UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

That guy is an donkey-cave. Make a complaint.

**Herzlos**

Unconfirmed reports of May agreeing to £53bn exit costs, better than I was expecting and hopefully now we can move on to the important stuff.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

My fellow dakka members are no doubt aware of the Paradise Papers revelations.

But it looks like even dear old Queen Lizzie is up to her neck in tax dodging and evasion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41876942

It takes years to build a reputation, seconds to lose it, as the saying goes.

Most of the world's tax havens are British overseas territories. Now we know why they've been reluctant to act.

**Mr Morden**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My fellow dakka members are no doubt aware of the Paradise Papers revelations.

But it looks like even dear old Queen Lizzie is up to her neck in tax dodging and evasion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41876942

It takes years to build a reputation, seconds to lose it, as the saying goes.

Most of the world's tax havens are British overseas territories. Now we know why they've been reluctant to act.

As far as I am aware the Queen does not have to pay tax?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Mr Morden wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My fellow dakka members are no doubt aware of the Paradise Papers revelations.

But it looks like even dear old Queen Lizzie is up to her neck in tax dodging and evasion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41876942

It takes years to build a reputation, seconds to lose it, as the saying goes.

Most of the world's tax havens are British overseas territories. Now we know why they've been reluctant to act.

As far as I am aware the Queen does not have to pay tax?

I may be wrong, but I think that since the days of George V, the monarch has always paid a token amount to show solidarity with the nation, even though they don't have too. George V started it because it was obviously WW1 and we needed every penny.

Plus, Queen Elizabeth's involvement seems to concern dodgy investments, and seeing as she receives a large wad of cash from the British taxpayer every year, questions need to be asked...

I could be wrong, but I'm sure I heard that somewhere.

**Inquisitor Gideon**

She does and she doesn't: "The Queen is not legally required to pay tax, however she has voluntarily been paying income tax and capital gains tax since 1992."

**Jadenim**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My fellow dakka members are no doubt aware of the Paradise Papers revelations.

But it looks like even dear old Queen Lizzie is up to her neck in tax dodging and evasion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41876942

It takes years to build a reputation, seconds to lose it, as the saying goes.

Most of the world's tax havens are British overseas territories. Now we know why they've been reluctant to act.

As far as I am aware the Queen does not have to pay tax?

I may be wrong, but I think that since the days of George V, the monarch has always paid a token amount to show solidarity with the nation, even though they don't have too. George V started it because it was obviously WW1 and we needed every penny.

Plus, Queen Elizabeth's involvement seems to concern dodgy investments, and seeing as she receives a large wad of cash from the British taxpayer every year, questions need to be asked...

I could be wrong, but I'm sure I heard that somewhere.

From what I read this was from her private earnings (i.e. revenue from the business activities of the royal estates), not part of the government funding to the monarchy and also sounds like this was investments made by the fund managers as part of a portfolio (i.e. no-one in the royal household instructed them to invest this way, they just placed the money with an investment firm with a "diversified" portfolio, some of which ended up here). A tad embarrassing, but not a major scandal IMHO, particularly when the amounts are pretty small in relation to her overall earnings and this type of investment is legal, even if unpopular.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Jadenim wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My fellow dakka members are no doubt aware of the Paradise Papers revelations.

But it looks like even dear old Queen Lizzie is up to her neck in tax dodging and evasion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41876942

It takes years to build a reputation, seconds to lose it, as the saying goes.

Most of the world's tax havens are British overseas territories. Now we know why they've been reluctant to act.

As far as I am aware the Queen does not have to pay tax?

I may be wrong, but I think that since the days of George V, the monarch has always paid a token amount to show solidarity with the nation, even though they don't have too. George V started it because it was obviously WW1 and we needed every penny.

Plus, Queen Elizabeth's involvement seems to concern dodgy investments, and seeing as she receives a large wad of cash from the British taxpayer every year, questions need to be asked...

I could be wrong, but I'm sure I heard that somewhere.

From what I read this was from her private earnings (i.e. revenue from the business activities of the royal estates), not part of the government funding to the monarchy and also sounds like this was investments made by the fund managers as part of a portfolio (i.e. no-one in the royal household instructed them to invest this way, they just placed the money with an investment firm with a "diversified" portfolio, some of which ended up here). A tad embarrassing, but not a major scandal IMHO, particularly when the amounts are pretty small in relation to her overall earnings and this type of investment is legal, even if unpopular.

