The BBC’s reaction to a survey that reveals what Muslims believe has, rather than to investigate and discuss, been to ridicule, mock and undermine the results of the C4 survey……the findings of which could neatly be summarised by this cartoon….

They are quite explosive and incendiary, unpleasant reading for the BBC.

Here is the  BBC’s frontpage reaction to Trevor Phillips’ survey…

All a big joke then.  The BBC really doesn’t like the findings of the poll because they are very disturbing and demand a very difficult debate on what the solution is.

‘The BBC is wrong. Many Muslims have sympathy with the Charlie Hebdo killings. Far too many.’

The BBC of course famously misled the public about the results of its own survey on Muslim opinion and when C4′ Dispatches programme revealed explicitly what was going on inside some mosques the BBC completely ignored that and instead spent the same week attacking Jade Goody on C4’s Big Brother programme for her use of the word ‘Poppadom’ when referring to an Asian contestant she was having an argument with….so never mind the blood curdling threats against the West being propagated inside some British mosques…the BBC is more interested in a playground spat….and quite happy for Jade Goody to be called ‘thick, white trash’ on  BBC programmes by an Asian.

The BBC is still peddling its own survey as an honest and reliable piece of work whilst trying to trash everyone elses…

A  survey commissioned by the BBC in February 2015 found that 93% of Muslims living in Britain believed they should follow British laws. In the same survey, 27% said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

Ironically that followed this attack on the Sun in the same article…

This isn’t the first time a survey about British Muslim’s opinions has stirred up controversy on social media. In December 2015 the Sun newspaper published the headline “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”, triggering a huge backlash on Twitter. Its reporting of the results was later deemed “significantly misleading” by the Independent Press Standards Organisation following a slew of complaints.

The Sun was quite right, in fact they underplayed the numbers of potential terrorist sympathisers as you can see from the BBC’s own comment above…27% of Muslims had sympathy with the Charlie Hebdo killers…so that’ll be 1 in 4 not 1 in 5.

Look at how the BBC explained away the Sun’s results…

The Sun’s figures came from research carried out by polling company Survation, which conducted phone interviews with 1,000 British Muslims after the recent attacks in Paris. One of the questions was: Which of the following statements is closest to your view?

• I have a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria.
• I have some sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria.
• I have no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria.
• Don’t know.

The BBC said this…

The word “jihadis”, which is used in the headline, does not appear in the question. This might be significant because not everyone who travels to Syria is necessarily going to fight for the so-called Islamic State or other militant Islamist groups – some could be going to join rebel groups opposed to IS.

That’s semantics crossbred with a lie….the poll did not mention Jihadis but in every question asked about those going to join fighters in Syria.  We know they all go to the Islamist groups, and ‘rebel groups opposed to IS’ that they would join are Al Qaeda based such as Al Nusra.  The BBC is desperately twisting the narrative and goes pathetically further in its attempt to attack the Sun saying….

When people answered the question, 4% said they had a lot of sympathy and 14% said they had some sympathy – a total of 19%, which is the figure the Sun used.

But the word “sympathy” is ambiguous and using it casts doubt on the result, says Manchester University’s Maria Sobolewska, an expert on polling minority groups.

In the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the first two definitions of the word are:

• Feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune.
• Understanding between people; common feeling.

“Did [the respondents] simply mean that they felt the situation for Muslims is very hard around the world, with a lot of wars and conflict, and perhaps prejudice in Western Europe, and therefore, this particular person feels some sympathy with how desperation may lead some young people to terrorism?” asks Sobolewska. “Is it just an emotional understanding? Or is it actually weak or tacit support of terrorism? I really think making that leap in to the second conclusion is taking it a bit too far.”

So terrorism is in fact due to the poor little lambs being discriminated against, we just don’t know what the Muslims thought the word ‘sympathy’ meant.

The BBC excusing and sympathising itself with Muslim terrorists.

Remember this video from the Balkans from Sky News?…the video the BBC doesn’t really want you to see…the video that tells of the atrocities carried out by Muslims in Bosnia and the fact that many of the Muslim radicals stayed behind to propagate their Jihadist narrative….

Der Spiegel is reporting that those Jihadists have successfully been spreading their ideology and instilling a hatred of the West amongst the Muslims in Bosnia……

Sharia Villages: Bosnia’s Islamic State Problem

Bosnia, says the American Balkan expert and former NSA employee John Schindler, “is considered something of a ‘safehouse’ for radicals,” and now harbors a stable terrorist infrastructure. It is one that is not strictly hierarchical and is thus considered “off-message” within IS, but it nonetheless represents an existential threat to the fragmented republic.

