Two men

stickywicket Member Posts: 27,731
edited 14. Apr 2016, 03:22 in Community Chit-chat archive
Two men, both very prominent figures, received disturbing news about their late fathers this week.

I personally love the openness, equanimity and graciousness with which the Archbishop of Canterbury co-operated with the Daily Telegraph's findings and accepted the news that his genetic father was not his mother's late husband who had always believed the child to be his.

In contrast were the trickle of denials and half-truths emanating from the prime minister regarding his late father's dealings with the disgraced Mossack Fonseca. It brought back memories of all those Bill Clinton denials:

“I did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.”
“I did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.”
“I did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.”
“I did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.”
“I did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.”

And finally:

“I did have sex with Monica Lewinsky.”
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you.
Steven Wright


  • barbara12
    barbara12 Member Posts: 21,281
    edited 30. Nov -1, 00:00
    Brilliant SW...did you notice that the prime minister was calling father dad..just to sound more down to earth... :roll:
  • Slosh
    Slosh Member Posts: 3,194
    edited 30. Nov -1, 00:00
    The whole Panama Papers/DC thing reminds me of a line from an old song.

    "The rich get rich and the poor pay taxes"

    The Archbishop has acted honestly and in being open has effectively "killed" the story that the journalists were probably getting ready to write. An excellent example.
    He did not say you will not be storm tossed, you will not be sore distressed, you will not be work weary. He said you will not be overcome.
    Julian of Norwich
  • daffy2
    daffy2 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited 30. Nov -1, 00:00
    I agree that it's the prevarication that's caused the problems. There is no reason why DC should be held to account for what his father did(assuming he didn't advise it or set it up) but it is reasonable, as I see it, that Cameron Jnr should make it clear whether he's directly/personally/actively benefiting from what may be a questionable money management set-up. I suspect that part of the problem is that since tax avoidance(as opposed to evasion) is not illegal, he may not have seen reason to elaborate or make public the details of his connection with his late father's tax affairs.
    Given that in the public mind avoidance(which isn't a very good choice of word anyway) and evasion have become synonymous, it's possibly time to look for an alternative term which better describes what is, after all, a not an unreasonable wish - to minimise the amount of hard earned dosh one has to hand over to authority to mismanage.
  • Airwave!
    Airwave! Member Posts: 2,468
    edited 30. Nov -1, 00:00
    I can't see what the fuss is all about, we have a tax ststem in place that the government put there and has been used by one of its members.

    It was Dave Cameron that started talking about the morality of the system and fell over his own shoelaces.

    If all tax were public then we wouldn't have a problem.