Jump to content


Pandora Papers ! .

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Tony said:

What makes it attractive is that we have a very stable property market and the government isn't in the habit of appropriating other people's property to satisfy political whims. Very few countries are in that position so when people make some cash they put it into tangible and realisable assets which hold and increase their value over time. They might not be sexy investments making huge returns, but they are secure. 

 

Just look at the nations in the list; Russia, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Ukraine, Qatar. If you lived in one of those countries where would you put your money to keep it safe, at home or in London real estate? 

That’s not how the National Crime Agency see things. They seem convinced that the London property market is being used as a washing machine for dirty money. A practice that affects most of us in some way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Tony said:

Just look at the nations in the list; Russia, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Ukraine, Qatar. If you lived in one of those countries where would you put your money the money you stole to keep it safe, at home or in London real estate? 

FTFY. It does help to ask the right question.

 

You're welcome.

Edited by Carbuncle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sibon said:

That’s not how the National Crime Agency see things. They seem convinced that the London property market is being used as a washing machine for dirty money. A practice that affects most of us in some way or another.

If you look at measure of corruption compared by country, we are between 12th-15th. Which isnt good, but not too bad either.

I do believe things have got a lot worse under Johnson.

 

https://www.worlddata.info/corruption.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Go cry to your moral police force.... oh yeah there isn't one.  Go pursue action in your moral court of laws... oh yeah you can't can you.

 

Someone saying they think something is illegal behaviour is irrelevant Anna. It needs to be proven in a court of law. You can't just go around and declare "everyone knows it happens" as if it's beyond debate. You need to prove something.  What happens?  What behaviour?  What fraud? What specifically is the illegal activity? What specific evidence do you have beyond reasonable doubt they have broken the law?

 

Being vastly wealthy is not automatically a crime. Rich people having access to services that poor people don't is not default punishable. Having the means to shop around, utilise advantageous jurisdictions and follow up perfectly legal advice from your hired accountants is acceptable and available for anyone who has any sort of asset big or small.

 

As I say earlier, every single one of us take some advantage over another. How many shop around, exploit nations with lower costs, look for any loopholes, take advantage of any tax or duty reduction, pay into share schemes or pension arrangements, gift out asset to family members, take cash in hand jobs, invest in the wonderful grey area of cryptocurrency......... The ONLY  difference between the man on the bus and the billionaire is the amounts of money.

 

The moral principle is exactly the same.

 

It is clear that the politics of envy and jealousy are a big part of all this.   Lower earners it's somehow deemed acceptable practice but as soon as someone gets over a certain amount in the bank suddenly they are thrust into the public profile, morally shamed exceedingly subjected to  trial by media regardless of any wrongdoing.

 

Now dont get me wrong.  I am not saying that every single person exposed in these papers is innocent. I am sure like most things there will be some genuine criminals.  But what I am disturbed by is this absolute blanket approach of being thrown around all over the media when not a single shred of evidence has yet been mentioned of illegal activity let alone any actual charges. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Seemingly if you are high-profile you don't have such rights.

And why do you think that is? As I said corruption starts at the top and trickles its way down through society affecting everyone, and before you know it we have a totally corrupt society because no one can afford not to be corrupt if they want to keep up.

As for 'innocent until proved guilty' this does not apply to the super rich, they are above the law. As Peter Osborne said on last night's Panorama "We are suffering from the purchase of our political system by the super rich." They are clearly in charge, and they make their own rules.

The middle paragraph is utter nonsense. As another poster says you do not get to be super rich by playing by the rules and corruption and dodgy dealing plays a big part in amassing this sort of wealth. 'Low earners' however are jumped on from a great height for minor infringements and mistakes. If you don't realise that you need to get out more and mix with ordinary people.

You even have to ask in a later post, are money laundering and Bribery illegal...? YES of course they are! Other daft statements like 'we have a stable housing market' etc are just totally misinformed. We have a housing market which is rigged to climb ever upwards until an almighty crash in which the rich just gather their profits and walk away unlike the poor sap at the bottom with a huge mortgage and family to keep. The government may not appropriate property, but banks and landlords certainly do. We have a population in which the young can't even get on the property ladder and probably never will.  

