Amber Rudd - no surprise.

[Santo]

I'm talking about things people did before they became ministers.

 

I didn't go onto a rant about vetting. In fact I didn't rant at all if you check back on the the posts. I simply pointed out that people who aren't government ministers are put under a high level of scrutiny, perhaps more detailed and drawn out than the ministers they eventually ultimately serve.

 

I've made my point quite clear now several times but again you're just on a personal attack. I'm not sure what your problem is?

 

---------- Post added 25-09-2016 at 16:48 ----------

 

 

Oh alright, whatever......

 

Just don't do it again

 

Personal attack? That old chestnut. Clutching at straws because the argument is being lost more like.

 

Sooooo you're talking about things people did before they were ministers are you? Okayyyy. That's convenient isn't it? So what Amber Rudd did before she was an MP would be OK if she just stayed a back bench MP and hadn't become a minister?

 

I'm pretty sure you don't think that. That's a pitiful attempt to save face in response to your own argument about ghosts from the past.

 

My only problem is your high and mightiness, your pomposity, you assuming I'm making assumptions about you that I'm not, your repeated claims that people are trying to stifle debate or get the thread closed, your failure to answer TFH's question, your constant claims you are being goaded, your claims that you are being personally attacked all the time and the fact you are wrong.

 

Ok?

Edited September 25, 2016 by Santo

[I1L2T3]

Personal attack? That old chestnut. Clutching at straws because the argument is being lost more like.

 

Sooooo you're talking about things people did before they were ministers are you? Okayyyy. That's convenient isn't it? So what Amber Rudd did before she was an MP would be OK if she just stayed a back bench MP and hadn't become a minister?

 

I'm pretty sure you don't think that. That's a pitiful attempt to save face in response to your own argument about ghosts from the past.

 

My only problem is your high and mightiness, your pomposity, you assuming I'm making assumptions about you that I'm not, your repeated claims that people are trying to stifle debate or get the thread closed, your failure to answer TFH's question, your constant claims you are being goaded, your claims that you are being personally attacked all the time and the fact you are wrong.

 

Ok?

 

Why have you got a problem with people saying they want ministers to be transparent about their pasts? That is all I am doing. Nothing else. I've explained the problem with Rudd being responsible for our leglislative programme while having used a secretive jurisdiction that deliberately seeks to undermine the legislative programmes of other countries. We know she never declared that. We know she defended Cameron earlier this year without declaring it. Why have you got a problem with any of that. All of it is true. It is not unreasonable for any one of us to raise these issues. I don't see why you wouldn't support it or why it is so inconvenient to you.

 

And to answer you question, yes I do think it should extend to all MPs, but as you'll understand once somebody enters ministerial office and particularly high office then the stakes are raised significantly. Very significantly.

 

As for the personal attacks yes they are continuing. How can you post stuff like 'high and mightiness, your pomposity' without it being personal? You've done the same sort of thing on multiple posts. As always, address the post and don't attack the poster. Free advice.

[Santo]

Why have you got a problem with people saying they want ministers to be transparent about their pasts? That is all I am doing. Nothing else. I've explained the problem with Rudd being responsible for our leglislative programme while having used a secretive jurisdiction that deliberately seeks to undermine the legislative programmes of other countries. We know she never declared that. We know she defended Cameron earlier this year without declaring it. Why have you got a problem with any of that. All of it is true. It is not unreasonable for any one of us to raise these issues. I don't see why you wouldn't support it or why it is so inconvenient to you.

 

And to answer you question, yes I do think it should extend to all MPs, but as you'll understand once somebody enters ministerial office and particularly high office then the stakes are raised significantly. Very significantly.

 

As for the personal attacks yes they are continuing. How can you post stuff like 'high and mightiness, your pomposity' without it being personal? You've done the same sort of thing on multiple posts. As always, address the post and don't attack the poster. Free advice.

 

For the final time. In smaller words:

 

Should Rudd be sacked? Should every MP that once did a thing that was legal but won't be in the future also be sacked?

 

The above is TFH's question stripped of grandiosity. You ain't answered it.