It increasingly looks as though a new sanctuary for IS fighters, planners and recruiters has been established right in the middle of Europe. In some remote villages, the black flag of IS is flown and, as a share of the population, more fighters from Bosnia-Herzegovina have joined IS than from any other country in Europe, except for Belgium.

Most recently, 64 illegal Muslim communities suspected of radicalism have been counted. Since March 1, security forces are empowered to take action against the renegades. Otherwise, chaos could ensue, warns Bakir Izetbegovic, the Bosniak member of the tripartite presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

If Trevor Phillips is right it is something we should take a great deal of note of as Muslim ghettoes, mini-Pakistans, are taking root around the UK with many Muslims living completely separate lives and looking out at the rest of us with dislike and disdain….

Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bakeoff winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah….we now know that just isn’t how it is.

Phillips is wrong….the only people who think that people like Nadiya as she represents herself on the show in public are the real face of Islam are the misguided and cowardly politicians and the BBC who set the show up to ensure Nadiya had a good chance of winning….so that we’d think how wonderful and nice Muslims are…look they bake cakes, so like us.

Phillips tells us of his survey…

What it reveals is the unacknowledged creation of a nation within a nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future….Britain is nurturing communities with a complete set of alternate values.

Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it.  They won’t….they really don’t want to adopt much of our decadent way of life.

He tells us that Muslims like the advantages that Britain brings to them but ‘many are not as enthusiastic about their non-Muslim compatriots.’  Well go to somewhere where they can be with like-minded souls then….such as ISIS.

Phillips says that..

Many of our elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth [See the BBC’s reaction to Phillips’ survey….they really don’t want to know the truth]

He states that the solution is not going to be easy if possible at all…

Integrating Muslims will probably be the hardest task of all.  It will mean abandoning the milk-and-water multiculturalism still so beloved of many, and adopting a far more muscular approach to integration….deciding how to confront their thinking where it collides with our fundamental values.

Perhaps shutting Islamic faith schools, madrassas, even some Mosques, and cutting off the flood of Jihadi money from the Gulf states that fund the Islamic propaganda that encourages Muslims to rise up and look on themselves as very different and superior to their host nation would be a start….and how about the Koran being taught not by Muslim preachers but by non-Muslim teachers who have a secular outlook so that the young Muslims get a more rounded and enlightened view of life than provided by a strict Islamic education based upon the Koran.

The truth is too many Muslims will not ‘integrate’ and more and more do want to live their lives entirely governed by Islamic strictures without having to bother with the laws and social mores of Britain….they want to set up mini Pakistans, mini Islamic republics that will spread and spread as the Muslim population grows and the politicians, authorities, schools, the media and businesses all cower before them…scared both of being accused of Islamophobia and of a violent reaction if they don’t comply with the Muslim community’s demands.   This will only, and inevitably, lead to conflict as people see their country being Islamised and taken over and themselves being forced to become virtual  ‘Muslims’ as they are pressured to adopt practises that don’t ‘offend’ Muslims…no more pork, no alcohol, no short skirts, wear head scarves, no eating at Ramadan in case you upset a hungry Muslim and so on.

Eventually people will stop hiding their thoughts and start saying out loud what they think…that they are sick of Muslim intimidation, Muslim threats, Muslim blackmail, Muslim demands, sick of Muslim intolerance and oppressive attempts to force everyone else to comply with their values, sick of being told by the likes of the BBC that they must love Islam or else be marked as racist or Islamophobic if they don’t despite all the evidence pointing to the fact that Islam is a deeply unpleasant and backward ideology that will return Europe to the Dark Ages.

Boris Johnson might agree……

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?

The BBC knows all this and instead prefers to bury its head in the sand hoping it will all turn out alright in the end but knowing it won’t. The BBC has the pathetic hope that it can prevent a showdown by silencing the voices who raise awkward questions…questions that demand awkward answers that will inevitably lead to a solution that is unpleasant but the only one possible if Muslims continue to attack the host nation not only with actual violence but by usng the media, using the law, using emotional blackmail, playing the ‘race card’…they know the threat of young Muslims being radicalised if people don’t allow Muslims to do what they like is an effective means of getting their own way.

Muslim commnity leaders and agitprop merchants know all too well the truth of this….

‘One lesson well understood in both Stalin’s Russia and Nazi Germany was that propaganda is most effective when it is backed by terror.’

They may not plant the bombs or threaten violence themselves but they are quick to capitalise on it and demand special treatment for the Muslim community in order to ‘prevent radicalisation’….in other words the answer to Muslim radicals threatening to blow us up if we don’t allow them to practise Islam fully regardless of British law is to ….have more Islam.  So the radicals get what they want anyway.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn knew how things go……

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

Are so many Muslims the innocent victims of the radicals or do many have sympathy with them?  Similar claims of total innocence were made about the Germans after WWII…which the Guardian’s Madeleine Bunting rubbished…..

