David Cameron admits to profiting from father's offshore funds

[Baerboxer]

The witch hunt is on. He will probably have to go. Long live Boris Johnson. House of cards.

Boris isn't any better.

None of them are. Nor those who call themselves socialists whilst equally pocketing all they can.

The world is finding out its politicians, who now like to act as rulers and governors rather than servants of the people, are just the same as those in senior business organizations, NGO's, and Quangos.

They are all on the fiddle, making vast amounts for themselves, on fat salaries, expenses and benefits whilst screwing the people who elect them.

The "Do as we say, not as we do - the rules are not for us" mentality is not washed away just because they are elected.

[Baerboxer]

I don't understand the issue

This was not an offshore trust (used for squirrelling away money)

Many companies are registered off shore because the of business friendly company rules

I think probably all hedge funds are registered off shore for that reason

I bet most if not all pension funds have investments in offshore companies

So, can someone explain to me what is the nature of the problem?

Business friendly - as in you can do what you like rules?

Just finding out how business friendly the Isle of Man is when it comes to dubious investment companies who sail very very close to the wind.

[alanrchase]

I don't understand the issue

This was not an offshore trust (used for squirrelling away money)

Many companies are registered off shore because the of business friendly company rules

I think probably all hedge funds are registered off shore for that reason

I bet most if not all pension funds have investments in offshore companies

So, can someone explain to me what is the nature of the problem?

Business friendly - as in you can do what you like rules?

Just finding out how business friendly the Isle of Man is when it comes to dubious investment companies who sail very very close to the wind.

If one wishes to puy their money in the IOM a lot of questions are asked.

[oxo1947]

It wasn't David............it was the Pig's head.....................

[SgtRock]

It's hard to keep track. First he said he did not hold any shares NOW, then he said, now and in the past.

Then again, there was another "clarification" by Cameron's spokesperson “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares,”

News is certainly coming in dribs and drabs, without letting the cat out of the bag!.

Anyway, isn't the problem with these complex financial instruments (or the genius, if you happen to make use of them and don't think they are illegal/morally wrong - whilst being Prime Minister or not) that they do not need to be "owned" by immediate family?

It's only a film, but for anyone interested I thoroughly recommend the film "the wolf of wall street". For Cameron though there may be another twist in the tale.

You do understand the question he was asked I suppose? I think not, rant away about it all you like. Things may transpire and prove illegal activity. Untill then should he not be entitled to the "innocent untill proven guilty" that we all like? Public figure different rules? No one has yet managed to post any evidence of illegal activity.

You are correct. He is innocent until proven guilty over his business dealings.

Where he is guilty beyond any doubt is his public lying on at least 4 occasions. He is also guilty of getting Downing street to release public information statements that were also full of lies.

All of that is now in the public domain and there is no getting away from it.

Perhaps you think that this is acceptable behaviour from a Prime Minister. I certainly do not. If it was up to me, a full team of financial specialists would be investigating every single one of them to include the HofL.

You are very certain about his lies. Please post the questions asked and his replies. Not a fan of him but an agenda is being played out. Will not be called a coup because "we" are a western democracy. Not mutch better than every western poster here that moans on an hourly basis about "third world countries".

You can find them in any of the UK press. Take your pick.

There is a live blog here:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/08/cameron-offshore-tax-panama-resign-hypocrisy-labour-accuses-cameron-of-hypocrisy-after-he-admits-profiting-from-offshore-trust-politics-live

The only agenda that is being played out here is that he has been caught out lying through his teeth.

[alanrchase]

It's hard to keep track. First he said he did not hold any shares NOW, then he said, now and in the past.

Then again, there was another "clarification" by Cameron's spokesperson “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares,”

News is certainly coming in dribs and drabs, without letting the cat out of the bag!.

Anyway, isn't the problem with these complex financial instruments (or the genius, if you happen to make use of them and don't think they are illegal/morally wrong - whilst being Prime Minister or not) that they do not need to be "owned" by immediate family?

It's only a film, but for anyone interested I thoroughly recommend the film "the wolf of wall street". For Cameron though there may be another twist in the tale.

You do understand the question he was asked I suppose? I think not, rant away about it all you like. Things may transpire and prove illegal activity. Untill then should he not be entitled to the "innocent untill proven guilty" that we all like? Public figure different rules? No one has yet managed to post any evidence of illegal activity.

You are correct. He is innocent until proven guilty over his business dealings.

