Amber Rudd - no surprise.

[Santo]

I've answered you question over and over. Because you don't like the answer that doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

 

This story will come back again and again because it hasn't been nullified.

 

Page 41-42 of this week's Private Eye will make it clear. If you have a spare £1.50.

 

You haven't answered it, just kept saying clarity. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

 

When Hilary Clinton said Trump had paid no federal taxes do you know how he replied? He said, 'that makes me smart.' I consider that a poor response.

 

Now do you see what I'm asking you? When Rudd is adding the clarity you crave, what could she say that you think is bad?

 

The story is dead.

 

I don't buy Private Eye. I don't intend to start for this boring non-story.

[I1L2T3]

You haven't answered it, just kept saying clarity. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

 

When Hilary Clinton said Trump had paid no federal taxes do you know how he replied? He said, 'that makes me smart.' I consider that a poor response.

 

Now do you see what I'm asking you? When Rudd is adding the clarity you crave, what could she say that you think is bad?

 

The story is dead.

 

I don't buy Private Eye. I don't intend to start for this boring non-story.

 

I've got no preconceptions about what she would say. Just like I didn't before Cameron explained his tax haven involvement. But if she for example defended her use of tax havens and was supportive of others repeating what she did then that would be a bad position for her to take. Ive said as much at least half a dozen times.

[Santo]

I've got no preconceptions about what she would say. Just like I didn't before Cameron explained his tax haven involvement. But if she for example defended her use of tax havens and was supportive of others repeating what she did then that would be a bad position for her to take. Ive said as much at least half a dozen times.

 

I'm not asking you what you think she will say I'm asking you what she could say that warrants her getting fired. In your opinion.

 

Stop being obtuse and answer the very simple question.

[I1L2T3]

I'm not asking you what you think she will say I'm asking you what she could say that warrants her getting fired. In your opinion.

 

Stop being obtuse and answer the very simple question.

 

What I just said for a start. I don't think she would survive that. Why is this so difficult for you? However like I explained before I don't want her fired necessarily. I think she's a talented politician and was a great asset to the remain campaign. I've said that too.

 

Furthermore, if you think the story is dead then why pray to god are you carrying it on.

 

I know it will come back further down the line. I'm in no hurry for answers.

[Santo]

What I just said for a start. I don't think she would survive that. Why is this so difficult for you? However like I explained before I don't want her fired necessarily. I think she's a talented politician and was a great asset to the remain campaign. I've said that too.

 

Furthermore, if you think the story is dead then why pray to god are you carrying it on.

 

I know it will come back further down the line. I'm in no hurry for answers.

 

Difficult for me? Lol. You are the one that demands clarity but presents none yourself when I ask a simple question like, what would be bad answers to the issues you want clarifying?

 

Ok, you've said if she defends tax havens that's a bad answer. Anything more from you looks more difficult then getting blood from a stone.

 

The story is dead. Let's come back to it if and when she's fired huh? Which doesn't look likely to happen anytime soon.

 

Enjoy the wait.

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Santo

[I1L2T3]

Difficult for me? Lol. You are the one that demands clarity but presents none yourself when I ask a simple question like, what would be bad answers to the issues you want clarifying?

 

Ok, you've said if she defends tax havens that's a bad answer. Anything more from you looks more difficult then getting blood from a stone.

 

The story is dead. Let's come back to it if and when she's fired huh? Which doesn't look likely to happen anytime soon.

 

Enjoy the wait.

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

I don't care if you don't like my answers. I don't think a home secretary defending the use of tax havens (either her own past use for business purposes or defending the rights of others to use them) would last 5 minutes. Those are the points that require clarity: why she used them and what her view is going forward. It's not difficult to understand. They are not bad things to want answers to and I've every right to ask the questions.

 

You think the story is dead. I don't. In fact given the treatment of it in Private Eye this week it is clearly going to come back at some point. Rudd will know that.

 

We'll chat again about it at some point I'm sure.

[Santo]

I don't care if you don't like my answers. I don't think a home secretary defending the use of tax havens (either her own past use for business purposes or defending the rights of others to use them) would last 5 minutes. Those are the points that require clarity: why she used them and what her view is going forward. It's not difficult to understand. They are not bad things to want answers to and I've every right to ask the questions.

You think the story is dead. I don't. In fact given the treatment of it in Private Eye this week it is clearly going to come back at some point. Rudd will know that.

 

We'll chat again about it at some point I'm sure.

 

Oh, marvellous. You are playing the 'I am being silenced!' card again.

 

I don't dislike your answers. I nothing them. Because you haven't answered the question.

 

Imagine we went on Eggheads as the Sheffield Forum team and I took the geography round. JV asks me what the capital of France is. You would want me to say Paris wouldn't you? You wouldn't want me to say Berlin or Lisbon? Correct?