People forget that the Queen's 'private earnings' have been built on centuries of grabbing wealth, land, and power from the British people.

I always find it amusing when people talk about the Queen's 'hard work' and 'devotion to duty.'

It's the least she can do after being handed a life of wealth and privilege since birth.

**Kilkrazy**

Since she is doing that least, maybe you could accept the point and move on.

There are far more interesting revelations about people connected to a certain US president -- not to be discussed here, of course! -- and Lord Ashcroft.

**AlmightyWalrus**

You realize you're leaving yourself wide open for the argument that the same is true of Britain vis-a-vis much of the world by using that argument, yes?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You realize you're leaving yourself wide open for the argument that the same is true of Britain vis-a-vis much of the world by using that argument, yes?

Yes, I'm aware of the irony, but what happened in 1717 is history. The Queen, in 2017, which is now, is still taking our tax money, and the only rational for this is that she emerged from a particular vagina when she was born.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Since she is doing that least, maybe you could accept the point and move on.

There are far more interesting revelations about people connected to a certain US president -- not to be discussed here, of course! -- and Lord Ashcroft.

This is 2017, not 117. It's a mockery and an affront to our democracy that we still have this charade of an unelected head of state.

But yes, you're right about a certain US president, which is also a disgrace, but no surprise. The American people can fix their own problems, it's Britain that concerns me.

**reds8n**

Tax avoidance is one thing; spending money saved to influence policies that will affect people who don't avoid tax seems quite another.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en

On 28 January 2016 the Commission presented its proposal for an Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive as part of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package. On 20 June 2016 the Council adopted the Directive (EU) 2016/1164 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market.
In order to provide for a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures the Commission presented its proposalSearch for available translations of the preceding link••• on 25th October 2016, to complement the existing rule on hybrid mismatches. The rule on hybrid mismatches aims to prevent companies from exploiting national mismatches to avoid taxation.

In addition to the proposal the Commission also published its Staff Working DocumentSearch for available translations of the preceding link•••.

The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive contains five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning.

Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.

It creates a minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment for businesses.

https://www.ft.com/content/eef9846a-c0bf-11e7-9836-b25f8adaa111?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

Supply chains across Britain and the EU appear to be splitting apart, with companies betting that trade barriers will materialise after Brexit.

In a survey of more than 1,000 supply chain managers across the UK and continental Europe, the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply found that a fifth of UK companies involved in supply chains have struggled to secure contracts that run after March 2019.

Some 63 per cent of EU27 supply chain managers who work with UK suppliers said they expected to move some of their supply chain out of Britain as a result of Brexit and 40 per cent of UK companies said they are looking to replace their EU suppliers. McLaren, the advanced automotive group, is one company that has already announced such a move.

Splitting existing supply chains on both sides of the channel is likely to raise costs and reduce efficiency and will be particularly important in complicated manufacturing sectors such as the automotive sector.

The survey will add to pressure on the UK to quickly secure a deal on a transition period after Brexit, to give companies visibility about the future.

Philip Hammond, chancellor, has called a transition deal a “wasting asset” because as time passes, companies will have put their contingency plans into operation.

The Cips said that the number of EU27 companies seeking to avoid UK suppliers had increased from 44 per cent in May and reflected the deadlock in Brexit negotiations which led them to worry that free and frictionless trade after 2019 would disappear.

Gerry Walsh, the chief executive of Cips, said: “The Brexit negotiating teams promise that progress will be made soon, but it is already too late for scores of businesses who look like they will be deserted by their European partners”.

“The success of the negotiations should not be measured on the final deal only but on how quickly both sides can provide certainty. The clock is ticking.”

The survey found that more than a third of companies said they were unable to prepare for Brexit because of uncertainty over the future trading relationship between the two sides. Only 14 per cent of UK companies with EU suppliers felt they were sufficiently prepared for Brexit.

Any significant change in the economic geography of the UK economy and its supply chains is likely to require adjustments that will take time and slow the economy, the Bank of England has said, because it will involve some redundancies of plant and equipment until new opportunities arise.

**Whirlwind**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Is this what British politics has come to? Outrage over people being compared to biscuits on a comedy show?

