-
That's a weak retort considering that Cameron himself explained that this was the reason he sold the shares.
he said he sold up before entering Downing Street “because I didn’t want anyone to say you have other agendas or vested interests”.
Owning bearer shares in an off-shore trust run by his father could be benign. But the requirement isn't that they "possibly be benign" but "that it might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions or words as a Member."
-
Cameron might have sold the shares that are in his name only, whilst waiting for legacy shares or trust-deeds to kick in that aren't actually his yet. i.e will be assigned to him on his mother's death etc.
I'm sure, being the good Tory that he is, he's totally unaware of any circumstance that this might happen, and that his family can reliably account for the remaining 7 million of his father's wealth.
-
And the key being, "might reasonably".
I don't think you can reasonably think that 30k split (I assume) across multiple assets is going to influence your actions.
Based on the little I know about the matter, from the sounds of it I'd guess ùbér_grùbér is on the money and most of the significant decision making occurred onshore.
But if he specifically proffered that as a reason then I see your argument.
deleted
hugo7
That's a weak argument.
Even if he still had the shareholding, what about that might reasonably by him or others to influence his actions as an MP or PM?