[Closed] The Panama Papers.

Do you reckon if Tony Blair was paid better, he wouldn't have gone on the rampage once his time as PM was up?

Would John Major not have joined the very dodgy indeed Carlyle Group if the wages were better?

Or is the military industrial complex which is sold as democracy a bit long in the tooth on a planet with finite resources and delicate ecosystems...

Rampage or Middle East Peace Envoy as appointed by the UN ? Blair is perfectly entitled to earn a living as is Major. By paying more we would attract better quality people. The heads of many local authrorities are paid more than double an MP

Nurses don't generally have extensive links to the arms trade, fracking or indeed secretive offshore finance...

They [i]just[/i] make people feel better and save lives

By paying more we would attract better quality people

Or greedier...

By not allowing other jobs/ incomes we would get better people. FACT!

@ctk - yes agreed I would make being an MP a full time job, no others allowed. None of this nonsense about being a dentist at fhe same time for example

@mefty I think we all know really that Murray's sponsorship deals, endorsement revenues even probably prize money will be paid to a "management company" incorporated outside the UK. Andy needs money to live on so may declare that as dividends or I bet a chunk as loans, who financed his house ?

demonising people for having money or being financially successful is a Brttish disease imo

By paying more we would attract better quality people

If you want to get into politics or being the PM for your own personal betterment and financial well being then - tbh- I am perfectly happy to discourage these people from becoming MP's even if you think this attribute makes them "better" suited to the job in hand. It does not as the constant array of scandals and payments demonstrates. We never applaud them for their financial astuteness when it comes out in the wash do we.

I think we all know really that Murray's sponsorship deals, endorsement revenues even probably prize money will be paid to a "management company" incorporated outside the UK.

I don't know for certain but I am making a guess based on the ofher tennis players.

Right so you dont know for sure but we all know really.
Whatever.
I guess he pays all his tax, helps old ladies cross the road, is kind to cats and likes smoothies for supper. I have just as much evidence to support this wild speculation as you have - NONE at all.

Either he has suddenly become totally incompetent at PR or there is a little bit more behind this story. On balance, I am siding with the latter as there is not alternative reason why this has been blown up to this extent.

As I said a few pages back, this has the potential to be bigger than the expenses scandal. It may well have begun with a 'non-story' about 30k invested before he was PM, but now the Pandoras box is open, I expect there will be a steady drip feed of new revelations about Cameron, and also the likes of Osborne and other senior tories. They are up to the neck in it, and I can only imagine the panic behind the scenes while they scramble to cover up their financial affairs. Nice to also see the Labour party finally on the ball. I was surprised not to hear hysterical calls for Cameron's resignation but their call for complete transparency and disclosure along with urgent action on tax avoidance is far more effective.

Interesting this argument. From what I can see DC is finished cause he was economical with the actual situation (he may have more to be open about), he was doing something he felt was not quite right so he tried to keep quiet. That's a tad questionable. However he has not broken the law but he is now the target for all things dodgy around tax fiddling because of who he is. The hysterical anti tories will bang on about him but not have the balls to accuse him unless they have proof of something. I wonder what else is out there to get at him with? I suspect there is more to come about others but Cameroon is the easy meat at the moment. Some in the Labour Party are being a little more measured at present until they can really prove something or perhaps until a little personal cleaning has been done. I suspect there are any number of people having a little look into there personal wealth holding. Hope what happens next does not effect pension funds.

My prediction is.............he'll be stabbed in the back by his own team with in less than a year.

Edit, wrong word

Anyway, the public debate about what's in these papers has moved on from corruption and money laundering to the entirely legal tax affairs of David Cameron. Seems like a result.

Despots and real criminals will have breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Despots and real criminals will have breathed a collective sigh of relief.

+1

“I know I should have handled this better,” he said. “I could have handled this better. I know there are lessons to learn and I will learn them. And don’t blame number 10 Downing Street, or nameless advisers, blame me. And I will learn the lessons.”

Cameron said he was “very angry about what people were saying about my dad”.

“I love my dad. I miss him every day,” he said. “He was a wonderful father and I’m very proud of everything he did.”

I think he had shot himself in the foot there. Much of what his dad did was tax evasion for the uber rich - possibly involving dodgy but "legal" actions.

