In the news

is anywhere UK-based reporting the "Somalis dumped at sea after organ extraction" story that's all in the social media at the moment?

Oh that's me just getting started...but if I start namecalling I'm going to steal Greenhell's thunder (possibly)... now that wouldn't be fair :)

That sound really far-fetched. Check Snopes first.

I know this sort of thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but this sort of lifetime gifting is not a loophole. It's standard practice that is fully endorsed by hmrc. The whole "live 7 years from the date of the gift and pay no inheritance tax" rule is explicitly written into law. If you want to end it you'll have to find yourself a political party who plan to abolish the rules and vote for them. Getting angry at rich people for utilising a rule that benefits them isn't going to achieve anything.

getting angry about rich people who are seemingly consistently in a position to ensure the law suits privileges they are more likely to enjoy is well worth it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

Couldn't find much to verify or otherwise, not sure whether far-fetched=untrue or incredulous in the face of human cruelty. All reports seem to lead to one source though, which is pretty iffy.

Also rich ppl can change laws to make it legal...

...see private eye ad nauseum.

Again in principle its legal. True. But there's a mix of money buys law that's not getting any better.

Yes they were voted in, sort of. But there's pushing it.

What no swearwords? ;)

^^ and ^^^^ was sort of my point. Get angry at Cameron if you like but if there's to be any real change it needs to be focussed on changing the (very boring and not headline friendly) law, not digging around in the finances of one rich hypocrite. If this scandal doesn't lead to major tax policy change then it will be nothing more than another "pig-gate" and Cameron and his ilk will be chuckling about it in their long comfortable retirement.

The Tories are trying really hard to change the narrative from one of impropriety into legality.

https://next.ft.com/content/dde3846e-ff4b-11e5-99cb-83242733f755#comments

From the comments at the FT, it's not working.

can you copy pasta the relevant bits, i don't subscribe to the FT

Is it behind a pay wall? I have a subscription through work, but I'm on my phone. Figured I wouldn't be logged in.

Ha, won't let me read it now.

Logged in. Here it is:

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the kerfuffle over David Cameron’s tax affairs. What was all the fuss about?

The prime minister has done nothing wrong. There is something sickening about the pseudo indignation whipped up by newspapers whose proprietors are rich beyond the fantasies of avarice, with wealth protected by skilful lawyers and accountants in several continents. What is a strong word for hypocrisy?

Mr Cameron does have one problem. I have been observing British politics for more than 40 years and the current Downing Street press operation is much the worst that I can recall. At the very least, the failure to grip this story has extended its lifespan and damage has been done.

The prime minister’s authority has been weakened, just when he needs it to fight for the national interest, while the less thoughtful — but alas numerous — members of the public have been confirmed in their impression that politicians are greedy so-and-sos, only out for themselves. The truth, which any honest political journalist would confirm, is that almost all MPs — of all parties — are hard-working, often increasingly so, as they are forced to respond to a constantly increasing volume of emails.

But the gap between public perception and reality is dangerous. We want able people in politics: people who could earn much more in private life than as an MP and who may try to bridge the gap by continuing to work elsewhere part-time. That has always happened.

The danger is that the latest fuss will deter good people: people like Mr Cameron. With his ability, first class degree from Oxford, force of personality and leadership skills (abetted by the odd contact), he would have walked into a job in the City of London — and would have prospered mightily. Now, he finds himself having to defend his late father. Ian Cameron was one of the most honourable — and delightful — men of his time. Attempts to defame him must cost his son pain and arouse his anger.

All this might also cause bright youngsters, knowing how frustrating a political career can be, to wonder whether it would all be worth it. If so, the country will suffer.

If this meant depriving the Tories of good new faces, some Labour MPs would be delighted. Traditionally, there has been a difference between the two parties, though it is diminishing. In the old days, many Tory MPs were bankers, brokers or lawyers who made a financial sacrifice to enter parliament.

That was less true of Labour, which tended to recruit from trade union officials or social workers. When John Smith, a barrister, was having trouble with some of his backbenchers during his time as leader in the early 1990s, he said that his party should remember that he was one of its very few MPs who could earn more money outside parliament than in it.

Since the Tories diversified their candidates’ list, the gap has narrowed. But a Tory party that ceased to be attractive to candidates drawn from the professional classes would be diminished, as the Corbynistas know.

