Amber Rudd - no surprise.

[Flanker7]

I don't want to "see Tory ministers thrown out for any infraction", even Amber Rudd. The above and other speculations and opinions about me personally are offensive and based on guess work. It doesn't help the discussion to personally insult people? Please don't do it.

 

Many questions have been asked and answered but they alter the ground on which the argument is pursued.

 

As I have said Trump was being honest. 'Santo' was surprised by his candour. Perhaps he/she could tell is whether he thinks this is a good or bad thing with his reasoning?

 

There is a question in OP please attempt to answer it or discredit it.

[Santo]

I don't want to "see Tory ministers thrown out for any infraction", even Amber Rudd. The above and other speculations and opinions about me personally are offensive and based on guess work. It doesn't help the discussion to personally insult people? Please don't do it.

 

Many questions have been asked and answered but they alter the ground on which the argument is pursued.

 

As I have said Trump was being honest. 'Santo' was surprised by his candour. Perhaps he/she could tell is whether he thinks this is a good or bad thing with his reasoning?

 

There is a question in OP please attempt to answer it or discredit it.

 

I have no knowledge of American tax laws but it seems you can ride out a loss for many years afterwards which it appears is what Trump did. I hadn't seen the quote that you posted but I did see him say, 'that makes me smart,' during his debate with Clinton. It was a very frank retort. Too frank, too undiplomatic (IMHO), too crude, dare I say, smug. He is of course entitled to defend his right to use tax laws to his advantage. It's for the American electorate to determine if his explanation is good enough.

 

With Rudd, people are demanding to know what her involvement in the company was. So far as I can see she was a director of a company that used tax havens. Should she have to defend herself for having a job? Should she have to explain why she took the job? What if she just liked the perks the job offered? I took one job and turned down another because the pay was better. Does that make me a bad person?

 

She has also been asked if she benefitted from investing in the company. I don't really care if she did. She wasn't a Tory MP at the time.

 

Now, if Rudd, in her role in government, actively tries to undermine government policy to remove tax loops because she has a vested interest in maintaining them then there is a clear conflict of interest. To my knowledge she has been accused of no such thing. Her opponents would just like this to be the case.

[Flanker7]

Thankyou.

In respect of your answers would it be fair to say:-

 

Trump - A bad thing because it was too frank, too crude, too smug, too undiplomatic?

Therefore - it would have been better for him to be more diplomatic with the truth.

 

 

Rudd - It was a private matter at the time. But, would not be now because she is part of the Govt.(no assumption that she has a current conflict of interest)

Therefore - you are against the legal use of Tax Havens by members of the Government.

[Santo]

Thankyou.

In respect of your answers would it be fair to say:-

 

Trump - A bad thing because it was too frank, too crude, too smug, too undiplomatic?

Therefore - it would have been better for him to be more diplomatic with the truth.

 

 

Rudd - It was a private matter at the time. But, would not be now because she is part of the Govt.(no assumption that she has a current conflict of interest)

Therefore - you are against the legal use of Tax Havens by members of the Government.

 

Being diplomatic with the truth is a euphemism for lying. No, I don't think he should have lied. He should have explained himself better. Such a smug retort is likely to alienate supporters. I'm saying this purely from a debate technique point of view. I don't want to see him president.

 

No, I'm not against the use of tax havens for MPs. I'm against the use of them full stop. I would like to see the law changed. But I am also against retroactive punishment for their legal use by anyone.

 

I didn't ask you but I asked Staunton and El Cid: would you be sacked from your current job if your boss learned that 16 years ago you worked for a company that used tax havens?

 

MPs are meant to represent the people so why hold them to much higher standards than we ourselves would tolerate especially when there is no actual evidence or accusation of criminality?

Edited October 5, 2016 by Santo

[Flanker7]

Being diplomatic with the truth is a euphemism for lying. No, I don't think he should have lied. He should have explained himself better. Such a smug retort is likely to alienate supporters. I'm saying this purely from a debate technique point of view. I don't want to see him president.

 

No, I'm not against the use of tax havens for MPs. I'm against the use of them full stop. But I am also against retroactive punishment for their use.

 

I didn't ask you but I asked Staunton and El Cid: would you be sacked from your current job if your boss learned that 16 years ago you worked for a company that used tax havens?

 

MPs are meant to represent the people so why hold them to much higher standards than we ourselves would tolerate especially when there is no actual evidence or accusation of criminality?

 

I wasn't saying or implying that you are in favour of lying. Sorry if that was the impression. A diplomat coined the phrase and I'm sure he was careful what he said. The implication ,imo, is that you shouldn't say things which could embarrass you even if they happen to be true.