Where he is guilty beyond any doubt is his public lying on at least 4 occasions. He is also guilty of getting Downing street to release public information statements that were also full of lies.

All of that is now in the public domain and there is no getting away from it.

Perhaps you think that this is acceptable behaviour from a Prime Minister. I certainly do not. If it was up to me, a full team of financial specialists would be investigating every single one of them to include the HofL.

You are very certain about his lies. Please post the questions asked and his replies. Not a fan of him but an agenda is being played out. Will not be called a coup because "we" are a western democracy. Not mutch better than every western poster here that moans on an hourly basis about "third world countries".

You can find them in any of the UK press. Take your pick.

There is a live blog here:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/08/cameron-offshore-tax-panama-resign-hypocrisy-labour-accuses-cameron-of-hypocrisy-after-he-admits-profiting-from-offshore-trust-politics-live

The only agenda that is being played out here is that he has been caught out lying through his teeth.

Go on then. Give the question asked and quote his reply. If you wish to have the Guatdian (joke is in the name) tell you the truth carry on. There is a perceived chink and the sharks are feeding. So be it. Do I actually care? Not really. It is all political gamesmanship. The emperors clothes are very nice.

[emilymat]

It's hard to keep track. First he said he did not hold any shares NOW, then he said, now and in the past.

Then again, there was another "clarification" by Cameron's spokesperson “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares,”

News is certainly coming in dribs and drabs, without letting the cat out of the bag!.

Anyway, isn't the problem with these complex financial instruments (or the genius, if you happen to make use of them and don't think they are illegal/morally wrong - whilst being Prime Minister or not) that they do not need to be "owned" by immediate family?

It's only a film, but for anyone interested I thoroughly recommend the film "the wolf of wall street". For Cameron though there may be another twist in the tale.

You do understand the question he was asked I suppose? I think not, rant away about it all you like. Things may transpire and prove illegal activity. Untill then should he not be entitled to the "innocent untill proven guilty" that we all like? Public figure different rules? No one has yet managed to post any evidence of illegal activity.

Neither was Profumo bonking Keeler illegal. It's a question of 'trust' with the statements being released about not profiting from offshore money. If he he come clean at the beginning I doubt we would be having such a furore. Politics is about perception and it's a good job the Tories/Lib Dems stitched up 5 year fixed parliamentary preiods in 2010. They knew what they were doing.

[alanrchase]

It's hard to keep track. First he said he did not hold any shares NOW, then he said, now and in the past.

Then again, there was another "clarification" by Cameron's spokesperson “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares,”

News is certainly coming in dribs and drabs, without letting the cat out of the bag!.

Anyway, isn't the problem with these complex financial instruments (or the genius, if you happen to make use of them and don't think they are illegal/morally wrong - whilst being Prime Minister or not) that they do not need to be "owned" by immediate family?

It's only a film, but for anyone interested I thoroughly recommend the film "the wolf of wall street". For Cameron though there may be another twist in the tale.

You do understand the question he was asked I suppose? I think not, rant away about it all you like. Things may transpire and prove illegal activity. Untill then should he not be entitled to the "innocent untill proven guilty" that we all like? Public figure different rules? No one has yet managed to post any evidence of illegal activity.

Neither was Profumo bonking Keeler illegal. It's a question of 'trust' with the statements being released about not profiting from offshore money. If he he come clean at the beginning I doubt we would be having such a furore. Politics is about perception and it's a good job the Tories/Lib Dems stitched up 5 year fixed parliamentary preiods in 2010. They knew what they were doing.

Come clean, tell me. What has he done that is illegal? Everyone is hot and bothered about it but no one can pin the illegal activity down. The best anyone can come up with is his father had some legal investments offshore.

[roquefort]

He's a witch, he's a witch........hang him, hang him!

How do you know he's a witch?

Well he must be, he's rich isn't he?.......crucify him, crucify him!

[meltingpot2015]

Don't get too bogged down on the legality/illegality. Why?.

How many presidents/prime ministers do you know have been indicted whilst in Office?

It's more about setting a precedent (an example) if you like, as a holder of public office. (the highest one at that)

One cannot bring the Office of the president/prime-minister in to disrepute. If he had come clean to start with, maybe he would have had some chance. still, a long-shot. He took the gamble (told the public a lie about something relating supposedly to his "personal affairs"), it didn't come-off.

You want the prime-miniter of UK to be bought before a Court to stand trial?. Get real!.