 

You are pompous in your debate technique (which I outlined above with your constant demands that people stop trying to stifle the debate when they aren't etc etc etc) therefore ad hominem is legitimate. Free advice reciprocated.

[I1L2T3]

For the final time. In smaller words:

 

Should Rudd be sacked? Should every MP that once did a thing that was legal but won't be in the future also be sacked?

 

The above is TFH's question stripped of grandiosity. You ain't answered it.

 

You are pompous in your debate technique (which I outlined above with your constant demands that people stop trying to stifle the debate when they aren't etc etc etc) therefore ad hominem is legitimate. Free advice reciprocated.

 

I have actually. I posted yesterday and today that she still has a chance to provide clarity and that is all she has to do. So no, I don't think she should be sacked. Not at the moment.

 

You'll find that sometimes you have to work hard in debates to get your point across. In the face of all the stock arguments and personal attacks in this thread that is not being pompous. That is being robust and refusing to back down.

[Santo]

I have actually. I posted yesterday and today that she still has a chance to provide clarity and that is all she has to do. So no, I don't think she should be sacked. Not at the moment.

 

You'll find that sometimes you have to work hard in debates to get your point across. In the face of all the stock arguments and personal attacks in this thread that is not being pompous. That is being robust and refusing to back down.

 

Clarity on what? What don't you understand?

 

If what she has done is illegal she should be more than sacked. But not because she's an MP but because she'd be a criminal that deserves to be punished.

 

If what she's done is legal she has no case to answer.

 

If you find the answers she gives don't meet with your approval but there is still no question she has done something illegal do you think she should still be sacked?

 

That loops back to TFH's question.

 

Should MPs be sacked for doing things that aren't illegal but might become illegal in future? If MPs are supposed to be just like you and me why should their burden be greater? Even if they weren't MPs at the time?

[I1L2T3]

Clarity on what? What don't you understand?

 

If what she has done is illegal she should be more than sacked. But not because she's an MP but because she'd be a criminal that deserves to be punished.

 

If what she's done is legal she has no case to answer.

 

If you find the answers she gives don't meet with your approval but there is still no question she has done something illegal do you think she should still be sacked?

 

That loops back to TFH's question.

 

Should MPs be sacked for doing things that aren't illegal but might become illegal in future? If MPs are supposed to be just like you and me why should their burden be greater? Even if they weren't MPs at the time?

 

It's got nothing to do with the stock tax avoidance legal/tax evasion illegal argument that seems to be the magical cure-all fix. We've gone round in a huge pointless circle if that is what you have come back to. It's almost like a dog whistle to drag the usual suspects back into the debate.

 

It's more fundamental than that. Yes a lot of tax avoidance through tax havens is legal but so what. A lot of what happens through tax havens is fundamentally wrong but still technically legal and here we have a minister in high office who in her past took advantage of the a secretive jurisdiction that actively aims to undermine the legislative programme of other countries. Now she is in charge of the legislative programme in our country. I'm not going to make any apologies for having a problem with that.

 

Moving on, she has utterly failed to be transparent about her involvement. That is a failure.

 

I'm not looking for her to be sacked. I'm looking for transparency and honesty. Nothing more. Trust me I'd be delighted if this week she made her position clear and vowed to help crack down on the global tax haven industry that she was once part of.

 

As for MPs in general yes they do have a greater burden. Of course they do. I can't think of many people I know who could or should be an MP, maybe only one who was the brother of an ex-girlfriend and he stood for election as a MP about 30 years ago. He was up against it in a safe seat for another party but he gave a good account of himself. A genuinely nice and sound person and he never stood again. We're still in touch from time to time. Some piece of crap probably got selected in his place and probably went on to get a safe seat and is probably half the person he is, given the detritus we see sitting on the benches in the commons. We need better people in politics.

[Santo]

It's got nothing to do with the stock tax avoidance legal/tax evasion illegal argument that seems to be the magical cure-all fix. We've gone round in a huge pointless circle if that is what you have come back to. It's almost like a dog whistle to drag the usual suspects back into the debate.