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, sibon said:

That’s not how the National Crime Agency see things. They seem convinced that the London property market is being used as a washing machine for dirty money. A practice that affects most of us in some way or another.

Indeed, but that wasn't your question; "Particularly, what is it about U.K. property that attracts so many of the super richand I referred to dictators earlier so didn't feel the need to keep repeating the same point in another question. 

 

Criminals do crimes, dictators steal from their countrymen. No surprises there. Even criminals and despots  like to keep their money safe.

 

Every lawyer in the UK has to answer to money laundering regulations and they are legally obliged to check on the identity of their clients and be satisfied that funds and transactions are not criminal.  These are the facts. Systems fail. Criminals mislead their lawyers and some layers are criminals- are we supposed to be surprised by any of this?

 

I'm only surprised that some people seem to be surprised, but I'm not surprised that some people can't offer an alternative that doesn't involve unicorns or state ownership of everything nice.

9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

And why do you think that is? As I said corruption starts at the top and trickles its way down through society affecting everyone, and before you know it we have a totally corrupt society because no one can afford not to be corrupt if they want to keep up.

As for 'innocent until proved guilty' this does not apply to the super rich, they are above the law. As Peter Osborne said on last night's Panorama "We are suffering from the purchase of our political system by the super rich." They are clearly in charge, and they make their own rules.

The middle paragraph is utter nonsense. As another poster says you do not get to be super rich by playing by the rules and corruption and dodgy dealing plays a big part in amassing this sort of wealth. 'Low earners' however are jumped on from a great height for minor infringements and mistakes. If you don't realise that you need to get out more and mix with ordinary people.

You even have to ask in a later post, are money laundering and Bribery illegal...? YES of course they are! Other daft statements like 'we have a stable housing market' etc are just totally misinformed. We have a housing market which is rigged to climb ever upwards until an almighty crash in which the rich just gather their profits and walk away unlike the poor sap at the bottom with a huge mortgage and family to keep. The government may not appropriate property, but banks and landlords certainly do. We have a population in which the young can't even get on the property ladder and probably never will.  

This is utterly misinformed and incoherent Anna.  It's tinfoilhattery. 

Edited by Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tony said:

Indeed, but that wasn't your question; "Particularly, what is it about U.K. property that attracts so many of the super richand I referred to dictators earlier so didn't feel the need to keep repeating the same point in another question. 

 

Criminals do crimes, dictators steal from their countrymen. No surprises there. Even criminals and despots  like to keep their money safe.

 

Every lawyer in the UK has to answer to money laundering regulations and they are legally obliged to check on the identity of their clients and be satisfied that funds and transactions are not criminal.  These are the facts. Systems fail. Criminals mislead their lawyers and some layers are criminals- are we supposed to be surprised by any of this?

 

I'm only surprised that some people seem to be surprised, but I'm not surprised that some people can't offer an alternative 

Yes, but when criminals do crimes and evidence emerges, maybe we should all take notice.

 

Additionally , when criminals do crimes and seemingly try to buy silence with quasi-legal “gifts”. Maybe we should all be a bit more curious. 
 

No need for state ownership of assets, just some straightforward honesty. I’m not sure we are seeing that from our leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sibon said:

Yes, but when criminals do crimes and evidence emerges, maybe we should all take notice.

 

Additionally , when criminals do crimes and seemingly try to buy silence with quasi-legal “gifts”. Maybe we should all be a bit more curious. 
 

No need for state ownership of assets, just some straightforward honesty. I’m not sure we are seeing that from our leaders.

So back to the so-called Pandora Papers and the original question, do these revelations reveal any law breaking? If so, what? 

 

Tony Blair buying a Cayman Island(?) company isn't breaking any law that I can tell no matter how much it might rankle with some people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anna B said:

And why do you think that is? As I said corruption starts at the top and trickles its way down through society affecting everyone, and before you know it we have a totally corrupt society because no one can afford not to be corrupt if they want to keep up.