[arjunadawn]

I do not get it. I am trying to. Besides the outrageous appearance of impropriety is there a crime? Did you do something wrong or really outright lie?

Not sure about UK, but in US I think if he had dividends or such and claimed as taxes that matter is settled. If he later sold for profit such funds that would be a capital gain- to be declared then. I tried to peddle through the posts and quickly online, but I cannot find where this may be brutally wrong. Is it just the appearance?

(The appearance is enough for me to maul these predators; I am only curious whether there is really a wrong).

[johnatong]

I do not get it. I am trying to. Besides the outrageous appearance of impropriety is there a crime? Did you do something wrong or really outright lie?

Not sure about UK, but in US I think if he had dividends or such and claimed as taxes that matter is settled. If he later sold for profit such funds that would be a capital gain- to be declared then. I tried to peddle through the posts and quickly online, but I cannot find where this may be brutally wrong. Is it just the appearance?

(The appearance is enough for me to maul these predators; I am only curious whether there is really a wrong).

You are right to ask if there is "wrong"

There is no evidence of wrong doing or of any illegal activity

"Pork Barrel " schemes in the US are , however, very suspect !

[Baerboxer]

Failing to register financial or business interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP..

is breaking the law!

He sold these shares prior to becoming PM. There was nothing, AFAWK, illegal in the set up of Blairmore and its tax reporting.

However, Cameron introduced the concept of "morally wrong" rather than legally wrong and pilloried others for joining tax avoidance schemes.

Now he's been shown as a hypocrite and a liar in one short time.

Will he do the honorable thing and resign - will he <deleted>. That went out of British politics a very long time ago. He'll simply bluster is way on.

Edited April 9, 2016 by metisdead
Profanity

[SheungWan]

Failing to register financial or business interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP..

is breaking the law!

He sold these shares prior to becoming PM. There was nothing, AFAWK, illegal in the set up of Blairmore and its tax reporting.

However, Cameron introduced the concept of "morally wrong" rather than legally wrong and pilloried others for joining tax avoidance schemes.

Now he's been shown as a hypocrite and a liar in one short time.

Will he do the honorable thing and resign - will he <deleted>. That went out of British politics a very long time ago. He'll simply bluster is way on.

Not a hanging offence, except for those who want him out for any reason whatsoever.

[Baerboxer]

I do not get it. I am trying to. Besides the outrageous appearance of impropriety is there a crime? Did you do something wrong or really outright lie?

Not sure about UK, but in US I think if he had dividends or such and claimed as taxes that matter is settled. If he later sold for profit such funds that would be a capital gain- to be declared then. I tried to peddle through the posts and quickly online, but I cannot find where this may be brutally wrong. Is it just the appearance?

(The appearance is enough for me to maul these predators; I am only curious whether there is really a wrong).

He sold the shares before becoming PM. He has stated that he declared the dividends on his tax returns and so they would have been taken into account in calculating his tax liability, if any, for that particular year by HMRC. When he sold them, the profit he made was less than the allowance threshold for Capital Gains Tax. He presumably did not sell other assets which might have pushed him over that limit.

In short, he appears to have done nothing illegal.

However, he seems to have lied by saying he was never involved in any such schemes and as he previously declared this type of scheme "morally" wrong and chastised named people for investing in them, he is also an hypocrite.

It is these last two points that are contentious and that will be hammered by the opposition in parliament.

[Baerboxer]

Failing to register financial or business interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP..

is breaking the law!

He sold these shares prior to becoming PM. There was nothing, AFAWK, illegal in the set up of Blairmore and its tax reporting.

However, Cameron introduced the concept of "morally wrong" rather than legally wrong and pilloried others for joining tax avoidance schemes.

Now he's been shown as a hypocrite and a liar in one short time.

Will he do the honorable thing and resign - will he <deleted>. That went out of British politics a very long time ago. He'll simply bluster is way on.

Not a hanging offence, except for those who want him out for any reason whatsoever.

So you consider it's ok for a PM to lie to the electorate and apply one set of rules to himself and a different one for everyone else?

Morals, ethics, honesty - not something you consider important in the person leading the government?

[Baerboxer]

Failing to register financial or business interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP..

is breaking the law!

He sold these shares prior to becoming PM. There was nothing, AFAWK, illegal in the set up of Blairmore and its tax reporting.

However, Cameron introduced the concept of "morally wrong" rather than legally wrong and pilloried others for joining tax avoidance schemes.

Now he's been shown as a hypocrite and a liar in one short time.

