, that doesn't steer away any attention.
    How? Which taxes do you believe it went out of it's way to avoid?

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    - Monday: "that is a private matter"
    - Tuesday: "I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And, so that, I think, is a very clear description"
    - Wednesday: "To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares. As has been previously reported, Mrs Cameron owns a small number of shares connected to her father's land, which she declares on her tax return"

    "There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future"

    - Thursday: "We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010"

    If that's not lying and misleading you're deluded and I cannot help you.
    Where's the lie? Aside from the Monday statement, which is essentially 'no comment', where does he claim or imply anything other than he did once have offshore interest, but doesn't anymore, which is the truth? Where exactly is the lie?


    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Please look at the response before the one above. He did not tell the truth at the beginning.
    Where did he lie?

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    80,000 signatures in just a few hours of the news breaking out is impressive. I predict it is much higher than that now since 24 hours has gone.
    It's really not. Numerous petitions have gained tens of thousands of signatures within 24 hours. There are enough politically engaged left-wing students who spend all day online that any petition that condemns the Tories can easily reach 100,000 quickly.
    It would be impressive in say Ireland, but not in a country of 65 million.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    You are so deluded, he did lie how many times do I have to say this? He mislead the public, he lied to us, he lied to his country after we asked him questions. He also took way too long to answer them, suggesting he had something to hide. Therefore, some of the British public believe he has lost his credibility and reputation as a Prime Minister, thus there's a demand for him to step down. He's not going to resign now, he might be ousted by his own party after the EU referendum no matter what the result (which is probably going to be really close).

    I'm not saying he should resign, maybe when the news came out I went overboard out of pure shock and disgust. But even if he doesn't resign he must do something, which he actually has (published tax returns) - so that's good.
    You can say it as many times as you like, it won't make it true. Where did he lie? Elaborate on your broad, vague accusation.
    Apparently taking too long to answer him is another matter, but even that is highly subjective and an absurd reason to demand his resignation.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by banterboy)
    It was in the present tense. Also, this was a perfectly legitimate and completely unshady business venture.
    Look at it carefully, yes the first part is present tense but he said "*edit:*nothing like that" implies that anything associated to offshore trusts/funds he had nothing to do with. It wasn't set up to avoid tax but still did.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Where's the lie? Aside from the Monday statement, which is essentially 'no comment', where does he claim or imply anything other than he did once have offshore interest, but doesn't anymore, which is the truth? Where exactly is the lie?
    "No offshore trusts, nothing like that" implies anything associated to offshore trusts, past, future or present he had nothing to do with. That's a lie.

    Where did he lie?
    Read above.

    It's really not. Numerous petitions have gained tens of thousands of signatures within 24 hours. There are enough politically engaged left-wing students who spend all day online that any petition that condemns the Tories can easily reach 100,000 quickly.
    It would be impressive in say Ireland, but not in a country of 65 million.
    Who said it was only left-wing students? You do know that right-wingers are also condemning/hating the Tories? I did say within a few hours it reached 80,000, I didn't check but it could have reached 100,000 before 24 hours. Your point is?

    You can say it as many times as you like, it won't make it true. Where did he lie? Elaborate on your broad, vague accusation.
    Apparently taking too long to answer him is another matter, but even that is highly subjective and an absurd reason to demand his resignation.
    Read above responses about him lying please - I wouldn't necessarily call it "vague" but that's your opinion.

    You're not getting my point. If you have something to hide you would want media attention to get away from you, that's what he did. He has nothing to hide but people assumed he had something to hide because of his lengthy delay in response. If you delay answering those sort of questions it does rise a lot of issues about him trying to hide something. It's not just how long he took but what that means. Stop skim reading and read my explanations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    "No offshore trusts, nothing like that" implies anything associated to offshore trusts, past, future or present he had nothing to do with. That's a lie.
    No, it doesn't. It means currently, unless specifically stated past/present/future.

    No10 were very carful with what they said and everything they said was true. He had these shares before he became PM.

    Profiteering from offshore accounts, shares and whatnot is not illegal or immoral, provided all dues are paid in full, which they were.

    Case closed.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    No, it doesn't. It means currently, unless specifically stated past/present/future.

    No10 were very carful with what they said and everything they said was true. He had these shares before he became PM.

    Profiteering from offshore accounts, shares and whatnot is not illegal or immoral, provided all dues are paid in full, which they were.