He cannot get tough on tax avoidance if he is "proud " of someone who does this.
I actually feel sorry for him in a sense- what is he meant to do - yes my Dad was a tax avoid shit and i want to come down hard on people like him [ and me] who benefitted from behaving like this.

He loves his dad, this may cost him , as some of what his dad did was morally dubious and it is politically suicidal to defend this - he does not seem to have learnt this lesson yet.

Whenever Cameron is in trouble he drags out a dead family member.

All this 'politics of envy' stuff - do you ever hear anyone slagging off James Dyson or JK Rowling for being rich and successful?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-billionaires-who-do-pay-their-bills-including-james-dyson-and-jk-rowling-7873607.html

So so far we have not established that Dave did anything wrong - yet

Despite the wild accusations made ^ we havent established that Dave's old man has done anything wrong yet

Can someone in the investment trust/bit trust industry help me out here - because I think that I have investments in mainstream funds run by household names that are/were also domiciled x-UK and I need to know if I am about to go to jail (or get abuse in social media) too! Don't want to get too hypocritical here....

Its bad enough wearing the shame of using google, amazon and buying coffee from Starbucks but if the likes of the mighty global investment houses are as bad, I am doomed.

So so far we have not established that Dave did anything wrong - yet

For an appropriate definition of "wrong".

well c'mon Dr - help me out

the mirror in an otherwise sensational article, concluded that no one had done anything wrong

the guardian makes the difference between Blairmore and the type of funds I invest in as being (1) minimum subscription and (2) original place of domicile Panama v Luxembourg and/or Ireland - but again cant pin anything down on being wrong - but (phew) their moral judgements against my low subscription, mainstream funds domiciled in Ireland are light, so I am not a wicked man like the Camerons or so it seems....

so why the angst and why is Dave being shifty? so far, hyperbole and froth aside, there is no reason that has been clearly articulated...and yet we have abuse and calls for resignation etc.

all very odd

Help you out?C'mon
Are you not reading the thread?

Is what he did[ or his dad] morally correct?

Its that simple a question

I am amazed you need this clarifying tbh and I wonder how many people need to say it for you to grasp this point.

Woody Allen did nothing wrong [legally] but I think many would be asking questions about his moral judgement - especially , were he PM,if he was espousing family values as dave is in tax transparency.
Its really not complicated.

Dave has apologised for the way 'he's handled the situation'.

Dave, we're not pissed off with you because we think you've handled this badly, we're pissed off with you because it looks a lot like you've been taking the piss out of tax loopholes that YOU'VE helped maintain/establish. All of this while telling us that we need to tighten our belts, and we're all in this together.

**nt.

(Of course no-one's done anything 'wrong', that's the point of a loophole)

I've been trying to explain to my South African partner what the difference is between breaking the law and "bad form" but I'm getting nowhere! 😉

a dead family member.

By paying more we would attract better quality people.

ahwiles - so why are the experts unable to highlight where Dave has done anything different to any other investor in a unit trust at the time and now - I am not sure on the now bit tbf and have been trying to find an explanantion, the experts cant give me one, the guardian ditto and the mirror said "nothing"

so still think there must be something else or alternatively a non-story other than Dave is rich and his father was even richer.

There has been an specific tax regime in place for offshore funds since, if I recall correctly, 1984. The method of charging is different to that of an onshore fund. This is not an avoidance code, it exists because a fair system of taxation was required for what was happening for a variety of reasons - abolition of exchange controls, etc. No loophole, no avoidance etc.

EDIT: Here is a link to the HMRC manual on the subject and it was 1984.

[url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ofmanual/ ]HMRC Manual[/url]

The something has been said by many, both before and after you asked it, to you but you just willfully choose to ignore it and make up the ludicrous straw man that its just because he is rich 🙄

Why are you on a chat forum if you are going to ignore the answers and just plow your lone furrow of fallacious arguing that defeat points no one made?

it looks a lot like you've been taking the piss out of tax loopholes that YOU'VE helped maintain/establish.

I can't see anything in the news reports to support this. He's paid income tax at his marginal rate (40% modulo normal dividend tax rates) on the income, and the capital gains were below the threshold. Which all sounds like the same as if the shares had been in a UK investment trust held outside an ISA. Is there something else?

EDIT: @JY, what's the something? Thanks.