Come on, keep up, these incidents were said years ago. But I'll refresh the topic. This all starts with HH repeating a joke about Jewish on a politics show. Here she claimed that such jokes were deemed funny in decades past and claimed that Andrew Neil had found such jokes funny in the past (not necessarily this specific one). HH argument was that offensive things said in jest in the past that were deemed OK but there were people out there that found them offensive (regardless of whether the people saying them or laughing at them were only doing it out of having some entertainment) but in the end is a type of 'soft' racism. The argument really moved on from whether it was acceptable to repeat the joke to more whether AN has actually ever used soft racist jokes in the past. Which he has in the relative recent past (after a few minutes searching), one making a joke about comparing something to Nigerian email scammers (not all Nigerians are email scammers) and the second referencing a colour of biscuits to two individuals (Diane Abbott to chocolate hob nob, and Portillo to a custard cream) - it's not appropriate to identify someone by their skin colour. Both have race or colour undertones. And there were people that were offended about these statements (and on public record saying so).

In effect then this is exactly what HH was saying, AN used a joke with embedded 'soft' racism (although no intent was there to cause harm) it did cause offence. The difference today is that people are more willing to speak up. Hence HH is correct in saying that AN would have found jokes like these funny in the past as he has used them. However what happened on here is that they effectively 'don't really count' because they were just 'jokes' at the expense of the news and some individuals. There is no difference then to what some (and probably most given the times) would have said 20-30 years ago when referring to the earlier joke HH stated. In 20 years when we look back and go 'well that was because it was OK then' effectively results in us just repeating the same mistakes and some acting in denial as to the offense these things can cause to some groups of people (even if the person saying them didn't actually mean anything 'hurtful'). Hence HH was correct then and there are examples in the public eye where AN has joked about such issues.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

This is 2017, not 117. It's a mockery and an affront to our democracy that we still have this charade of an unelected head of state.

Of course to point out as well that there are some in government that want us to become a tax haven once (of if) we leave the EU.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-chancellor-philip-hammond-welt-am-sonntag-uk-tax-haven-europe-a7527961.html

Of course that will mean the populace as whole will be shafted whilst the rich get wealthier. Of course we could stay in the EU, at least they are trying to do something about tie up tax loop holes. Of course UK regions in this case legislated to try and get around it. But then I'm confused I thought all our laws were controlled by the EU?

**Ketara**

Edit:- This is a ludicrous line of argument to be pursuing, so I'm actually going to erase my last comment and leave it there. Suffice to say Whirlwind, I think you and I have some exceptionally fundamental disagreements about the definition of the word 'racism'.

Meanwhile, with regards to the Queen, she doesn't manage her portfolio, someone else does it for her. So I'm not too fagged that a few million of her estate was squirrelled away somewhere abroad in a shell company. It's more the fatalistic 'Oh, if we change the tax rules to curb evasion, the evaders will just find another way around it' mentality I keep reading from government and commentators that annoys me. By that sort of pathetic logic, we should never even try to tax rich people at all.

If they move their money to evade tax, identify the bolthole and chase it. Make a half hour timeslot in Parliament for passing legislation which closes these avenues four times a year if necessary. We're literally losing billions and billions of pounds here, I don't think a lack of time/manpower and a vague sense of fatalism should be impeding the state on this. Set up a sub-division of the Treasury to chase it if necessary, I'm sure we'll easily recoup whatever we pay out in wages and several billion besides.

**GoatboyBeta**

When the upper levels of successive governments of all stripes are full of people who are members of/married to/best mates with the 1% its no surprise that these tax "loopholes" are left open.

**nfe**

So our chief diplomat is cheerfully blundering British nationals into longer Iranian prison sentences.

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/new-boris-johnson-blunder-risks-extra-jail-term-for-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-as-may-faces-priti-patel-israel-row_uk_5a00a989e4b0baea2633cc12

**GoatboyBeta**

nfe wrote:
So our chief diplomat is cheerfully blundering British nationals into longer Iranian prison sentences.

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/new-boris-johnson-blunder-risks-extra-jail-term-for-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-as-may-faces-priti-patel-israel-row_uk_5a00a989e4b0baea2633cc12

As bad as May is, stories like this put me in the very uncomfortable position of being thankful for the existence of Michael gove

**Herzlos**

nfe wrote:
So our chief diplomat is cheerfully blundering British nationals into longer Iranian prison sentences.

