Amber Rudd - no surprise.

[Robin-H]

Doesn't matter. It's part of her past and can be used to judge her integrity.

 

If you think that at one time being the director of a company based in an offshore account makes her lose integrity then you are perfectly entitled to that view.

 

People who think otherwise are also perfectly entitled to theirs.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2016 at 12:51 ----------

 

Doesn't matter. It's part of her past and can be used to judge her integrity.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2016 at 12:47 ----------

 

 

Here we go. Every stock argument being shot down is followed by the personal attack. Good work.

 

I'm glad you think it's OK for us to ask questions. So if it is OK why don't you just jog on and stop trying to prevent me and others doing it.

 

How is anyone trying to prevent you from asking questions?

[Santo]

Doesn't matter. It's part of her past and can be used to judge her integrity.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2016 at 12:47 ----------

 

 

Here we go. Every stock argument being shot down is followed by the personal attack. Good work.

 

I'm glad you think it's OK for us to ask questions. So if it is OK why don't you just jog on and stop trying to prevent me and others doing it.

 

Oh, so me saying you are on a pompous high-horse is a personal attack but you saying my opinion is ridiculous is fair game? Someone really put a bee in your bonnet huh?

 

I've said I don't like tax evaders. I'm not awfully keen on tax avoidance either but it is legal and whilst it's legal people will do it, not just those who work in politics whom you expect to be whiter than white but history tells us is very seldom the case. Get over yourself. I'm not trying to shut down the debate which you keep repeating for some reason.

 

I suggest you get a hobby. Constant fretting may cause cancer.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2016 at 13:16 ----------

 

If you think that at one time being the director of a company based in an offshore account makes her lose integrity then you are perfectly entitled to that view.

 

People who think otherwise are also perfectly entitled to theirs.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2016 at 12:51 ----------

 

 

How is anyone trying to prevent you from asking questions?

 

I wish I knew the answer to your last question. He keeps saying that as though he is somehow being oppressed and silenced. He's looking desperate because he thinks the forum doesn't agree with him. Except I think the forum does agree with the sentiment but acknowledges the hypocrisy which he can't.

 

Stubborn righteous indignation is so sexy(!)

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2016 at 13:23 ----------

 

I don't believe Amber Rudd was a member of the cabinet or was responsible for forming or driving through policy 16 years ago either?

 

Labour were in power 16 years ago. They could have changed the law on tax avoidance but didn't. But that's apparently ok. But a (future!!) Tory takes advantages of laws a Labour government could change and its not? WT actual F?

Edited September 24, 2016 by Santo

[I1L2T3]

If you think that at one time being the director of a company based in an offshore account makes her lose integrity then you are perfectly entitled to that view.

 

People who think otherwise are also perfectly entitled to theirs.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2016 at 12:51 ----------

 

 

How is anyone trying to prevent you from asking questions?

 

Two companies actually. One of which she was still a director of when a fellow director was sent to prison for his activities at the company.

 

The point I'm making about being stopped asking questions is as soon as questions are asked there are a series of stock arguments that get thrown at you to throw you off the scent. We've had many threads like this and they all go the same way. Before you know it questions about the integrity of a government minister morph into a discussion about paying the plumber, or nonsense like people who take out ISAs are just the same as people who set up offshore companies in places like the Bahamas.

 

Anyway, back to Rudd. I think it's fair to ask if she personally benefitted from avoiding tax at either of the two companies, and more fundamentally why she set up the directorships to begin with.

[Santo]

Two companies actually. One of which she was still a director of when a fellow director was sent to prison for his activities at the company.

 

The point I'm making about being stopped asking questions is as soon as questions are asked there are a series of stock arguments that get thrown at you to throw you off the scent. We've had many threads like this and they all go the same way. Before you know it questions about the integrity of a government minister morph into a discussion about paying the plumber, or nonsense like people who take out ISAs are just the same as people who set up offshore companies in places like the Bahamas.

 

Anyway, back to Rudd. I think it's fair to ask if she personally benefitted from avoiding tax at either of the two companies, and more fundamentally why she set up the directorships to begin with.

 

So what if she did if it's legal? What are YOU going to do about it?

 

Write another post? Run for office with an anti-tax avoidance manifesto promising to claw back any tax she avoided 16 years ago? Vote for Corbyn? You say you have a right to ask questions, which you do. But maybe you have a deeper reason for asking and a plan if you get answers you dislike? Are we seeing the blossoming of a new radical force in British politics right here on this thread????