Yes there is something else it has been mentioned on this page numerous times if you are struggling to work out the issue is- Again its not hard to see what the issue is even if you disagree with the reasoning.

Why are folk pretending they dont know what the issue is?
Odd "debating technique".

Perhap syou and THM can get together and wallow in your willful ennui ?

Let's just pretend for the moment that I just haven't read every post on this thread - what's the something that I'm supposed to know about?

Ta.

Lol, he wasn't even avoiding tax:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154110468338000&id=547512999

Lol, he wasn't even avoiding tax:

Whilst the conclusion is right, that bloke's reasoning isn't great.

Thanks mefty - I will have a read over coffee - I was hoping that you would be able to help

If I recall correctly the unit trusts that I have invested in are registred in places like Ireland and Luxembourg. I am hazy on the reasons but can only assume that this is also for tax reasons - the Guardian seemed to be suggesting that they are in EU therefore kosher but that seems to be a bit vague to me.

Like CMD I have invested in unit trusts (Fido, Blackrock, Schroders etc) and paid tax on the proceeds. What is the difference between this and what Dave has done - or should I also be hung out to dry too?

google is not your friend here - at least not so far

thx again mefty, need to wash up first, then will read over coffee

Let's just pretend for the moment that I just haven't read every post on this thread - what's the something that I'm supposed to know about?

Ta.

Its ok just read this page as THM asked the same question
All this page - not meant to appear shitty as it may well read that way
mt

Interesting this argument. From what I can see DC is finished cause he was economical with the actual situation (he may have more to be open about), he was doing something he felt was not quite right so he tried to keep quiet. That's a tad questionable. However he has not broken the law but he is now the target for all things dodgy around tax fiddling because of who he is.

ahwiles

Dave, we're not pissed off with you because we think you've handled this badly, we're pissed off with you because it looks a lot like you've been taking the piss out of tax loopholes that YOU'VE helped maintain/establish. All of this while telling us that we need to tighten our belts, and we're all in this together.
ME
Is what he did[ or his dad] morally correct?

Its that simple a question

What is the difference between this and what Dave has done - or should I also be hung out to dry too?

Are you the PM?
Are you presiding over a Campaign to remove the scourge of tax havens that blight us ?
Do you think the PM will be held to higher standard than you - he does why do you think he sold his shares?

Surely even you can see a difference between you as a private individual and our elected PM? though of course you dine with MPs more often than dave 😉

Its tragic watching you pretend you dont get it. At least defeat the argument being made - hell at least even try

Is what he did morally justifiable?

Its that complicated.

Radio 4 was a cracker:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03qdlwc

😀

Are you the PM?

Are you presiding over a Campaign to remove the scourge of tax havens that blight us ?

Surely even you can see a difference between you as a private individual and our elected PM?

So far, it looks like he's been doing that. And I'm not seeing any evidence that Cameron has tried to use elaborate schemes to avoid paying tax.

If I recall correctly the unit trusts that I have invested in are registred in places like Ireland and Luxembourg.

They are in the Ireland/Luxembourg so they can be marketed to retail investors in the EU, so it is partly a distribution reason, but they also don't pay any tax, however, you are unlikely to pay any tax in the UK on these sorts of funds - [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396400/UKTI_Asset_management_4pp_Insert_TAX.pdf ]see here for government summary[/url]. However, you have to manage it in the UK whereas in Ireland and Luxembourg it is much easier (and cheaper) because you know you wont have a liaibilty.

So far, it looks like he's been doing that. And I'm not seeing any evidence that Cameron has tried to use elaborate schemes to avoid paying tax.

Because there isn't one, he really has done nothing remotely wrong.

The fund is so dodgy that it can be included in an ISA.

Just don't look too closely into Honeywell's dealings.

(Or the extensive involvement of SG Hambros and their global offshore network)

Cheers mefty - interesting summary. So UK happy that funds pay no tax and have benefit from double tax treaties. So like ISAa there is an exemption that appears to have explicit approval and therefore that we can all take advantage of. Sounds like ISAs!!!

also tried the FT and they seem to be only able to come up with two issues - the complexity of the structure of BH and the issue of bearer shares. So the complexity issue leaves me with this lingering thought that there is something else, but bearer shares are simply something of the time. I was dealing with bearer certificates in bond markets in the 80s so again cant condemn anyone else on those grounds.