 

It's more fundamental than that. Yes a lot of tax avoidance through tax havens is legal but so what. A lot of what happens through tax havens is fundamentally wrong but still technically legal and here we have a minister in high office who in her past took advantage of the a secretive jurisdiction that actively aims to undermine the legislative programme of other countries. Now she is in charge of the legislative programme in our country. I'm not going to make any apologies for having a problem with that.

 

Moving on, she has utterly failed to be transparent about her involvement. That is a failure.

 

I'm not looking for her to be sacked. I'm looking for transparency and honesty. Nothing more. Trust me I'd be delighted if this week she made her position clear and vowed to help crack down on the global tax haven industry that she was once part of.

 

As for MPs in general yes they do have a greater burden. Of course they do. I can't think of many people I know who could or should be an MP, maybe only one who was the brother of an ex-girlfriend and he stood for election as a MP about 30 years ago. He was up against it in a safe seat for another party but he gave a good account of himself. A genuinely nice and sound person and he never stood again. We're still in touch from time to time. Some piece of crap probably got selected in his place and probably went on to get a safe seat and is probably half the person he is, given the detritus we see sitting on the benches in the commons. We need better people in politics.

 

On what exactly do you want clarity?

 

Be very specific. No need to write a novel. What part of her arrangement don't you understand and want her to divulge?

[tinfoilhat]

It's got nothing to do with the stock tax avoidance legal/tax evasion illegal argument that seems to be the magical cure-all fix. We've gone round in a huge pointless circle if that is what you have come back to. It's almost like a dog whistle to drag the usual suspects back into the debate.

 

It's more fundamental than that. Yes a lot of tax avoidance through tax havens is legal but so what. A lot of what happens through tax havens is fundamentally wrong but still technically legal and here we have a minister in high office who in her past took advantage of the a secretive jurisdiction that actively aims to undermine the legislative programme of other countries. Now she is in charge of the legislative programme in our country. I'm not going to make any apologies for having a problem with that.

 

Moving on, she has utterly failed to be transparent about her involvement. That is a failure.

 

I'm not looking for her to be sacked. I'm looking for transparency and honesty. Nothing more. Trust me I'd be delighted if this week she made her position clear and vowed to help crack down on the global tax haven industry that she was once part of.

 

As for MPs in general yes they do have a greater burden. Of course they do. I can't think of many people I know who could or should be an MP, maybe only one who was the brother of an ex-girlfriend and he stood for election as a MP about 30 years ago. He was up against it in a safe seat for another party but he gave a good account of himself. A genuinely nice and sound person and he never stood again. We're still in touch from time to time. Some piece of crap probably got selected in his place and probably went on to get a safe seat and is probably half the person he is, given the detritus we see sitting on the benches in the commons. We need better people in politics.

 

Maybe we need flawed people. Most MPs are graduates - how many have had a bit of weed or nostril full of something at Uni - none of it legal, both involve dealing with criminals. Does that get put on the application form?

[Santo]

Maybe we need flawed people. Most MPs are graduates - how many have had a bit of weed or nostril full of something at Uni - none of it legal, both involve dealing with criminals. Does that get put on the application form?

 

Martin McGuinness was an MP. He has confessed to once being in the IRA.

[I1L2T3]

On what exactly do you want clarity?

 

Be very specific. No need to write a novel. What part of her arrangement don't you understand and want her to divulge?

 

I've said it umpteen times but in a nutshell

1. Clarity on her involvement in tax havens

2. Clarity on her view of tax havens moving forward, particularly around the conflict between her previous use of them and her responsibilities in her current role

3. A commitment to transparency moving forward

 

---------- Post added 26-09-2016 at 09:31 ----------

 

Maybe we need flawed people. Most MPs are graduates - how many have had a bit of weed or nostril full of something at Uni - none of it legal, both involve dealing with criminals. Does that get put on the application form?

 

Don't have a problem with that idea. See my earlier post about a checklist for prospective MPs. Not all the filters in such a process would have to be used negatively.