As for 'innocent until proved guilty' this does not apply to the super rich, they are above the law. As Peter Osborne said on last night's Panorama "We are suffering from the purchase of our political system by the super rich." They are clearly in charge, and they make their own rules.

The middle paragraph is utter nonsense. As another poster says you do not get to be super rich by playing by the rules and corruption and dodgy dealing plays a big part in amassing this sort of wealth. 'Low earners' however are jumped on from a great height for minor infringements and mistakes. If you don't realise that you need to get out more and mix with ordinary people.

You even have to ask in a later post, are money laundering and ..... illegal? YES they are. Other daft statements like 'we have a stable housing market' etc are just totally misinformed. We have a housing market which is rigged to climb ever upwards until an almighty crash in which the rich just gather their profits and walk away unlike the poor sap at the bottom with a huge mortgage and family to keep. We have a population in which the young can't even get on the property ladder and probably never will.  

Just who actually do you think I live with, socialise with and work with everyday.

 

My god you really do have a high opinion of yourself as the voice of the supposedly "real ordinary working people". Whatever the hell that's supposed to be. 

 

I work and live very much in the real world thank you.  I deal hands-on with the legalities and factors which fall out from these issues. I have first-hand experience of both those lower-income less fortunate people that you describe together with monied corporate environments over my career.

 

Its made me pretty immune from deluded fantasies about how things are or how things should be in their opinion using childish soundbites or pointless campaigns about things they find morally distasteful but are perfectly legal activities. I don't buy into hysteria like no young people can never buy houses or all rich people are corrupt money launderers because it's complete nonsense.

 

Preach all you want about morals but the law is all that matters. The law can be interpreted in many ways across many jurisdictions. It is complicated and voluminous and for the ordinary man in the street very difficult for them to understand. That lack of any understanding comes up all the time in  situations like this where a little information comes out, the Press manipulates and cherry picks to sell their stories and suddenly everyone is a expert.   Then comes the shaming, finger pointing, throwing around uncorroborated accusations, demanding punishments and redress and churning out some deluded rose tinted nostalgia about how it was all so much better back in the days when everyone was equal and sharing and caring without all this greed and money and power..... blah blah  

 

This is not a new story. Those who are conducting illegal activities as proven and sufficiently charged will be punished just like they have done in the past and will do in the future. (Don't try and make out that heads of corporations or Forbes list individuals have never actually gone to trial or been imprisoned. It certainly does happen and a quick look on the internet shows it).   On the flip side, irrelevant of how moral someone thinks it is, if the activities engaged are perfectly legal then quite rightly nothing will be done.   Simple as that.

 

"I think you are morally wrong by doing X"  means naff all, except if a company choose to "do the right thing" for a  commercial or PR advantage.  In those circumstances, the extra money is nothing more than a little bit of marketing expenditure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tony said:

So back to the so-called Pandora Papers and the original question, do these revelations reveal any law breaking? If so, what? 

 

Tony Blair buying a Cayman Island(?) company isn't breaking any law that I can tell no matter how much it might rankle with some people. 

Its breaking trust with all Labour supporters who never dreamed that he and his mrs would become the greedy sods that they have , there sole aim is to acquire as much wealth as possible and if the Pandora case is proved this is at the expense of the very people he and her pretend to affiliate with .

It is the very thing that George Orwell wrote about in his novel Animal Farm , unfortunately it applies to most if not all so called Labour MP's . 

No party now fully represents the working and poor of this Country and those in power will make dam sure that one never comes to the fore .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cuttsie well put. There's none so fast as a socialist when it comes to pulling up the ladder behind them. 

 

@ECCOnoob is on a roll too 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that these two need to up their game if they want to access the government. £225 just doesn’t hack it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/05/windrush-activists-disgusted-after-being-turned-away-at-tory-conference?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Maybe a couple of Russian “businessmen” could help them out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Panama papers lead to the removal of the leaders of Pakistan and Iceland so these leaks may not be without consequence.

 

A list of prominent individuals named in the Pandora papers appears at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_in_the_Pandora_Papers#cite_note-:8-7 . The most prominent British names appear to be the Blairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.