 

Regarding the 16 years . If you don't mention pertinent facts when being interviewed for a job which you subsequently get your boss has every right to feel a little peeved when the truth comes out. AND when you defend people with connections to Tax Havens without mentioning your previous involvement as Rudd did when defending Cameron then people will draw their own adverse conclusions about the way you conduct yourself.

 

Standards - serving a term of imprisonment, ownership of a chain of sex shops, owning payday loan company, being involved in the asset stripping of BHS. All the above would be a vote looser, imo. There are other more grey areas and the electorate will make their choices. Yes they do hold MP's to higher standards. Mud slinging and character assassination with little or no evidence is common and when people hide the truth or fail to deny rumours it usually makes it worse.

 

Many posters have asked for clarity and honesty is that a terrible thing.

(Not a question.)

[Santo]

I wasn't saying or implying that you are in favour of lying. Sorry if that was the impression. A diplomat coined the phrase and I'm sure he was careful what he said. The implication ,imo, is that you shouldn't say things which could embarrass you even if they happen to be true.

 

Regarding the 16 years . If you don't mention pertinent facts when being interviewed for a job which you subsequently get your boss has every right to feel a little peeved when the truth comes out. AND when you defend people with connections to Tax Havens without mentioning your previous involvement as Rudd did when defending Cameron then people will draw their own adverse conclusions about the way you conduct yourself.

 

Standards - serving a term of imprisonment, ownership of a chain of sex shops, owning payday loan company, being involved in the asset stripping of BHS. All the above would be a vote looser, imo. There are other more grey areas and the electorate will make their choices. Yes they do hold MP's to higher standards. Mud slinging and character assassination with little or no evidence is common and when people hide the truth or fail to deny rumours it usually makes it worse.

 

Many posters have asked for clarity and honesty is that a terrible thing.

(Not a question.)

 

Sorry, you say not a question but I want to defend the pages of argument I had with I1L2T3.

 

It seems there are two key questions for Rudd (you might have more?):

 

1) what was your involvement and why

2) are you committed to ending tax havens

 

For 2) she can say yes. That can be an honest answer or a blatant lie or something inbetween. Time will tell. I doubt she will say no....

 

For 1) what is she supposed to do? Defend having a job? Defend her reasons for taking that job?

 

We all have reasons for taking jobs. If her reason was to subvert UK law that is a poor answer. If it was simply because it was what she felt was a good job then that's good enough for me. I'm not sure if it is for I1L2T3. That's why I have asked him. What are bad reasons for her taking that job?

 

You can then ask if she benefitted from investing in the company she worked for. As I said, I don't care if she did. She wasn't a Tory MP at the time and if it was legal I don't seek retroactive punishment (namely, her losing her job) for that.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Santo

[I1L2T3]

Sorry, you say not a question but I want to defend the pages of argument I had with I1L2T3.

 

It seems there are two key questions for Rudd (you might have more?):

 

1) what was your involvement and why

2) are you committed to ending tax havens

 

For 2) she can say yes. That can be an honest answer or a blatant lie or something inbetween. Time will tell. I doubt she will say no....

 

For 1) what is she supposed to do? Defend having a job? Defend her reasons for taking that job?

 

We all have reasons for taking jobs. If her reason was to subvert UK law that is a poor answer. If it was simply because it was what she felt was a good job then that's good enough for me. I'm not sure if it is for I1L2T3. That's why I have asked him. What are bad reasons for her taking that job?

 

You can then ask if she benefitted from investing in the company she worked for. As I said, I don't care if she did. She wasn't a Tory MP at the time and if it was legal I don't seek retroactive punishment (namely, her losing her job) for that.

 

It's hard to see how you have a defence becsuse I answered your questions. You even admitted as much by saying how I had in your opinion given bad answers. The point is that you didn't like the answers I gave and you tried very hard to control the discussion flow. That doesn't mean they were bad answers. They simply interrupted the narrative you are trying to create.

 

Now, the reason I ask for clarity and transparency is because there has been very little of it. I gave an example of what would be a bad response from Rudd and I'm not going to apologise for knowing in advance all the possible bad answers she could give. I can't know because........wait for it......there has been no clarity or transparency.

 

Here is an example and just about the only thing Rudd's spokespeople have said: 'It is a matter of public record that Amber Rudd had a career in a business before going into politics'

 

OK, that is true but it was not a matter of public record that the business career involved tax havens, not until the fact was leaked.

