Post by Soutpeel on Apr 9, 2016 6:19:59 GMT 7
David Cameron hasn't benefited from his father's offshore trust?
Perhaps he got through Eton on a paper round ?
Attachment Deleted
Anyone with compassion reading this week’s tax avoidance story must feel immensely sorry for David Cameron.
The Prime Minister claimed yesterday morning that he had not benefited from any money that his father may have saved through offshore tax accounts. No inheritance for the young David? His dad must have been a right bastard. Perhaps Ian Cameron – who amassed his fortune of £10m, some of it through placing his money in the Bahamas to reduce his tax bill – didn’t spend a penny on his son. The Prime Minister must have put himself through Eton on a really big paper round.
It’s no wonder that he insists the country must be careful with money, after he spent his youth pleading, “Dad, can I have 80 pence for my bus fare to the Bullingdon Club ball where we squirt cat sick at midgets?” and was told “No you bloody well can’t. If you want your own money, set up a trust in the Virgin Isles.”
You can tell how embarrassed the Prime Minister is about his dad’s behaviour, because he said his dad’s finances were a “private matter”. After all, his dad was a private man; so private, that is, he even kept his finances private from the British tax office.
The Prime Minister was quite clear at first that he had not, and will not “in the future”, benefit from any offshore trusts. And that, after all, is a much fairer way of assessing behaviour than the old-fashioned method our legal system is based on, which concerns itself solely with the past.
With this approach, a defendant could reply to the question “Did you break through a wall and rob Hatton Garden?” by saying “Look, I’ve been through this several times and let’s be absolutely clear, I stand to gain nothing from robbing any jewellery stores in the future.” And off they’d go.
It’s touching to see our Prime Minister defend his father, even after admitting he had, in fact, benefited from his income. Hopefully if Jeremy Corbyn asks him any questions about him, Cameron will reply: “I’ll tell you what my father would have said – ‘do your tie up, sing the National Anthem, and spirit millions of quid away in the Bahamas so none of it gets taken and used for frivolities like treating cancer’.”
You can’t blame anyone for the actions of their parents, and that must be why the Daily Mail, as a sensitive family newspaper, isn’t making a big fuss about this issue. It’s true they declared Ed Miliband’s dad was “The man who hated Britain” - but that was a matter of national security, as he’d fought for Britain in the war, proving he was prepared to take up arms which could have proved lethal if he came back to life and then became a Jihadist. But Cameron had simply tried to help out our overworked tax clerks, by leaving them with small numbers to add up rather than big complicated ones that can take all day.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-cameron-wont-benefit-from-his-fathers-offshore-trust-perhaps-he-got-through-eton-on-a-paper-round-a6973161.html
Perhaps he got through Eton on a paper round ?
Attachment Deleted
Anyone with compassion reading this week’s tax avoidance story must feel immensely sorry for David Cameron.
The Prime Minister claimed yesterday morning that he had not benefited from any money that his father may have saved through offshore tax accounts. No inheritance for the young David? His dad must have been a right bastard. Perhaps Ian Cameron – who amassed his fortune of £10m, some of it through placing his money in the Bahamas to reduce his tax bill – didn’t spend a penny on his son. The Prime Minister must have put himself through Eton on a really big paper round.
It’s no wonder that he insists the country must be careful with money, after he spent his youth pleading, “Dad, can I have 80 pence for my bus fare to the Bullingdon Club ball where we squirt cat sick at midgets?” and was told “No you bloody well can’t. If you want your own money, set up a trust in the Virgin Isles.”
You can tell how embarrassed the Prime Minister is about his dad’s behaviour, because he said his dad’s finances were a “private matter”. After all, his dad was a private man; so private, that is, he even kept his finances private from the British tax office.
The Prime Minister was quite clear at first that he had not, and will not “in the future”, benefit from any offshore trusts. And that, after all, is a much fairer way of assessing behaviour than the old-fashioned method our legal system is based on, which concerns itself solely with the past.
With this approach, a defendant could reply to the question “Did you break through a wall and rob Hatton Garden?” by saying “Look, I’ve been through this several times and let’s be absolutely clear, I stand to gain nothing from robbing any jewellery stores in the future.” And off they’d go.
It’s touching to see our Prime Minister defend his father, even after admitting he had, in fact, benefited from his income. Hopefully if Jeremy Corbyn asks him any questions about him, Cameron will reply: “I’ll tell you what my father would have said – ‘do your tie up, sing the National Anthem, and spirit millions of quid away in the Bahamas so none of it gets taken and used for frivolities like treating cancer’.”
You can’t blame anyone for the actions of their parents, and that must be why the Daily Mail, as a sensitive family newspaper, isn’t making a big fuss about this issue. It’s true they declared Ed Miliband’s dad was “The man who hated Britain” - but that was a matter of national security, as he’d fought for Britain in the war, proving he was prepared to take up arms which could have proved lethal if he came back to life and then became a Jihadist. But Cameron had simply tried to help out our overworked tax clerks, by leaving them with small numbers to add up rather than big complicated ones that can take all day.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-cameron-wont-benefit-from-his-fathers-offshore-trust-perhaps-he-got-through-eton-on-a-paper-round-a6973161.html