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/new-boris-johnson-blunder-risks-extra-jail-term-for-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-as-may-faces-priti-patel-israel-row_uk_5a00a989e4b0baea2633cc12

I wonder if she has any sort of grounds to sue Johnson, or whether there are any criminal charges involved in making false statements which result in people getting extended prison sentences.

I'd really hope he'd be doing his job and trying to get Iran to release her anyway, especially since apparently she hasn't even been told what her crime was yet.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
nfe wrote:
So our chief diplomat is cheerfully blundering British nationals into longer Iranian prison sentences.

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/new-boris-johnson-blunder-risks-extra-jail-term-for-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-as-may-faces-priti-patel-israel-row_uk_5a00a989e4b0baea2633cc12

I wonder if she has any sort of grounds to sue Johnson, or whether there are any criminal charges involved in making false statements which result in people getting extended prison sentences.

I'd really hope he'd be doing his job and trying to get Iran to release her anyway, especially since apparently she hasn't even been told what her crime was yet.

Um...how can see sue Bojo if she's languishing in a foreign jail, and let's not forget that Anglo-Iran relations are not exactly friendly these days, if they ever were.

But yeah, Bojo is a complete buffoon with his loose talk.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
nfe wrote:
So our chief diplomat is cheerfully blundering British nationals into longer Iranian prison sentences.

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/new-boris-johnson-blunder-risks-extra-jail-term-for-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-as-may-faces-priti-patel-israel-row_uk_5a00a989e4b0baea2633cc12

As bad as May is, stories like this put me in the very uncomfortable position of being thankful for the existence of Michael gove

As much as I despise Gove (and believe me I loathe the man) he did his country a great service by stabbing Bojo in the back.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:
So our chief diplomat is cheerfully blundering British nationals into longer Iranian prison sentences.

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/new-boris-johnson-blunder-risks-extra-jail-term-for-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-as-may-faces-priti-patel-israel-row_uk_5a00a989e4b0baea2633cc12

Utter buffoon of a man!

**malamis**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You realize you're leaving yourself wide open for the argument that the same is true of Britain vis-a-vis much of the world by using that argument, yes?

Yes, I'm aware of the irony, but what happened in 1717 is history. The Queen, in 2017, which is now, is still taking our tax money, and the only rational for this is that she emerged from a particular vagina when she was born.

And has, by virtue of being born, surrendered the right to accumulate any more wealth than the government gives her through the accumulation of estates:
[youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
[/youtube]

Royal estates generate revenue directly to the government, and the government in turn, pays Da Kween something close to 1/5th of the revenue generated there-by. As such, even stripping out the touristy benefits, the royal family generates more money than they cost.

Effectively, we have a royal family on welfare because their assets in the 1700s were confiscated to pay bankruptcy debts. I can't help but wonder if this had some effect on King George mk 3 's decisions Re:America, and if they hadn't been put on welfare, the colonies would still be colonial.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
Edit:- This is a ludicrous line of argument to be pursuing, so I'm actually going to erase my last comment and leave it there. Suffice to say Whirlwind, I think you and I have some exceptionally fundamental disagreements about the definition of the word 'racism'.

Meanwhile, with regards to the Queen, she doesn't manage her portfolio, someone else does it for her. So I'm not too fagged that a few million of her estate was squirrelled away somewhere abroad in a shell company. It's more the fatalistic 'Oh, if we change the tax rules to curb evasion, the evaders will just find another way around it' mentality I keep reading from government and commentators that annoys me. By that sort of pathetic logic, we should never even try to tax rich people at all.

If they move their money to evade tax, identify the bolthole and chase it. Make a half hour timeslot in Parliament for passing legislation which closes these avenues four times a year if necessary. We're literally losing billions and billions of pounds here, I don't think a lack of time/manpower and a vague sense of fatalism should be impeding the state on this. Set up a sub-division of the Treasury to chase it if necessary, I'm sure we'll easily recoup whatever we pay out in wages and several billion besides.

Yeah, for sure, the Queen doesn't manage her portfolio, but ultimately, the buck stops with her. She may not know where every penny is going, but it's her duty to ask where her money goes and why it went there.