Hmmm.....perhaps the immorality is making things up to make ill-founded attacks on the living and the dead.

J8:7

also tried the FT and they seem to be only able to come up with two issues - the complexity of the structure of BH and the issue of bearer shares.

Not sure what the FT regards as complex, but if it is the fact that company was managed in Bahamas, that, whilst not commonplace, is hardly unusual. The normal reason was that the haven of choice (the Bahamas) had company law that would cause issues for an open ended fund that wanted to issue and retire shares. You therefore used a company from a jurisdiction whose company law suited you better, but managed it from where you would have chosen otherwise.

Bearer shares aren't nefarious per se but the Belgian dentists didn't want registered bonds.

EDIT: There has been quite alot of coverage of how Panama is not the cleanest of jurisdictions hence the wish to manage it in the Bahamas, which is obviously better because it is one of ours.

Hmmm.....perhaps the immorality is making things up to make ill-founded attacks on the living and the dead.

Yes, perhaps...

Anyhoo, back to [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell ]Honeywell[/url]

Honeywell is in the consortium that runs the Pantex Plant that assembles all of the nuclear bombs in the United States arsenal. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, successor to the defense products of AlliedSignal, operates the Kansas City Plant which produces and assembles 85 percent of the non-nuclear components of the bombs

Although declining in influence, Honeywell maintains a presence in emerging industries, such as Northern Alberta's oil sands. Honeywell's Plant integrator is currently deployed in some of the most important plant-sites in the Oil Sands (Syncrude, Suncor, and others).

The United States Environmental Protection Agency states that no corporation has been linked to a greater number of Superfund toxic waste sites than has Honeywell.

Could the Aerospace interests be anything to do with the Carroll Trust Allegations?

I think some people need to look at the usernames...there's a big clue as to who'll be able to deal with critical thinking and who won't...

As regards this bit:

Honeywell is in the consortium that runs the Pantex Plant that assembles all of the nuclear bombs in the United States arsenal. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, successor to the defense products of AlliedSignal, operates the Kansas City Plant which produces and assembles 85 percent of the non-nuclear components of the bombs

for some reason it brings to mind John Bredenkamp:

I've just seen that John Bredenkamp was a client of Mossack Fonseca:

Bredenkamp, on the firm’s books since 1997, had been described in 2002 by a United Nations expert panel as [b]“experienced in setting up clandestine companies and sanctions-busting operations.”[/b] In 2008, months before Mossack Fonseca cut ties, Bredenkamp was sanctioned by OFAC for allegedly being a “crony” of Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe and a “well-known Mugabe insider.”

Bredenkamp did not respond to requests for comment, but he has consistently denied allegations concerning him and his companies and has denied having supported President Mugabe. In 2012, Bredenkamp successfully overturned European Union sanctions against him and his companies.

One company, Tremalt Limited, purchased equipment for armies in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United Nations alleged. It took seven years before a Mossack Fonseca employee reported internally that an Internet search implicated a separate company the law firm said was owned by Bredenkamp [b]“in a series of allegations concerning arms deals.”[/b]

But who am I to question the morality of such activity...

[b]For years, the records show, Mossack Fonseca has earned money creating shell companies that have been used by suspected financiers of terrorists and war criminals in the Middle East; drug kings and queens from Mexico, Guatemala and Eastern Europe; nuclear weapons proliferators in Iran and North Korea, and arms dealers in southern Africa.[/b]

Reminds me of David Cameron's visit to South Africa in 1989 for some reason...

OK, can someone explain to me what the connection is between Honeywell and these Fonseca people?

I've got a Honeywell heating controller, could that be it?

Sure you can make a better guess than that...

So it is just all guessing then?

More interested JHJ on why this thread has link which calls it "JH and takes of the unexpected"?

More interested JHJ on why this thread has link which calls it "JH and takes of the unexpected"?

Not my doing~was the original title of the thread, until some apple polisher had a word with the mods... just look at the 1st post:

For those and point and laugh, how far off the mark is he?

] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35918844

kudos to mundiesmiester...

So it is just all guessing then?

Isn't that what hedge funds are about?

What about the increase in arms trade shares after the Paris Attacks... is that just moral investors, guessing there's going to be more government funds accrued from taxpayers spent on Weapons of Mass Destruction?