    Case closed.
    Umm no, "nothing like that" means anything associated with offshore funds/shares he had nothing to do with, which I'm pretty sure would include past, present and future.

    EDIT: By the way, No.10 didn't say that, Cameron did.

    I didn't say that what he did was illegal or immoral. I'm saying that he had shares in an offshore company that dodged tax, that's immoral.

    Case is not closed, they are still investigating.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    "No offshore trusts, nothing like that" implies anything associated to offshore trusts, past, future or present he had nothing to do with. That's a lie.
    No it doesn't. The full sentence, being-
    I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that.
    Clearly indicates 'nothing like that' means he does not have any stake in any sort of 'offshore' venture. The idea that he's also covering the past is an imagination on your part. The tense of the word 'have'. indicates he's talking about the present.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Who said it was only left-wing students? You do know that right-wingers are also condemning/hating the Tories? I did say within a few hours it reached 80,000, I didn't check but it could have reached 100,000 before 24 hours. Your point is?
    My point is there are enough left-wing students who spend all day signing petitions criticising the government that 100,000 signatures is not impressive. You're saying that figure as if its proves that the masses are outraged. In the context of a 65 million population country where hundreds of thousands of people sign even frivolous and pointless petitions, 100,000 proves little.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Read above responses about him lying please - I wouldn't necessarily call it "vague" but that's your opinion.
    I did. It's vague because you haven't pointed out any lie. You literally had to invent one.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    You're not getting my point. If you have something to hide you would want media attention to get away from you, that's what he did. He has nothing to hide but people assumed he had something to hide because of his lengthy delay in response. If you delay answering those sort of questions it does rise a lot of issues about him trying to hide something. It's not just how long he took but what that means. Stop skim reading and read my explanations.
    It doesn't matter why he 'delayed', as he did nothing wrong. There is nothing legally, morally or ethically wrong with Blairmore holdings or David Cameron's investment in it. 'Circumstantial' evidence is only relevant if a crime has actually been committed.
    I already said at the beginning that his handling of the statements deserves criticism. My argument is that people demanding his resignation over this matter are frankly silly, and are simply jumping on an anti-Tory bandwagon for the sake of it.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    No it doesn't. The full sentence, being-
    I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that.
    Clearly indicates 'nothing like that' means he does not have any stake in any sort of 'offshore' venture. The idea that he's also covering the past is an imagination on your part. The tense of the word 'have'. indicates he's talking about the present.
    It's still a half-truth even if it isn't a lie which as I said before is dishonest.

    My point is there are enough left-wing students who spend all day signing petitions criticising the government that 100,000 signatures is not impressive. You're saying that figure as if its proves that the masses are outraged. In the context of a 65 million population country where hundreds of thousands of people sign even frivolous and pointless petitions, 100,000 proves little.
    Surely if they are students they wouldn't waste their education (assuming you're talking about uni students) criticising the government. 100,000 signatures in a couple of hours is not impressive in that amount of time? I'm not saying it as if masses are outraged I'm saying it because in that amount of time 100,000 signatures is an impressive number.

    To you're second point that may be because those 65 million may not have internet access, they may not even know of online petitions or just don't want to partake in any. So 100,000 is impressive considering the fact that the amount of people who take part in online petitions is not that large.

    I did. It's vague because you haven't pointed out any lie. You literally had to invent one.
    Okay he told a half-truth, still dishonest.

    It doesn't matter why he 'delayed', as he did nothing wrong. There is nothing legally, morally or ethically wrong with Blairmore holdings or David Cameron's investment in it. 'Circumstantial' evidence is only relevant if a crime has actually been committed.
    Why shouldn't it matter?

    I already said at the beginning that his handling of the statements deserves criticism. My argument is that people demanding his resignation over this matter are frankly silly, and are simply jumping on an anti-Tory bandwagon for the sake of it.
    But you just said it doesn't matter, so why should it be criticised?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    It's still a half-truth even if it isn't a lie which as I said before is dishonest.
    It's not a half-truth. It's entirely true, and I fail to see how he can be considered dishonest considering he subsequently elaborated on the matter three more times.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Surely if they are students they wouldn't waste their education (assuming you're talking about uni students) criticising the government. 100,000 signatures in a couple of hours is not impressive in that amount of time? I'm not saying it as if masses are outraged I'm saying it because in that amount of time 100,000 signatures is an impressive number.
    Aside from the fact that your first sentence doesn't even really make sense, have you ever met a student? Have you ever been on social media?