My avatar wasn't responsible for making sure that every individual Tommy in his army group had enough ammo for the battles, that was the NCOs and the junior officers' job, but it was damn well Monty's job to make sure enough ammo arrived in the first place!

The Queen is in a similar position.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

malamis wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You realize you're leaving yourself wide open for the argument that the same is true of Britain vis-a-vis much of the world by using that argument, yes?

Yes, I'm aware of the irony, but what happened in 1717 is history. The Queen, in 2017, which is now, is still taking our tax money, and the only rational for this is that she emerged from a particular vagina when she was born.

And has, by virtue of being born, surrendered the right to accumulate any more wealth than the government gives her through the accumulation of estates:
[youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
[/youtube]

Royal estates generate revenue directly to the government, and the government in turn, pays Da Kween something close to 1/5th of the revenue generated there-by. As such, even stripping out the touristy benefits, the royal family generates more money than they cost.

Effectively, we have a royal family on welfare because their assets in the 1700s were confiscated to pay bankruptcy debts. I can't help but wonder if this had some effect on King George mk 3 's decisions Re:America, and if they hadn't been put on welfare, the colonies would still be colonial.

The Queen's not exactly on £80 a week dole money though, is she!

She's still raking in vast sums of loot, often in the millions!

**malamis**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Queen's not exactly on £80 a week dole money though, is she!

She's on the dole for rich people!

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Yeah, for sure, the Queen doesn't manage her portfolio, but ultimately, the buck stops with her. She may not know where every penny is going, but it's her duty to ask where her money goes and why it went there.

Should she also check that every food item entering the palace was make in a clean environment where all workers rights are satisfied? That none of the paint bought for the palace is lead free? That every staff member are getting breaks on time? That the PAT testing has been done for every appliance?

No. She has delegates she trusts to do that management (same as Monty and ammo). Sure, she's entitled to ask for a breakdown of her investments, but she's also perfectly entitlted to leave the details to her investment managers. There may even be a few levels of indirection, like her manager has invested some money in a 50/50 fund or a FTSE100 or something, of which that fund has some offshoring.

As already pointed out, none of this seems to be illegal, and HRH isn't under any actual obligation to pay tax anyway, so can't really be accused of tax evasion.

**Skullhammer**

And of course the queen is a vitural 'prisioner' as her every move out side of her residence is strictly controlled and monitored. Hell she would have to ask permission to go to the coner shop (if she ever did). She is under vertual house arrest and has been scince birth, i wouldnt like the lack of freedom, even if payed a fortune.

**Herzlos**

Exactly, the Queen has absolutely minimal freedom - she's accompanies everywhere, most of her calendar is pre-determined by political gak, and her every action as well as that of her entire family, is reported by the press. She can't just pop into Mcdonalds, or go on holiday, or go to the bingo. She's well looked after, but you're right about the virtual house arrest.

I always wondered if she was likely to go out in disguise, or get someone to smuggle her in big macs or kebabs. After all that posh dining I'd be desperate for some junk food.

I sure as feth wouldn't want to be any of the Royal family, no matter how much they made. I quite enjoy being able to make a fool of myself without anyone caring

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Queen's not exactly on £80 a week dole money though, is she!

She's still raking in vast sums of loot, often in the millions!

But still only 20% of that her estate generates. Her estates pay more tax (as a percentage) than (I assume) any other UK entity. No-one else is giving 80% of their profits to the state.

I really cannot grasp how you regard the Queens finances as a bad thing. Should she be forced to live in 1-bed council house and live off of beans on toast?

**reds8n**

Most peoples' calendars are determined by their work.

Difference being if I decide to skive off I get sacked.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/anti-money-laundering-paradise-papers-leak-2017-11

The UK minister formerly in charge of anti-money laundering has been named in the Paradise Papers leak

The man formerly in charge of anti-money laundering has been named in the so-called "Paradise Papers" leak of documents stolen from an offshore law firm.
Lord Sassoon served as President of the UK's Financial Action Task Force between 2007 and 2008, which combats money laundering and terrorist financing.
Sassoon was one beneficiary of a family trust worth millions and registered to an offshore secrecy jurisdiction. He says the UK tax authorities were aware of this, and he has not benefited from the trust in years.