But anyway... any advances on the link between Honeywell and Mossack Fonseca?

So looks like the brexiters are the ones out for Cameron, even the guardian is going nicer on him than these guys

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

It gets less hysterical in the guardian

[img] [/img]

Any comments from Ed or Hillary on those headlines?

To put everyone out of their misery and stop clogging the thread...

OK, can someone explain to me what the connection is between Honeywell and these Fonseca people?

It is of course Blairmore Holdings...

Besides Honeywell, another of their top 10 investments is [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group ]AIG[/url]:

AIG was a central player in the financial crisis of 2008. It was bailed out by the federal government for $180 billion, and the government took control. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) of the US government concluded AIG failed primarily because it sold massive amounts of insurance without hedging its investment. Its enormous sales of credit default swaps were made without putting up initial collateral, setting aside capital reserves, or hedging its exposure — a profound failure in corporate governance, particularly its risk-management practices.

All legal of course, but what do you expect when many of the lawmakers stand to profit...

As my parents in law said today;

[i]We can't understand what the problem is, he had 30,000€ on which he paid tax. Our finance minister denied having a Swiss account then it was discovered he had one with 600,000€ on which he had never paid tax[/i]

JY I would not describe Cameron seniors business as being for the über rich - the über rich typically manage their own affairs with a dedicated staff - look up Family Office

@grumI've seen planty of critism of JK (Scottish referendum) and Mr Dyson (moving production out of uk) related to their wealth

Also a bit confused by unit trusts not taxable for holders comment above, income and cap gains are taxable

big_n_daft - Member
Any comments from Ed or Hillary on those headlines?

Nope, nor Borris, Osborne, Fox, Livingston, Hodge, Ri****d, Goldsmith,or any other MPs (probably most of em) with offshore tax minimising investments

This is all about the weakening Cameron b4 the referendum, for a while it actially seemed like the Tories wouldn't destroy themselves over this

This is all about the weakening Cameron b4 the referendum

Do you really think that an opposition party wouldn't go after a weakened PM?

Compared to the schoolboy comments from Cameron directed at Corbs during PMQs, I think labour have been quite restrained.

Millibands. TBH I have no idea how changing someone's will after their death is even remotely legal

Yes Kimbers I think it's correct they do I was just replying to you saying it was the Brexit crowd whipping this up

Cameron isn't going to gone in a year unless Leave wins. His likely replacements Osbourne/Boris are just as open to similar "offshore" nonsense so why replace Cameron quickly with another target. By 2020 GE this issue will be long forgotten, there will likely have been much more serious, ienreal issues to discuss by then

Man you guys are missing the point, they threw everything at milliband, including his kitchen sink (Mrs Gove hated his communist kitchen) and the attacks from the right were much more below the belt!
And it worked, he lost the election and is no longer leader, trying to defend Dave by saying Ed was worse really is why whataboutery !

Ed lost the election as he had no Charisma, looked weak under attack from Sturgeon and most of all as Labour had zero economic credibilty

Any comments from Ed or Hillary on those headlines?

Isn't that what hedge funds are about?

I agree, I doubt Dave will go either.

Its not like The Mail, Telegraph and Times are pounding on Dave because they follow labourers lead
They are just following the orders of their owners because Dave's pro EU, I can see no other reason, considering their usual partisan stance.
As I said the Observer is being nicer than any of those guys on the PM

Don't understand this muck racking on the £200k gift from his mother either, not taxable unless she dies within 7 years of making it (bizarre that law but thats what it is). Also from Guardian piece it seems Cameron elected to pay more in tax than he needed to by waiving certain allowances ?

He can be accused of PR mismanagement, but there's no evidence of fiddling his taxes.

If anything he's voluntarily paid too much tax (about £25k in total?). Probably not many people on STW have done that (I haven't).

Cameron left £300k sitting in a bank earning 1% - and people want these guys running more of the economy!?!?!?

How bizarre.....

I see that Cameron still hasn't released his tax return.

Compare and contrast
[url= https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9Ada-5cDpinOHRfOFdBRzRZd1E/view ]This[/url]

to

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515399/PM_Tax_Schedule_9_04_2016.pdf ]This[/url]

Last time I looked, like the shadow Chancellor I paid my taxes to HMRC, not a firm of accountants. So what? well, the accounts have professional standards, that they owe 'principally' to their clients, which in this case is the PM, who presumably has supplied them his tax return in order to extract the information...

