ricgem2002 Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 This thread is getting funny, Cameron could commit mass murder and people would still be trying to argue his point.... the blokes even admitted it and still they argue his case :hihi: toytown tories:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Do you think that company in the bahamas is fraudulent? If you live in the UK but give your home address as a po box in the bahamas what else but fraudulent could it be described as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 I've got shares in several overseas trusts. They are legal, I think. I don't ask questions I trust that they are. I pay my taxes on the benefit like Cameron did. I am not responsible for running the trust. I am not liable if it breaks the law. I can't remember the details of every company or trust I've bought shares in. I'm sure the pm can't either and he has a bit more than an sme to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 I've got shares in several overseas trusts. They are legal, I think. I don't ask questions I trust that they are. I pay my taxes on the benefit like Cameron did. I am not responsible for running the trust. I am not liable if it breaks the law. I can't remember the details of every company or trust I've bought shares in. I'm sure the pm can't either and he has a bit more than an sme to run. I'm sure he can remember, otherwise why has he spent 5 days deliberately stonewalling, issuing 3 separate statements all carefully worded so as not to tell the electorate what they wanted to know before finally caving in and reluctantly coming clean. The stalling and obfuscation are worse than him having benefited from the trust, it shows contempt for the electorate: "I'm only going to tell you the truth when I absolutely have to". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 This thread is getting funny, Cameron could commit mass murder and people would still be trying to argue his point.... No they wouldn't. What total garbage. He hasn't broken the law. Neither did his father. You equating a 4 day delay in responding to mass murder is ridiculous. Who are you thinking of? Stalin? Hitler? Nielsen? Pol Pot? Or nice beardy one like Shipman? Jeeeez. ---------- Post added 08-04-2016 at 08:10 ---------- I'm sure he can remember, otherwise why has he spent 5 days deliberately stonewalling, issuing 3 separate statements all carefully worded so as not to tell the electorate what they wanted to know before finally caving in and reluctantly coming clean. The stalling and obfuscation are worse than him having benefited from the trust, it shows contempt for the electorate: "I'm only going to tell you the truth when I absolutely have to". Oh right! Easily as bad as mass murder. ---------- Post added 08-04-2016 at 08:11 ---------- the blokes even admitted it and still they argue his case :hihi: toytown tories:roll: What? He's admitted mass murder? I must have missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Oh right! Easily as bad as mass murder. Eh? What are you on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 I've got shares in several overseas trusts. They are legal, I think. I don't ask questions I trust that they are. I pay my taxes on the benefit like Cameron did. I am not responsible for running the trust. I am not liable if it breaks the law. I can't remember the details of every company or trust I've bought shares in. I'm sure the pm can't either and he has a bit more than an sme to run. As an MP he should have declared his interests, he didnt because he is dishonest. These holding in Blairmore, could influence his actions. "The main purpose of the Register is to provide information about any financial interest which a Member has, or any benefit which he or she receives, which others might reasonably consider to influence his or her actions or words as a Member of Parliament." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 If you live in the UK but give your home address as a po box in the bahamas what else but fraudulent could it be described as? I wonder if it would work for joe bloggs and the tax man didn't care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bloke Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 the blokes even admitted it and still they argue his case :hihi: toytown tories:roll: At least he's admitted something, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question of: 'If you could legally pay less tax, would you?' As much as people don't like it, it looks so far that Blairemore and Cameron's involvement was all 100% legal. https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/financial-sector/opinion/73541/top-lawyer-ian-camerons-investment-fund-was-not-tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 At least he's admitted something, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question of: 'If you could legally pay less tax, would you?' As much as people don't like it, it looks so far that Blairemore and Cameron's involvement was all 100% legal. https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/financial-sector/opinion/73541/top-lawyer-ian-camerons-investment-fund-was-not-tax no I wouldn't want to pay less tax that answered for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now