LONDON — The man formerly in charge of anti-money laundering in the UK has been named in the Paradise Papers leak as a beneficiary of an offshore trust.

According to documents found in the International Consortium of Journalists' (ICIJ) Paradise Papers database, James Meyers Sassoon, who served as President of the UK's Financial Action Task Force between 2007 and 2008, is the beneficiary of a Cayman Island trust fund called DCR Herschorn Settlement.

On Sunday, more than 13 million documents that detail the complex financial arrangements of some of the world's richest individuals were leaked. The documents, dubbed the "Paradise Papers," were stolen from offshore law firm Appleby in a cyber attack last year, and shared with the ICIJ.

As President of the Task Force, Sassoon was in charge of combating money laundering and terrorist financing. He has also been a defender of legal tax avoidance (as opposed to illegal evasion), having said in 2010 that minimizing tax payments "is perfectly reasonable."

Sassoon, now a member of the House of Lords, was also the Treasury commercial secretary from 2010 to 2013, and was responsible for overseeing economic productivity and industrial strategy.

The fund was established by Sassoon's grandmother several decades ago, and originally operated under Bahamian law, (the Bahamas are also considered an offshore secrecy jurisdiction). Documents show the trust owns Orchard Limited, an investment holding company registered in the Bahamas, which held $124 million in 2002, according to financial statements. By 2007 it was holding $236 million, and the same year distributed $8 million to beneficiaries, records show.

By 2002, the trust had employed "Big Four" accountancy firm Deloitte to advise it on tax matters.

In 2008, documents show, a fax from Sassoon's father to an Appleby administrator showed Deloitte warned that UK taxpayers could be liable for UK taxes on more than $14 million of the funds if they were withdrawn.

Sassoon told the ICIJ the trust fund had been established by his grandmother 60 years ago for multiple family beneficiaries, including non-UK residents. He said it also included non-UK assets not liable for UK taxes. Given this, and that the trust had been established offshore to begin with, Sassoon told the ICIJ there was "no question of assets having been 'moved offshore.'"

He said UK tax authorities were aware of the settlement and its management company. "Where UK domiciled individuals have received any benefit from the settlement, that has been disclosed in the normal way and any tax due has been paid," Sassoon told the ICIJ.

"I have not received any benefit from the trust for more than 25 years." He also said he had disclosed his potential interest in the trust when he joined the Treasury in 2002.

Appleby has denied allegations of wrongdoing, and said it does not tolerate "illegal behaviour."

uh huh.

Iran there using the Foreign Sec's own words.

... I figure May can't even sack him, her position isn't strong enough.

May's spokesman tells me the PM didn't know about Priti Patel's meeting with the Israeli PM until Friday, three months after it took place.

can't sack her either then ?

May currently has a foreign secretary and an international development secretary conducting an independent foreign policy.

**Kilkrazy**

The problem is not illegal behaviour, it is that the authorities have allowed this kind of behaviour (e.g. Lewis Hamilton's VAT refund for his private jet) to be legal.

**nfe**

Boris indignantly refusing to apologise and, to boot, has just claimed in parliament that his words have nothing to do with what is happening to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

**Ketara**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem is not illegal behaviour, it is that the authorities have allowed this kind of behaviour (e.g. Lewis Hamilton's VAT refund for his private jet) to be legal.

Aye. You see one statement repeated over and over with every fresh revelation from people's spokesmen. Namely 'Everything is perfectly legal'. Which is, in and of itself, the problem. It's legal for the richest people not to pay any tax.

**Kilkrazy**

Yes indeed. My head was spinning by the end of the explanatin of Lewis Hamilton's jet.

His company in the British Virgin Isles bought it then leased it to his company somewhere else. This second company then leased it to a third company which provides his servicing and crew. Hamilton then rented it back at an inflated rate. In end, Hamilton was able to land it in the Isle of Man, claim £3.5 million refund of VAT, and fly all around Europe and the rest of the world.

I don't understand what the IoM got out of all this, and I don't understand why all of us ordinary people can't form similar Human Caterpillars of companies and lease our own houes, cars and clothes to each other to save the VAT.

Maybe we can? Maybe we should start doing that and watch the country spin down the plughole under the lack of taxes.

Isn't it traditional at this point for someone to point out that the top 10% pay more tax than the bottom 50% or something?