 

Successive governments could have closed loop-holes but didn't. You seem annoyed because she's a Tory. She wasn't a Tory at the time and the Labour government could have closed the loop-holes....but didn't. What does that tell you?

 

(The ? means those are questions, which you can answer if you want. But feel free to say I'm shutting down debate instead if you want to look foolish)

Edited September 24, 2016 by Santo

[I1L2T3]

So what if she did if it's legal? What are YOU going to do about it?

 

Write another post? Run for office with an anti-tax avoidance manifesto promising to claw back any tax she avoided 16 years ago? Vote for Corbyn? You say you have a right to ask questions, which you do. But maybe you have a deeper reason for asking and a plan if you get answers you dislike? Are we seeing the blossoming of a new radical force in British politics right here on this thread????

 

Successive governments could have closed loop-holes but didn't. You seem annoyed because she's a Tory. She wasn't a Tory at the time and the Labour government could have closed the loop-holes....but didn't. What does that tell you?

 

(The ? means those are questions, which you can answer if you want. But feel free to say I'm shutting down debate instead if you want to look foolish)

 

It might be legal. That's not the point although I think we already know that it would not have been legal in the UK at the time which gives a motive. Whatever it is still right to ask questions. And if is our right.

 

But again, it's clear to see that you are trying to derail things by making it about something else other than the minister. This time you've switched it on to me. Next time it will be the plumber. The time after that people who take out ISAs. Rinse. Repeat. Tax avoidance is legal etc.. etc... etc...

 

It doesn't matter where I ask questions. I can ask them here (of in other forums) and discuss them. I can contact my MP. I can ask them wherever I want and I don't need to start some new political movement to do it

[Santo]

It might be legal. That's not the point although I think we already know that it would not have been legal in the UK at the time which gives a motive. Whatever it is still right to ask questions. And if is our right.

 

But again, it's clear to see that you are trying to derail things by making it about something else other than the minister. This time you've switched it on to me. Next time it will be the plumber. The time after that people who take out ISAs. Rinse. Repeat. Tax avoidance is legal etc.. etc... etc...

 

It doesn't matter where I ask questions. I can ask them here (of in other forums) and discuss them. I can contact my MP. I can ask them wherever I want and I don't need to start some new political movement to do it

 

If you find out what Ms Rudd has done is legal what will you ask your MP to do about it? That is my point.

 

I'm derailing things? What things exactly? Go on, tell us all. I've stated where I stand on both avoidance and evasion. I've pointed out the difference and I've pointed out the hypocrisy. You haven't even answered my questions. I'm derailing things? Lol.

 

I think what it all boils down to is quite simple. You are just nosey. Nothing more. You want to know for the sake of knowing and that's it. Zzzzzzzzz. Get a life.

[I1L2T3]

If you find out what Ms Rudd has done is legal what will you ask your MP to do about it? That is my point.

 

I'm derailing things? What things exactly? Go on, tell us all. I've stated where I stand on both avoidance and evasion. I've pointed out the difference and I've pointed out the hypocrisy. You haven't even answered my questions. I'm derailing things? Lol.

 

I think what it all boils down to is quite simple. You are just nosey. Nothing more. You want to know for the sake of knowing and that's it. Zzzzzzzzz. Get a life.

 

Yes I would still ask if I felt like it.

 

Fact is that a lot of the time offshore companies are set up by people like Rudd to avoid paying tax in the country where they live. It doesn't end there though because tax havens are also used by organised crime, money launderers, for evading taxes etc... The apparently respectable people like Rudd add a front for all that. They legitimise the use of tax havens. They make it look OK. And then the Tory lap dogs get fired up to try and defuse any adverse discussion once a senior Tory is outed as having been involved in them.

 

Now let's wind back to 2015 and the Tory election campaign which clearly stated a commitment to clamp down on aggressive avoidance and evasion, and the fact that tax havens are vehicles for aggressive avoidance.

 

Wind forward to July 2016 and one of May's first speeches where she reiterated the commitment.

 

It seems curious that despite that we now have two cabinet members how have been outed as having extensive links to tax havens. Quite simply the actions don't match the rhetoric.

 

I'm right to question the integrity of people in the government, especially when their histories seem rather at odds with the stated aims of the government.

 

And once again in your last post a stock argument. The difference between evasion and avoidance (you understand it. Well done you ) and a personal attack.

[Santo]

Yes I would still ask if I felt like it.