‘He acknowledged he was a “son of the German people” … “but not guilty on that account”; he then launched into a highly controversial claim that a “ring of criminals” were responsible for nazism and that the German people were as much their victims as anyone else. This is an argument that has long been discredited in Germany as utterly inadequate in explaining how millions supported the Nazis.’

Are the Jihadists just a tiny group of Muslims who in fact are not Muslim but are peddling a perverted interpretation of Islam…or is the truth more uncomfortable for some to hear?  Do they have far more support than the BBC wishes to acknowledge?

Isn’t it odd how the BBC refuses to investigate the accusations made against London mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan who has close ties to extremist Muslims?  Only yesterday the Home secretary said he wasn’t fit to be Mayor due to his Islamist links….did the BBC report that?  No…

Sadiq Khan ‘isn’t fit to be Mayor of London because of his links to extremists’, declares Theresa May as a string of senior Tories turn up heat on Labour candidate 

This is a story that has been going on for a long time now…and yet the BBC has totally ignored it…clearly they are so desperate for a Labour London Mayor that they are prepared to ignore his extremely dodgy friends…not to mention his own comments….such as politicising the police to make them defend Muslims in particular.

Sadiq Khan, another Lutfur Rahman, only on a much bigger scale?  The BBC ignored him too for a long, long time.

The BBC would rather spend weeks chasing Cameron for being posh than expose Islamists in our midst.

The BBC has reported Dave’s comment on the BBC’s guilty secrets but hasn’t bothered to mention the fellow travellers nor curiously and unusually has it provided any video of the moment limiting itself to saying this…

He said a number of public sector organisations, including trade unions and the BBC, had similar investment arrangements, describing them as a “standard practice and not designed to avoid tax”.

Couldn’t very well avoid mentioning itself but where’s the Mirror and the Guardian and the Right Honourable Corbyn’s Republic of Islington?  Why no mention of the gang?

However the BBC is happy to provide us with chapter and verse of Labour’s accusations…

Responding for Labour in the House of Commons, Mr Corbyn said the prime minister had failed to give a “full account of his involvement in tax havens until this week or take essential action to clean up the system”.

“The UK is at the heart of the global tax avoidance industry,” he said. “It is a national scandal and it has to stop”.

The prime minister released a summary of earnings and tax going back six years after being accused by Labour of misleading the public over money he had invested in his father Ian Cameron’s company, Blairmore Holdings.

Labour is continuing to press him to publish his full tax returns dating back to before he became prime minister and are questioning why the original investment was not disclosed in the register of MPs’ interests.

No exploration of any of that by the BBC which just accepts Labour accusations as credible….just how did Britian become so enamoured with Tax Havens?  Perhaps Gordon Brown could answer that one…if he was asked.  And just why did Cameron not disclose his investment (of £12,000) in Blairmore?  Maybe the BBC, instead of slinging mud in the hope that some sticks, could do some digging….or just pop along to Guido who will happily enlighten them and save them the effort of doing some journalism…

Why Didn’t Cameron Declare Blairmore in 2009 Register of Interests

What about the attack line Labour MPs are clamouring around, that Dave did not declare his Blairmore shares in his 2009 Register of Members Interests? MPs are not required to declare shareholdings in unit trusts, holdings below £70,000 or 15% of a partnership.

So yes, we do know exactly why Cameron didn’t disclose the shareholding, because he didn’t have to, but the BBC aren’t bothered about fact checking Labour’s accusation, they are just happy to keep on slinging that mud on Labour’s behalf.

And while we’re at Guido’s why not have a look at this…

BBC’s £84 Million in Bermuda

Cameron’s taxes and the Panama Papers have led the BBC News bulletins for the past week, yet licence fee payers remain unenlightened about Auntie’s own offshore financial arrangements. What better place to start than the 2013 BBC Pensions report, which lists investments held by the Beeb’s £9 billion employee benefit scheme. Scroll down to page 16 and it is disclosed that the BBC used investment managers Nephila Capital Ltd to invest £84 million:

Nephila Capital is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nephila Holdings Limited and is a Bermuda domiciled company.

And on the subject of BBC pension funds, which we’ve already looked at…just compare the BBC’s top 100 investments with the Guardian’s list of 100 FTSE companies that use tax havens…spot the similarity?

Research has found that the UK’s biggest public companies have more than 8,000 subsidiaries or joint ventures in tax havens – but which businesses have the most?

Will Lord Hall Hall be answering questions in the House any time soon?  I should think he would given how his impartial news organisation has conducted a political witch-hunt against Cameron whilst all the time being ‘guilty’ of the same, apparently immoral, actions.

The BBC tells us that…

Tata Steel has sold its Long Products Europe business, including its Scunthorpe plant, to investment firm Greybull Capital for a token £1 or €1.