On Saturday, some of them were demonstrating outside Downing Street, exuding hatred for Mr Cameron because he symbolises the destruction of their hopes. In the early 1980s, when Ian Cameron was setting up the Blairmore investment fund, Michael Foot was leading the Labour party while Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn were plotting to take it over. Thirty years on, Mr Corbyn still is.

Under Mrs Thatcher, it became possible for British subjects to invest abroad and help to rebuild the foreign assets which the UK lost during the war. Ian Cameron was part of that process. David Cameron benefited from it, as did the entire country’s balance sheet.

So whose side are his critics on? Arthur Scargill’s?

I found it interesting that the comments seemed to see right through what looks like a cchq oped.

Alan G 55 minutes ago
The really interesting part of this whole saga is that it's exposed a basic hypocrisy at the heart of the Tory concept of the world.

So Ian Cameron was an 'honourable man' and his convoluted scheme to set up a company in Panama, owned via bearer shares and managing a business in the Bahamas, was perfectly understandable and the sort of thing any of us would do if we had the chance.

However, equally complicated schemes set up by Apple, Starbucks or Google, although intended to achieve precisely the same objective of legal tax minimisation, are dishonourable and they should be 'made to pay their fair share'.

Gadget 1 hour ago
this has nothing to do with party politics or a failure of spin, it is about the difference between right and wrong. But you're right. Politicians should not be publishing their tax returns. They should be reforming laws to stop tax havens, stop people gaming the UK system avoid tax, and not doing any of it themselves.

Dhako 1 hour ago
I don't know whether this puff piece was meant as a joke. Or whether this contemptuous piffle is all Mr Anderson is capable of producing, particularly when it comes detaining those who come to peruse this paper as a source of stimulating discourse.

But, then I suppose, this is what passes for putting up a good defense for "Call-Me-Dave" in his shenanigans in dodgy tax-havens. Lets hope this cheap insults to the readers intelligence won't win any "honors accolade" for this Anderson fellow from Cameron as a stout-defender of his position. For that would be an insult added to an already sustained injury.

All in all, it was already bad enough to put up with a certain chap by the name of Janan Ganesh with his school-boyish infatuation for all things Tory-ism, and for Osborne in particular (since Janan is the nearest thing we have in the FT as Gideon Osborne's ever-dutiful stenographer). However, it's mightily tiresome to even contemplate entertaining this Anderson fellow in any future articles of any kind on top of daily Tory's propaganda from Mr Ganesh.

Lets hope the editor will genuinely spare us the prospect of reading too many of a Tory-central office's "approved stooges" in this parish when it comes to a future open edition editorials at the pages of the FT.

I didn't know it was possible to vomit into one's mouth so much or so often in so little time.

Woe and much overwrought.

Also does this say the opposite of what he means?

the current Downing Street press operation is much the worst that I can recall. At the very least, the failure to grip this story has extended its lifespan and damage has been done.

^ Andy Coulson would have handled it much better, eh Dave...

(Damn - so much new page fail recently!)

I love that article, form the insulations that that a banker (and therefore a tory) is worth more than a social worker (labour obvs) and that sending your money off shore is a valiant attempt to rebuild British foreign assets after the war. For Queen and Country 'n all that.

oh, and that it's all a big Corbyn conspiracy to stop the brightest and best (Tories obvs) from doing the jolly good thing and helping the plebs with running the country at much personal cost. All so he can get his bony little traitor hands on it.

It's hard to believe it's a serious piece, or that anyone would consume it as such and agree...

What utter bull.

Most of these types never ran a business, had a 40 hour job you need to compete for with others, how does he reach the conclusion they can work somewhere else bar by staying in nepotism land?

Lel.

https://www.facebook.com/ISeeYouStories/posts/814403651997043:0

Bumface used to pretend to be a cleaner when he answered the phone at the PR company, the useless pig-fondling tosser.

apocryphalols from this weeks popbitch.

Although it's open season on
David Cameron at the minute,
we shouldn't forget it's always
good to poke a little fun at
George Osborne too.

On a recent visit to a TfL
construction site, Osborne was
besieged by so many protestors
that his planned photoshoot
wasn't able to go ahead.

Never one to turn down the
opportunity for a picture in a
hi-viz/helmet costume, George
insisted something be done.

So TfL workers had to dig a
special hole that he could crawl
out of purely for the purposes
of a photo op; one that was far
enough away from the protest site
that it wouldn't appear in
the background of any shot.

it's nice to see that old adage " if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide " biting back