    For that matter, have you been on the government petitions website? In a country of 65 million, tens of thousands of people can and will easily sign their names to all sorts of crap.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    To you're second point that may be because those 65 million may not have internet access, they may not even know of online petitions or just don't want to partake in any. So 100,000 is impressive considering the fact that the amount of people who take part in online petitions is not that large.
    Again, it's not. 37 petitions have reached at least 100,000 signatures.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Why shouldn't it matter?
    ...because he did nothing wrong. Your implying his delay is indicative of him having something to hide, but we know that he doesn't. He could have refused to comment entirely and told all the media to suck a giant donkey schlong, that still doesn't change the fact that Blairmore Holdings is a legitimate hedge fund and Cameron's investment in it was an entirely legitimate action, and that all UK taxes expected were paid in full.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    But you just said it doesn't matter, so why should it be criticised?
    It should be criticised precisely because he's given ammunition to people like you. It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately clearly it does. Thus it would have been better to clarify everything on day one.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Indeed. Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq was much more morally repugnant but was met with far less resistance.
    You mean apart from the biggest protest in British history where somewhere between 1 and 3 million people took to the streets to voice their opposition?
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    It's not a half-truth. It's entirely true, and I fail to see how he can be considered dishonest considering he subsequently elaborated on the matter three more times.
    It's only part of the truth, which mislead the public, therefore it is a half-truth.

    Aside from the fact that your first sentence doesn't even really make sense, have you ever met a student? Have you ever been on social media?
    How does it not make sense? I reiterate. If they are (uni) students then surely they wouldn't waste time criticising the government. Yes I've met a student and technically if they are on social media (based upon the people I've met) they would be doing that in their free time, so that wouldn't necessarily be a waste of time. Also, assuming you mean Twitter with all the trends by "social media" - most of them (from what I've seen) aren't students, you can prove me wrong though

    For that matter, have you been on the government petitions website? In a country of 65 million, tens of thousands of people can and will easily sign their names to all sorts of crap.
    Yes I have. I'm pretty sure there isn't (I'll use what you said to me) "masses" of people who use that site.

    Again, it's not. 37 petitions have reached at least 100,000 signatures.
    Frankly, I'm afraid it is. I think you are just saying it's not because you don't want to say it is but... it is.

    Also I did mention that 100,000 signatures in just a couple of hours is a lot. If people are signing petitions at that rate then it is eye-opening. Those 37 petitions are probably closed because they have passed 6 months (I think it is?) or they have went on long enough to be able to reach 100,00 signatures somehow, just not at the rate at which that petition went at.

    ...because he did nothing wrong. Your implying his delay is indicative of him having something to hide, but we know that he doesn't. He could have refused to comment entirely and told all the media to suck a giant donkey schlong, that still doesn't change the fact that Blairmore Holdings is a legitimate hedge fund and Cameron's investment in it was an entirely legitimate action, and that all UK taxes expected were paid in full.
    -.- I just said that it doesn't imply he has something to hide because he doesn't! I said he published his tax returns therefore he doesn't have anything to hide but at the time it might have been thought he had something to hide. Do you read what I say before responding?

    He still mislead the public and even he said himself he could have handled it better.

    It should be criticised precisely because he's given ammunition to people like you. It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately clearly it does. Thus it would have been better to clarify everything on day one.
    It matters because these are the people who say that it's wrong to avoid tax, therefore we expect him to say that he doesn't avoid tax (which he hasn't). So yes it does matter and it should matter. What do you mean people like you? Assuming you mean lefties? No. Not even close.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Even if the company wasn't set up for tax avoidance it still avoided tax, that doesn't steer away any attention.

    .
    Justify why every business in the world should be domicile to the UK then?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Justify why every business in the world should be domicile to the UK then?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Specifically staying in the topic of oversea territories, they should be taxed however there are tax loopholes and obviously the need to be covered. If they are covered then we could actually get the money we need to run our public services. Just look at the NHS for a start, it's in a pit, we can't afford big-companies like Google or Starbucks avoiding tax that is really needed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Umm no, "nothing like that" means anything associated with offshore funds/shares he had nothing to do with, which I'm pretty sure would include past, present and future.

    EDIT: By the way, No.10 didn't say that, Cameron did.

    I didn't say that what he did was illegal or immoral. I'm saying that he had shares in an offshore company that dodged tax, that's immoral.