One of the more interesting lines in the RNS breakdown is the suggestion that:

"The Prime Minister has no other sources of taxable income or gains, from either the UK or Overseas."

That's rather brave, they can't know that, they can only know what they've been told.

I don't think that they aren't the numbers on his tax return, but I can't help being uncomfortable about the route they made to the public.

TBH, HurtMore If I had £300k sitting routinely in a bank acct, and had said "We're all in it together" I don't think I could have kept a straight face. But then I'm not a politician like Cam.

Yeah but the whole thing has the overarching qualifier on the first page saying "as declared on your tax returns".

I'd be interested in hearing if Cameron's wife had only the same number of shares in Blairmore as Cameron did. NB that the notes only disclose the value that Cameron himself received yet both he and his wife sold shares.

Also, I'd imagine there will be a huge number of cyberattacks on that provincial accountancy firm in the next few days!

If you have an accountant do your tax return its not unusual to have them take care of everything in payment. They've issued that statement about all sources of income as that too is normal and iirc thats the question on the tax refurn

tmh Cameron sold all his shares etc when the became PM to avoid claims of conflict of interest, yes a buy-to-let would be much better financially but not worth the press hassles

I see Corbyn is releasing his tax returns, interesting as absolutely no one is interested or has asked - shows this is all politics. We are much more interested in why he deleted all the blog entries on his website or exactly who paid for his trip to Gaza for example (as an aside Mahmood Abbas's son has an account in Panama)

Legal avoidance so the issue should be about limiting it by law.

The PM issue for me is about how the attempt to provide a limited response to spin it away backfired. Can we have a law against political spin? At least a fine surely....

@ Jambalaya , that french minister , Cahuzac , had to quit and is facing court in september .

Cameron and co have been telling us for years that there is no money left in the coffers , and have cut services and payments to a lot of people . And at the same time they are doing all they can to pay less tax on their personal affairs .

And at the same time they are doing all they can to pay less tax on their personal affairs .

Too many facts spoil the wrath...
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154110468338000&id=547512999

I see that Cameron still hasn't released his tax return.

😆 Keep digging that dry well why don't you - the more shrill and ridiculous the attempts to find some sort of impropriety that isn't there and create mountains out of molehills, the more it turns the public off as clear posturing.

As Thatcher said: "If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn't swim."

Keep digging that dry well why don't you - the more shrill and ridiculous the attempts to find some sort of impropriety that isn't and create mountains out of molehills

I think you completely misunderstand what's going on. What you dismiss as molehills goes to the very heart of the issue, which is that the rich live by a completely different set of rules to the rest of society. It's not about 30k here, or 100k there, it's about naked hypocrisy, which is quite a simple concept that everyone understands, everyone except Cameron and his apologists that is.

Andrew Marr show had a good discussion. Poly Toynbee openly said it is not a story about illegality or tax avoidance but about "being that rich" she also said "Ireland is effectively a tax haven"

which is that the rich live by a completely different set of rules to the rest of society. It's not about 30k here, or 100k there, it's about naked hypocrisy, which is quite a simple concept that everyone understands,

Shock, Horror, Tories in 'looking after the rich' controversy!

Stop the presses, hold the front page - everyones going to be aghast at this revelation, and if people only known before the election that David Cameron turned out to have been quite well off and probably had some shares and savings then they would [b]never[/b] have voted for him

😆

Stop the presses, hold the front page - everyones going to be aghast at this revelation

Don't be ridiculous. Is your argument in his defence that the public shouldn't be concerned or angry about their PM exercising double standards because they should have always known that because he's a tory that he would be like that and they shouldn't have been so naive?

Cameron turned out to have been quite well off and probably had some shares and savings

see Corbyn is releasing his tax returns, interesting as absolutely no one is interested or has asked - shows this is all politics.

As you well know, the story is not about Cameron being rich and having some shares and savings, and you look quite silly suggesting it is.

The truth is that since there has been no illegality or even anything that would fall into the bracket of aggressive tax avoidance, it is about precisely that - even if others are trying to make something else out of it for political gain.