mjw Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 You are the first person to mention 'what about labour' He didn't even mention Scottish MPs. Can you point me to Michelle Thomsons name on the panama list? That is what this thread is about,yes? Eta Never mind I've just read your other two posts this morning . Your obviously a WUM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 You are the first person to mention 'what about labour' He didn't even mention Scottish MPs. Can you point me to Michelle Thomsons name on the panama list? That is what this thread is about,yes? Eta Never mind I've just read your other two posts this morning . Your obviously a WUM. I think big eck shagged sarkys ma and wiped his knob on his pillow his hatred for the eeessssnnnppeeee is so strong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 You imply that, by merely being Scottish, Scottish politicians are good, honest, moral people. The actions of the independent MP Michelle Thomson would suggest otherwise. I'm implying that an independent Scotland would have a chance to wash it's hands of centuries of establishment reliance on forelock tugging serfdom. I'm certainly not naive enough to think we'd be some sort of bastion of purity, but wouldn't it be nice to have at least a go at getting ridding of the vile corrupt edifice that is Westminster and replacing it with something that works for 99% of he population instead of the 1%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 I'm implying that an independent Scotland would have a chance to wash it's hands of centuries of establishment reliance on forelock tugging serfdom. I'm certainly not naive enough to think we'd be some sort of bastion of purity, but wouldn't it be nice to have at least a go at getting ridding of the vile corrupt edifice that is Westminster and replacing it with something that works for 99% of he population instead of the 1%? Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 It's amazing how such a tedious know-it-all seems to revel in ignorance in such a selective manner when the answer is a short google away. Directly from the UK Parliament web site: I suspect income deriving from overseas tax avoidance schemes falls squarely into that category. However, I'm sure you'll come up with some boring, semantic, weasel-worded excuse about how this does not apply in this instance. A minor shareholding in a hedge fund would not influence the actions or words of an MP. It's no different from investing in a pension fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 A minor shareholding in a hedge fund would not influence the actions or words of an MP. It's no different from investing in a pension fund. Yes it is different. He did not invest in the fund. He invested in the owner of the fund. This would be equivalent to holding shares in Aviva not investing in one of their pension funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob the tank Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 I'm implying that an independent Scotland would have a chance to wash it's hands of centuries of establishment reliance on forelock tugging serfdom. I'm certainly not naive enough to think we'd be some sort of bastion of purity, but wouldn't it be nice to have at least a go at getting ridding of the vile corrupt edifice that is Westminster and replacing it with something that works for 99% of he population instead of the 1%? Good post Monster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Eta Never mind I've just read your other two posts this morning . Your obviously a WUM. He's not a WUM. He's a broken Labour drone reduced to dismal trolling. The seethe post-election will be quite glorious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 You are the first person to mention 'what about labour' He didn't even mention Scottish MPs. Can you point me to Michelle Thomsons name on the panama list? That is what this thread is about,yes? Eta Never mind I've just read your other two posts this morning . Your obviously a WUM. well, monster brought up Scottish independence and linked it to the Panama cases. So dont blame me if this previous thread goes off topic. All threads on here end up about Scottish independence/ SNP anyway, I don't know why your getting so flustered about this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 All threads on here end up about Scottish independence/ SNP anyway,And if they don't, you will make sure they do.I think you are worrying about the wrong one getting flustered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 A minor shareholding in a hedge fund would not influence the actions or words of an MP. It's no different from investing in a pension fund. You're views on what is and is not acceptable behaviour for an MP were made very clear during the Carmichael debacle. It's fair to say your views on such matters differ significantly from the majority of posters on here. Thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 You're views on what is and is not acceptable behaviour for an MP were made very clear during the Carmichael debacle. It's fair to say your views on such matters differ significantly from the majority of posters on here. Thankfully. Except of course I said Carmichael's behaviour was unacceptable, you sanctimonious old toad. I disagreed with whether a wrong committed in one capacity made him unfit to continue to function in another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Yes it is different. He did not invest in the fund. He invested in the owner of the fund. This would be equivalent to holding shares in Aviva not investing in one of their pension funds. Except it's a distinction without a difference. If everyone knows that almost all pension funds "benefit from" investing in hedge funds engaging in tax minimisation strategies, and they choose to invest in them anyway, they are making the same "ethical" choice as anyone choosing directly to invest in those hedge funds. Otherwise you're saying that people aren't responsible for the corporate structure decisions of other people, in which case Cameron has, wait for it, done nothing wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Except it's a distinction without a difference. If everyone knows that almost all pension funds "benefit from" investing in hedge funds engaging in tax minimisation strategies, and they choose to invest in them anyway, they are making the same "ethical" choice as anyone choosing directly to invest in those hedge funds. Otherwise you're saying that people aren't responsible for the corporate structure decisions of other people, in which case Cameron has, wait for it, done nothing wrong!No there is a difference. Do you have a pension? Can you see what day to day decisions are taken by the pension trustees or investment managers. The two situations are in no way comparable. That you are wrong here is just another example of your convoluted logic trying to fit a position that is clearly incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 No there is a difference. Do you have a pension? Can you see what day to day decisions are taken by the pension trustees or investment managers. The two situations are in no way comparable. That you are wrong here is just another example of your convoluted logic trying to fit a position that is clearly incorrect. If you own a <1% stake in a BVI distributor fund can you "see what day to day decisions are taken by the trustees or investment managers?" Answers on a postcard. It appears you think some kinds of ignorance are morally reprehensible but others are hunky dory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 If you own a <1% stake in a BVI distributor fund can you "see what day to day decisions are taken by the trustees or investment managers?" Answers on a postcard. It appears you think some kinds of ignorance are morally reprehensible but others are hunky dory. You have no idea what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob the tank Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 You have no idea what you are talking about. Libby is an embryonic diplomat, therefore he must be correct, always..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Good post MonsterApart from it being utter shite.No political structure is immune from shysters. And no political structure is inherently superior at preventing their existence. When it comes to money these sort of people exist at every point in time, under every political system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Apart from it being utter shite. No political structure is immune from shysters. And no political structure is inherently superior at preventing their existence. When it comes to money these sort of people exist at every point in time, under every political system. "ach well, back under the rock we go. We know our place.....sir."What a defeatist, melancholic, forelock tugging disaster of a post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 "ach well, back under the rock we go. We know our place.....sir." What a defeatist, melancholic, forelock tugging disaster of a post. It's not defeatist to say it's not clever for Stephen Hawking to try to beat Amir Khan at boxing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.