    Case is not closed, they are still investigating.
    Yes i'm well aware of who said what, thanks.

    The question to which you refer did ask if he had benefitted in the past or would he in the future.

    DC answered:

    (Original post by DC)
    "I own no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And, so that, I think, is a very clear description".
    He uses current tense, as in now, currently, at this time. Whilst he desn't actually answer the question put to him, he doesn't lie either. This is because his statement is true.

    So we've established he didn't lie. Nor did No10 lie in their statements.

    Now, had he benefitted from the past? Yes, he had.....so what?

    What he did was perfectly legal, fine and not even 'immoral' as some people are saying. He didn't evade any tax or attempt to do so. He made an investment and made a profit on it, on which he paid capital gains tax. Blairmore was not set up to evade tax. Just because it's offshore doesn't mean it's a shady tax dodging affair.

    At the time he made this profit, he wasen't even PM. So this entire thing is a load of BS.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    It's only part of the truth, which mislead the public, therefore it is a half-truth.
    The public was not mislead by the statements. People criticising Cameron are out for blood no matter what. A factually correct statement is only 'misleading' because it's now convenient for it to be so, even though it's, well, factually correct.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    How does it not make sense? I reiterate. If they are (uni) students then surely they wouldn't waste time criticising the government. Yes I've met a student and technically if they are on social media (based upon the people I've met) they would be doing that in their free time, so that wouldn't necessarily be a waste of time. Also, assuming you mean Twitter with all the trends by "social media" - most of them (from what I've seen) aren't students, you can prove me wrong though
    Students love criticising the government. How many student protests have their been since 2010? I've lost count. I fail to see what you believe in students that make them immune to political posturing.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Yes I have. I'm pretty sure there isn't (I'll use what you said to me) "masses" of people who use that site.
    I said you're implying that the 'masses' are up in arms over this issue, and apparently 94% of people want Cameron to resign. You then use the e-petition gaining 100,000 signatures as evidence of this. 100,000 is not a large number in the context of an e-petition.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Also I did mention that 100,000 signatures in just a couple of hours is a lot. If people are signing petitions at that rate then it is eye-opening. Those 37 petitions are probably closed because they have passed 6 months (I think it is?) or they have went on long enough to be able to reach 100,00 signatures somehow, just not at the rate at which that petition went at.
    It was 80,000 in 24 hours last time, now apparently it's 100,000 in a couple of hours. Make your mind up.
    A petition that trends through social media can easily reach it's target in days. You clearly have no context to compare to. The banning Donald Trump petition reached it's target in a day I think, and was at around 500,000 when Parliament got round to debating it.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    -.- I just said that it doesn't imply he has something to hide because he doesn't! I said he published his tax returns therefore he doesn't have anything to hide but at the time it might have been thought he had something to hide. Do you read what I say before responding?

    He still mislead the public and even he said himself he could have handled it better.

    It matters because these are the people who say that it's wrong to avoid tax, therefore we expect him to say that he doesn't avoid tax (which he hasn't). So yes it does matter and it should matter. What do you mean people like you? Assuming you mean lefties? No. Not even close.
    This is getting repetitive.
    We're not even entirely in disagreement. I said, from the beginning, that Cameron should have handled it better. Simply his mismanagement of the situation is not a reason for his resignation, and people calling for such are being sensationalist and frankly silly. That was pretty much the first point I made that you originally responded to.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Yes i'm well aware of who said what, thanks.

    The question to which you refer did ask if he had benefitted in the past or would he in the future.

    DC answered:



    He uses current tense, as in now, currently, at this time. Whilst he desn't actually answer the question put to him, he doesn't lie either. This is because his statement is true.

    So we've established he didn't lie. Nor did No10 lie in their statements.

    Now, had he benefitted from the past? Yes, he had.....so what?

    What he did was perfectly legal, fine and not even 'immoral' as some people are saying. He didn't evade any tax or attempt to do so. He made an investment and made a profit on it, on which he paid capital gains tax. Blairmore was not set up to evade tax. Just because it's offshore doesn't mean it's a shady tax dodging affair.

    At the time he made this profit, he wasen't even PM. So this entire thing is a load of BS.
    Sorry I just had to correct you because you quoted what DC said then followed by saying No.10 chooses their words carefully when it was actually DC who said it.

    Even if you say it's a lie he told half-truths. I don't think it's BS, I think it has definitely effected his credibility and reputation therefore it's not BS.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.