 

After Eggheads we go for a curry. You order a lamb madras but you are brought a chicken madras. You complain and the chef comes out. He might say, 'you know what, chicken is cheaper than lamb and I didn't reckon you'd be able to tell the difference so I served you chicken with the intention of charging you for lamb and boosting my profits.' Or he could say, 'I made a mistake, I am very sorry and I'm happy to bring you a lamb madras if you don't mind waiting or I will leave you with the chicken now its here. Either way I wont charge you.'

 

One of those responses is better than the other, wouldn't you agree?

 

After the curry we go off for a pint and lo! in walks Amber Rudd. You say, 'can I just ask you, why did you work for a company that used tax havens?

 

You expect her to answer. But she can give you a bad answer or a good answer. Can you finally understand that? All I have ever asked is what you think a bad answer is

 

You see, what if she said, 'it was a good job, good pay, good benefits, I liked the company and yeah I worked for them. But I did nothing wrong.'

 

For me, that's an acceptable answer to the question. But its clear you have standards for MPs which are higher than for other people. Even if they weren't MPs at the time of not actually even doing anything wrong.

 

Of course, she could say, 'you know what, I was up to my eyes in it but I never thought even for a second anyone would ever figure this out.'

 

That would be a crap answer.

 

The possible answers are infinite. I only wanted to know what you thought was a bad answer. Even if that answer is an honest answer, which I hope it would be.

 

I hope that clears up for you what I thought was a really simple, almost tediously simple question when I posed it. How wrong I was!!

[I1L2T3]

Oh, marvellous. You are playing the 'I am being silenced!' card again.

 

I don't dislike your answers. I nothing them. Because you haven't answered the question.

 

Imagine we went on Eggheads as the Sheffield Forum team and I took the geography round. JV asks me what the capital of France is. You would want me to say Paris wouldn't you? You wouldn't want me to say Berlin or Lisbon? Correct?

 

After Eggheads we go for a curry. You order a lamb madras but you are brought a chicken madras. You complain and the chef comes out. He might say, 'you know what, chicken is cheaper than lamb and I didn't reckon you'd be able to tell the difference so I served you chicken with the intention of charging you for lamb and boosting my profits.' Or he could say, 'I made a mistake, I am very sorry and I'm happy to bring you a lamb madras if you don't mind waiting or I will leave you with the chicken now its here. Either way I wont charge you.'

 

One of those responses is better than the other, wouldn't you agree?

 

After the curry we go off for a pint and lo! in walks Amber Rudd. You say, 'can I just ask you, why did you work for a company that used tax havens?

 

You expect her to answer. But she can give you a bad answer or a good answer. Can you finally understand that? All I have ever asked is what you think a bad answer is

 

You see, what if she said, 'it was a good job, good pay, good benefits, I liked the company and yeah I worked for them. But I did nothing wrong.'

 

For me, that's an acceptable answer to the question. But its clear you have standards for MPs which are higher than for other people. Even if they weren't MPs at the time of not actually even doing anything wrong.

 

Of course, she could say, 'you know what, I was up to my eyes in it but I never thought even for a second anyone would ever figure this out.'

 

That would be a crap answer.

 

The possible answers are infinite. I only wanted to know what you thought was a bad answer. Even if that answer is an honest answer, which I hope it would be.

 

I hope that clears up for you what I thought was a really simple, almost tediously simple question when I posed it. How wrong I was!!

 

Seriously I really don't know what your problem is. I'll ask what questions I want. If you don't like my answers to your questions then tough. You can't determine what answers people should give. You're not the arbiter and judge of that. So, get over it and stop trying to troll, belittle, insult and provoke me. Happy to carry this on on PM if you want.

Edited October 4, 2016 by I1L2T3

[Santo]

Seriously I really don't know what your problem is. I'll ask what questions I want. If you don't like my answers to your questions then tough. You can't determine what answers people should give. You're not the arbiter and judge of that. So, get over it and stop trying to troll, belittle, insult and provoke me. Happy to carry this on on PM if you want.

 

I don't have a problem. I'm asking you what answer Amber Rudd could give that you think is bad. You, for some reason, won't answer it.

 

And now you accuse me of being a troll? Are you for real? Calm yourself down, read my previous post again. You need stop with your accusations of trolling and insults just because I don't understand what the clarity is that you keep demanding. You have just made yourself look quite hysterical.

 

I'm not going to PM you. If you cannot answer I prefer the whole forum to see it. In my previous post I outlined what I meant. I had hoped that would make it easier. I cannot for the life of me see what difficulty you have in answering it. I even provided you with some examples.

 

Perhaps another user would like to try instead?

[Staunton]

Amber Rudd's shameful history is yet more evidence that cheating the system is routine among the rich and well placed, even while basic services upon which ordinary people depend - essential services for the sick, children, the elderly, the disabled, have been cut.