Amber Rudd - no surprise.

[Santo]

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 ----------

 

 

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.

 

Yes you have said that umpteen times. It's not an answer. It's repetition of the word clarity. You'd be atrocious on Just a Minute.

 

1) how much more clarity do you need? What do to want her to say or not to say?

2) how much more clarity? What do you want her to say or not to say?

3) you want her pwomiss, cross her heart hope to die to be a good girl now?

 

You do know that the Home Secretary isn't responsible for HMRC right? That's the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke. So what exactly do you think she can do about tax havens? What do you think she can stop the government doing about tax havens?

 

Considering how subjective those questions you want to put to her are I'm guessing there's not much she could say that will spare her job in your eyes.

 

Thusly, one can conclude you want MPs fired from posts for doing things that aren't illegal even if they weren't MPs at the time.

 

I doubt that will happen.

 

What a monumental waste of time this thread is.

[RonJeremy]

Yes you have said that umpteen times. It's not an answer. It's repetition of the word clarity. You'd be atrocious on Just a Minute.

 

1) how much more clarity do you need? What do to want her to say or not to say?

2) how much more clarity? What do you want her to say or not to say?

3) you want her pwomiss, cross her heart hope to die to be a good girl now?

 

You do know that the Home Secretary isn't responsible for HMRC right? That's the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke. So what exactly do you think she can do about tax havens? What do you think she can stop the government doing about tax havens?

 

Considering how subjective those questions you want to put to her are I'm guessing there's not much she could say that will spare her job in your eyes.

 

Thusly, one can conclude you want MPs fired from posts for doing things that aren't illegal even if they weren't MPs at the time.

 

I doubt that will happen.

 

What a monumental waste of time this thread is.

 

I disagree, it shown a great deal of pettiness and near OCD nit-picking by some posters. Well alroght just one.

[I1L2T3]

Yes you have said that umpteen times. It's not an answer. It's repetition of the word clarity. You'd be atrocious on Just a Minute.

 

1) how much more clarity do you need? What do to want her to say or not to say?

2) how much more clarity? What do you want her to say or not to say?

3) you want her pwomiss, cross her heart hope to die to be a good girl now?

 

You do know that the Home Secretary isn't responsible for HMRC right? That's the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke. So what exactly do you think she can do about tax havens? What do you think she can stop the government doing about tax havens?

 

Considering how subjective those questions you want to put to her are I'm guessing there's not much she could say that will spare her job in your eyes.

 

Thusly, one can conclude you want MPs fired from posts for doing things that aren't illegal even if they weren't MPs at the time.

 

I doubt that will happen.

 

What a monumental waste of time this thread is.

 

The level of clarity is up to her really. The questions are not subjective at all.

 

Let's wait and see what happens.

[Santo]

The level of clarity is up to her really. The questions are not subjective at all.

 

Let's wait and see what happens.

 

Hesitation and repetition.

 

You haven't answered any of my questions. Let's wait and see? You're demanding answers but you can't say what you think would be a good or bad answer?

 

Perhaps I phrased it badly. Whether the answers she gives are good enough or not will be subjective. I'm sure you agree some people already think she has nothing to answer for. So what, for you, will be bad answers to the questions you have asked? And if, subjectively, those answers aren't good enough for you, you will want her fired. Correct?

[Obelix]

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?

 

Surely it's a requirement for the job..?

[Santo]

Hilary Clinton points out Donald Trump has paid no federal taxes.

 

Trump interjects: "that makes me smart."

 

A somewhat different reply than we are accustomed to in the UK....

[I1L2T3]

Hesitation and repetition.

 

You haven't answered any of my questions. Let's wait and see? You're demanding answers but you can't say what you think would be a good or bad answer?

 

Perhaps I phrased it badly. Whether the answers she gives are good enough or not will be subjective. I'm sure you agree some people already think she has nothing to answer for. So what, for you, will be bad answers to the questions you have asked? And if, subjectively, those answers aren't good enough for you, you will want her fired. Correct?

 

I'm not going to second guess what she would say re: why she was actively involved in tax havens. As for her commitment re: tax havens as part of the government, well it's obvious what is needed there given the public pledges of the current and last PMs

[Robin-H]

I'm not going to second guess what she would say re: why she was actively involved in tax havens. As for her commitment re: tax havens as part of the government, well it's obvious what is needed there given the public pledges of the current and last PMs

 

Alistair Buchanan, a former business associate of Ms Rudd, said the firms were involved in an offshore investment fund created for regulatory reasons.

 

"You could not set up those funds in England at that time, now you can," he said.

 

That explains why she was involved in offshore companies.

[Santo]

I'm not going to second guess what she would say re: why she was actively involved in tax havens. As for her commitment re: tax havens as part of the government, well it's obvious what is needed there given the public pledges of the current and last PMs

 

You appear to be dodging a simple question. You don't want to second guess what for you would be bad answers to the questions you demand she answers? Worried she might be reading the thread and alter her answers based on what you write? You don't want to give her clues?

 

Lol.

 

I get that you want her to commit to cutting loopholes. That much is clear.

[I1L2T3]

Alistair Buchanan, a former business associate of Ms Rudd, said the firms were involved in an offshore investment fund created for regulatory reasons.

 

"You could not set up those funds in England at that time, now you can," he said.

 

That explains why she was involved in offshore companies.

 

I know that I said it pages ago. Not allowed by the regulator here = not legal here.

 

So does she support the right of people to circumvent the regulator now by using secrecy jurisdictions!

 

---------- Post added 27-09-2016 at 21:05 ----------

 

You appear to be dodging a simple question. You don't want to second guess what for you would be bad answers to the questions you demand she answers? Worried she might be reading the thread and alter her answers based on what you write? You don't want to give her clues?

 

Lol.

 

I get that you want her to commit to cutting loopholes. That much is clear.

 

I'm not the one dodging questions