Will he do the honorable thing and resign - will he <deleted>. That went out of British politics a very long time ago. He'll simply bluster is way on.

Not a hanging offence, except for those who want him out for any reason whatsoever.

So you consider it's ok for a PM to lie to the electorate and apply one set of rules to himself and a different one for everyone else?

Morals, ethics, honesty - not something you consider important in the person leading the government?

[Neurath]

Wow! An undeserved rant!! Look at who Mr Tee was replying to !! Coming across a bit cheesie get it eh! get it nudge nudge wink wink say no more. Cheeeese!

After my mothers death I inherited some money. I forgot to go through he financial history before I accepted the money. Was questioned about where it came from by my bank, solicitor letter was accepted.

But nobody cares what you forgot as you are not a publicly elected head of state, paid for by the peoples taxes, neither did you deny any involvement in the public media. If a President can be impeached for denying having a blow job (probably a good thing for family hours viewing TV), then call me Dave is walking a very thin tight rope with Panama gate!

Has anything illegal taken place?

It's not illegal for the married 65 year old codger next door to root your 18 year old daughter while your at the 7/11 either. But it's hardly becoming in someone making moral pronouncements about sexual propriety and family values. Not illegal for someone to blather on about the moral imperative of criminalizing commercial sex whilst buying weekly quickies either. Only a mug or a fool can't or won't see the hypocrisy of those behaviors and of Cameron's.

[alanrchase]

Most of the lies are coming from the media. Great that British politics is decided by a media tycoon. "He paid no capital gains tax". Of course he didn't because none was duebut make it seem like he broke the law. Awfull reporting but swallowed hook line and sinker by the gullible electorate.

[craigt3365]

Most of the lies are coming from the media. Great that British politics is decided by a media tycoon. "He paid no capital gains tax". Of course he didn't because none was duebut make it seem like he broke the law. Awfull reporting but swallowed hook line and sinker by the gullible electorate.

I'll admit I'm not following this closely, but what lies have the media made? Sure, they've sensationalized it, but outright lies?

[geriatrickid]

Politics can be a rough tough game!

I have not read of anyone saying that whatever Cameron did/or did not do was illegal.

Leave the man alone.

You hi-so eh............

The fact is that there was no illegal activity and the amounts in question are a pittance. nitpicking for the sake of attacking Cameron.

[alanrchase]

Most of the lies are coming from the media. Great that British politics is decided by a media tycoon. "He paid no capital gains tax". Of course he didn't because none was duebut make it seem like he broke the law. Awfull reporting but swallowed hook line and sinker by the gullible electorate.

I'll admit I'm not following this closely, but what lies have the media made? Sure, they've sensationalized it, but outright lies?

Ok. My mistake, not outright lies but reported in a fashion to suggest wrongdoing. Sensationalized as you say but no facts to back up their innuendo. No media outlet has got the balls to flat out accuse him of what they are suggesting he has done.

[pedro01]

Failing to register financial or business interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP..

is breaking the law!

He sold these shares prior to becoming PM. There was nothing, AFAWK, illegal in the set up of Blairmore and its tax reporting.

However, Cameron introduced the concept of "morally wrong" rather than legally wrong and pilloried others for joining tax avoidance schemes.

Now he's been shown as a hypocrite and a liar in one short time.

Will he do the honorable thing and resign - will he <deleted>. That went out of British politics a very long time ago. He'll simply bluster is way on.

Not a hanging offence, except for those who want him out for any reason whatsoever.

So you consider it's ok for a PM to lie to the electorate and apply one set of rules to himself and a different one for everyone else?

Morals, ethics, honesty - not something you consider important in the person leading the government?

Cameron is a total hypocrite. From 2012....

"Media reports of Carr's financial arrangements suggest "straightforward tax avoidance", said the prime minister, and it was unfair on the people who pay to watch him perform that he is not paying his taxes in the same way that they do.

Cameron said he had not had time to look at allegations relating to singer Gary Barlow, who was given an OBE in the Queen's birthday honours list.

Speaking to ITV in a round of TV interviews during his trip to Mexico, the prime minister said: "I think some of these schemes – and I think particularly of theJimmy Carr scheme – I have had time to read about and I just think this is completely wrong.

"People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of his shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron

[craigt3365]

Most of the lies are coming from the media. Great that British politics is decided by a media tycoon. "He paid no capital gains tax". Of course he didn't because none was duebut make it seem like he broke the law. Awfull reporting but swallowed hook line and sinker by the gullible electorate.