 

Fact is that a lot of the time offshore companies are set up by people like Rudd to avoid paying tax in the country where they live. It doesn't end there though because tax havens are also used by organised crime, money launderers, for evading taxes etc... The apparently respectable people like Rudd add a front for all that. They legitimise the use of tax havens. They make it look OK. And then the Tory lap dogs get fired up to try and defuse any adverse discussion once a senior Tory is outed as having been involved in them.

 

Now let's wind back to 2015 and the Tory election campaign which clearly stated a commitment to clamp down on aggressive avoidance and evasion, and the fact that tax havens are vehicles for aggressive avoidance.

 

Wind forward to July 2016 and one of May's first speeches where she reiterated the commitment.

 

It seems curious that despite that we now have two cabinet members how have been outed as having extensive links to tax havens. Quite simply the actions don't match the rhetoric.

 

I'm right to question the integrity of people in the government, especially when their histories seem rather at odds with the stated aims of the government.

 

And once again in your last post a stock argument. The difference between evasion and avoidance (you understand it. Well done you ) and a personal attack.

 

Personal attack? How monumentally pathetic. Why is ok for you to tell me 'to stop being ridiculous' and to use the about me then? That's just as personal but I'm not a cry baby. You do yourself no favours when you resort to ludicrous histrionics.

 

I don't like Rudd. But I don't care if long before she became a Tory MP she used a tax avoidance scheme that the Labour government allowed to exist.

 

And you are being hysterical mentioning organised crime now. Lay off the caffeine.

 

There is an argument hidden somewhere if you weren't so bloody high and mighty and up yourself. I for one, would like to see loop-holes closed. But I'm not going to start whinging about the integrity of an MP because years ago she did something the Labour government sanctioned and before she was an MP on the opposing side.

 

Do get a life. You are a massive monger of doom. I stopped reading Brexit threads because I was bored of you (and I'm a remainer!). Don't ruin the whole forum for me!

[I1L2T3]

Personal attack? How monumentally pathetic. Why is ok for you to tell me 'to stop being ridiculous' and to use the about me then? That's just as personal but I'm not a cry baby. You do yourself no favours when you resort to ludicrous histrionics.

 

I don't like Rudd. But I don't care if long before she became a Tory MP she used a tax avoidance scheme that the Labour government allowed to exist.

 

And you are being hysterical mentioning organised crime now. Lay off the caffeine.

 

There is an argument hidden somewhere if you weren't so bloody high and mighty and up yourself. I for one, would like to see loop-holes closed. But I'm not going to start whinging about the integrity of an MP because years ago she did something the Labour government sanctioned and before she was an MP on the opposing side.

 

Do get a life. You are a massive monger of doom. I stopped reading Brexit threads because I was bored of you (and I'm a remainer!). Don't ruin the whole forum for me!

 

Stage 1: stock arguments

Stage 2: personal attack

Stage 3: crank up the personal attack

 

Sorry, not going to bite.

 

Of course the integrity of government ministers is in question. That is the argument. It's not hidden. I cant have made it clearer. And I'm not whinging. I'm asking questions.

 

And are you trying to say that tax havens aren't used by organised crime? You do realise that I'm not suggesting that Rudd has anything to do with that?

Edited September 24, 2016 by I1L2T3

[Santo]

Stage 1: stock arguments

Stage 2: personal attack

Stage 3: crank up the personal attack

 

Sorry, not going to bite.

 

Of course the integrity of government ministers is in question. That is the argument. It's not hidden. I cant have made it clearer. And I'm not whinging. I'm asking questions.

 

And are you trying to say that tax havens aren't used by organised crime? You do realise that I'm not suggesting that Rudd has anything to do with that?

 

You are very good at accusing me of personal attacks whilst throwing around loopy emojis and telling me my opinion is ridiculous aren't you? One rule for you and a different rule for me, is that right? Grow up.

 

No, I'm not saying tax havens aren't used by organised criminals. You would have to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic to even begin to think I was. I'm curious as to why you bring it up in relation to Rudd. And now I've pointed out to you how hysterical you have become in this bizarre and ever tedious crusade you have tried to back-peddle.

 

Note, in my previous post I said I wanted loop-holes closing. You appear incapable of acknowledging my points because you find it rather easier to feign offense. You are startlingly transparent in your approach. Still, if that's all you've got to mask your lack of intellectual clout so be it.

 

You are the sort of chap capable of starting an argument in a vacuum.....and losing it.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Santo