 

Nor was it a matter of public record that the business career included tax havens when she defended Cameron's use of tax havens.

 

After the initial leak two newspapers have gone on to investigate further. Private Eye published a detailed investigation of her business career and clearly left the door ajar for further revelations. The Guardian has built on that since with more detailed and excellent investigative journalism.

 

I think there is definitely a question mark over her suitability for high office. I'm not saying she should be fired but I am concerned about her judgement given her past.

[Santo]

It's hard to see how you have a defence becsuse I answered your questions. You even admitted as much by saying how I had in your opinion given bad answers. The point is that you didn't like the answers I gave and you tried very hard to control the discussion flow. That doesn't mean they were bad answers. They simply interrupted the narrative you are trying to create.

 

Now, the reason I ask for clarity and transparency is because there has been very little of it. I gave an example of what would be a bad response from Rudd and I'm not going to apologise for knowing in advance all the possible bad answers she could give. I can't know because........wait for it......there has been no clarity or transparency.

 

Here is an example and just about the only thing Rudd's spokespeople have said: 'It is a matter of public record that Amber Rudd had a career in a business before going into politics'

 

OK, that is true but it was not a matter of public record that the business career involved tax havens, not until the fact was leaked.

 

Nor was it a matter of public record that the business career included tax havens when she defended Cameron's use of tax havens.

 

After the initial leak two newspapers have gone on to investigate further. Private Eye published a detailed investigation of her business career and clearly left the door ajar for further revelations. The Guardian has built on that since with more detailed and excellent investigative journalism.

 

I think there is definitely a question mark over her suitability for high office. I'm not saying she should be fired but I am concerned about her judgement given her past.

 

You misunderstand. I'm not defending my argument with you: I'm defending my insistence that you haven't answered MY question. I maintain, I nothing your answers to MY QUESTION. I don't dislike them. I nothing them. Because I don't think you have answered MY QUESTION TO YOU. I rephrased that whole point for Flanker7's benefit. It's clear to anyone not wearing blinkers what I am driving at. Not once have I said you have given bad answers. I have stated and stated again that you haven't answered. You just keep on saying clarity like Rain Man.

 

Let's make it simple. You have clearly read more about this than me.

 

Why do you think Amber Rudd took the job?

 

Think about it. Answer it based on what you have read.

 

Is that reason any more strange/sinister than a reason you might give for having taken a job yourself?

 

You sir, boggle my mind.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Santo

[I1L2T3]

You misunderstand. I'm not defending my argument with you: I'm defending my insistence that you haven't answered MY question. I maintain, I nothing your answers to MY QUESTION. I don't dislike them. I nothing them. Because I don't think you have answered MY QUESTION TO YOU. I rephrased that whole point for Flanker7's benefit. It's clear to anyone not wearing blinkers what I am driving at. Not once have I said you have given bad answers. I have stated and stated again that you haven't answered. You just keep on saying clarity like Rain Man.

 

Let's make it simple. You have clearly read more about this than me.

 

Why do you think Amber Rudd took the job?

 

Think about it. Answer it based on what you have read.

 

Is that reason any more strange/sinister than a reason you might give for having taken a job yourself?

 

Exactly what question have I not answered. Does it not occur to you that you might have asked something that was impossible to fully answer because I can't possibly know what is going to be revealed next. I don't know all the possible bad answers and bad scenarios although I did give you one example. What new things will come out tomorrow, next week or next month? I don't know. I haven't got a Ruddy crystal ball.

 

If there are skeletons in her closet then taking the job is potential evidence of bad judgement. It potentially compromises her, and it potentially compromises the government.

 

The fact she has tried to completely swerve the issue by not answering questions herself and trotting out the same line through spokespeople over and over again is bad IMO. Again poor judgement.

[El Cid]

With Rudd, people are demanding to know what her involvement in the company was. So far as I can see she was a director of a company that used tax havens. Should she have to defend herself for having a job? Should she have to explain why she took the job? What if she just liked the perks the job offered? I took one job and turned down another because the pay was better. Does that make me a bad person?

 

 

If I was a cleaner at one of the companies below, I could argue it was just a job; but a director carries a lot more responsibility, one cannot argue it was 'just a job'.

 

Windward Capital Limited, a London based company that sold carbon credits to the public for investment, has been ordered into liquidation in the High Court together with two related companies, Met-X Corp. Ltd and Imarc Limited, for duping investors with false and misleading claims.

 

Also, a co-director at another company was jailed over a false statement. But that is all in the past now, the pres are calling her racist. With good cause.