I'll admit I'm not following this closely, but what lies have the media made? Sure, they've sensationalized it, but outright lies?

Ok. My mistake, not outright lies but reported in a fashion to suggest wrongdoing. Sensationalized as you say but no facts to back up their innuendo. No media outlet has got the balls to flat out accuse him of what they are suggesting he has done.

Perhaps no media outlet will accuse him of this because there's no proof he's done anything wrong yet? Suggesting without facts would for sure get them in trouble. And for good reason.

[alanrchase]

Most of the lies are coming from the media. Great that British politics is decided by a media tycoon. "He paid no capital gains tax". Of course he didn't because none was duebut make it seem like he broke the law. Awfull reporting but swallowed hook line and sinker by the gullible electorate.

I'll admit I'm not following this closely, but what lies have the media made? Sure, they've sensationalized it, but outright lies?

Ok. My mistake, not outright lies but reported in a fashion to suggest wrongdoing. Sensationalized as you say but no facts to back up their innuendo. No media outlet has got the balls to flat out accuse him of what they are suggesting he has done.

Perhaps no media outlet will accuse him of this because there's no proof he's done anything wrong yet? Suggesting without facts would for sure get them in trouble. And for good reason.

I would suspect that an old wrinkly Australian is involved in the reporting. I would also suspect that he has more offshore dealings than you can shake a stick at.

[pedro01]

Not a hanging offence, except for those who want him out for any reason whatsoever.

So you consider it's ok for a PM to lie to the electorate and apply one set of rules to himself and a different one for everyone else?

Morals, ethics, honesty - not something you consider important in the person leading the government?

Cameron is a total hypocrite. From 2012....

"Media reports of Carr's financial arrangements suggest "straightforward tax avoidance", said the prime minister, and it was unfair on the people who pay to watch him perform that he is not paying his taxes in the same way that they do.

Cameron said he had not had time to look at allegations relating to singer Gary Barlow, who was given an OBE in the Queen's birthday honours list.

Speaking to ITV in a round of TV interviews during his trip to Mexico, the prime minister said: "I think some of these schemes – and I think particularly of theJimmy Carr scheme – I have had time to read about and I just think this is completely wrong.

"People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of his shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron

Can you quote the tax avoidance schemes that Mr Cameron is involved in? He is obviously guilty of something but for some strange reason there does not seem to be any evidence.

So are you suggesting that he held shares in a Panama entity for reasons other than tax avoidance?

That's like saying he had a bicycle for reasons other than cycling.

It's a bit like drug possession, you could claim that you had drugs for reasons other than taking them but it generally doesn't hold up in court.

So - why not tell us all the reasons to hold shares in entities like these that don't revolve around avoidance?

[pedro01]

Cameron purchased Blairmore shares for £12,497 and sold them for £31,500.

That makes him a direct beneficiary of the profits of a tax avoiding company. It doesn't matter whether he paid capital gains or not - the growth in that company was a direct result of them having the unfair advantage of avoiding taxes.

So the gain in value itself was a result of avoidance.

That makes him a hypocrite - lambasting others for avoidance whilst secretly benefitting from it himself.

[metisdead]

Posts with messed up quoted posts having exceeding the maximum quote limit been removed.

[alanrchase]

Cameron purchased Blairmore shares for £12,497 and sold them for £31,500.

That makes him a direct beneficiary of the profits of a tax avoiding company. It doesn't matter whether he paid capital gains or not - the growth in that company was a direct result of them having the unfair advantage of avoiding taxes.

So the gain in value itself was a result of avoidance.

That makes him a hypocrite - lambasting others for avoidance whilst secretly benefitting from it himself.

Still waiting for your post confirming illegal activity. You harp back to 2010. I assume the reason it takes so long to get through to HMRC on the phone is all the upstanding British Citizens demanding to pay more tax.

[Srikcir]

Cameron purchased Blairmore shares for £12,497 and sold them at a profit for £31,500.

Investors in the fund were liable to income tax on dividends and capital gains tax, according to a 2006 prospectus from the firm.

But according to Cameron: "I paid income tax on the dividends, but there was a profit on it but it was less than the capital gains tax allowance, so I didn't pay capital gains tax”

Britain does provide for a yearly tax-free allowance for capital gains under a ceratin amount, ie., £11,100 in 2015-16. But Cameron's capital gain on the sale exceeds that limit. Unless he understated the gain.