The move will safeguard more than 4,000 jobs, but workers are being asked to accept a pay cut and less generous pension arrangements.

Greybull said it was arranging a £400m investment package as part of the deal.

Is that the Greybull that the Guardian described as ‘controversial’ last year?…

A former bankrupt who later built a consultancy business and went on to appear on Channel 4’s The Secret Millionaire is to acquire Morrisons’ struggling portfolio of convenience stores, backed by a controversial buyout firm.

Greybull was one of the co-investors, alongside OpCapita, in the electrical retailer Comet, which collapsed in 2012. The deal was controversial as the backers protected their investments partly by structuring their purchase using secured loans, rather than injecting the cash as equity, prompting the then coalition government to order an investigation into the chain’s demise. The report has yet to be published.

A Greybull partner, Nathaniel Meyohas, refused to reveal if his firm’s latest investment took the form of a loan. He said: “We are structuring the deal in the standard format that you would expect us to having taken proper advice from tax advisers and lawyers.”

New documents filed at Companies House show that the company acquiring the M Local stores is owned by another UK firm, which is in turn owned by an offshore company based in Jersey.

So just how is Greybull Capital funding its takeover of the steel plants?  I’m sure it is after ‘ having taken proper advice from tax advisers and lawyers.” 

Has it ever had, has it now, or will it in the future have funds channelled through offshore accounts?  These questions need to be answered….wouldn’t it be awful and terribly immoral if all those jobs were saved by ‘dirty’ money?

On time and awaiting your contributions! This is where you detail BBC bias!

From the ICIJ:

The Council of the European Union issued a statement May 14 calling for efforts at the national, EU and international levels “to combat tax fraud and tax evasion” and “aggressive tax planning.” The statement noted that the council’s presidency plans to ask ICIJ to supply EU member states “with the names and details regarding all EU citizens on the ‘offshore leaks’ list.”

ICIJ has said that it will not turn over the data to government agencies, but that it is exploring the possibility of publicly releasing some entity ownership data.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the BBC and the Guardian have been on a bit of a moral crusade, or so it seems.  They have launched into David Cameron for having written to the EU to propose further discussions on disclosures regarding Trusts.  Apparently only he, in secret, opposed, or tried to water down the proposals.  But that’s not true as I point out below.  Many countries, such as Germany, opposed public disclosure of trust information, as did the EU Council itself.  Why no mention of that in the BBC reports as they target Cameron?  The BBC mention Cameron’s letter as if this was a secret ploy by him personally to undermine tax evasion legislation when in fact it was merely the very public evidence of the government position which everyone knew anyway……it had after all been discussed in Parliament and the House of Lords…many Labour Lord’s taking part and the LibDem Lord Newby, the Treasury spokeman in the Lords, defending the government position (see below for more on this).

The reporting, the mis-reporting of this, has been devastingly effective in manipulating public perceptions about Cameron personally and has been instrumental in whipping up a public storm of discontent…but is in fact based upon lies and misinformation which the BBC has helped propagate.  The protests outside Downing street were organised by a pro-Labour, pro-Corbyn, activist who says she was motivated by Cameron’s letter to the EU…

She clearly does not have any idea about what was really going on but has managed to catch the headlines and create yet more bad publicity for Cameron based upon a story that is total nonsense….as others have noted…

Ironically her latest tweet is this article on political journalism…an Australian article but it looks like journos are the same the world over…..maybe it’s talking about the BBC’s Jon Donnison……

Why Political Coverage is Broken

How often the Australian press reframes politics as entertainment, seizing on trivial episodes that amuse or titillate and then blowing them up until they start to seem important.

 In politics, our journalists believe, it is better to be savvy than it is to be honest or correct on the facts. It’s better to be savvy than it is to be just, good, fair, decent, strictly lawful, civilized, sincere, thoughtful or humane.  Savviness is what journalists admire in others. Savvy is what they themselves dearly wish to be.

On that note…..who has genuinely been blocking investigations into tax avoidance and criminality?  Who has been refusing to hand over information that would enable governments to tackle such issues?  Step forward the ICIJ, the BBC and the Guardian.

What are their motives for reporting on tax evasion?  Is it to bring into the open a potential area of criminality and tax abuse, is it a politically motivated targeting of those in government they do not like, or is it merely the journalistic imperative to get a scoop, to reveal an ‘exclusive’ and if possible bring down a politician?  Are they looking for a big political scalp?  Iceland’s PM has gone…..who are they after next?

You be the judge….this is what the ICIJ said about a similar ‘bombshell’ disclosure of information in 2014….

Why we are not turning over the offshore files to government agencies

One of the many reactions from our series on offshore tax havens has been government agencies from Germany, Greece, South Korea, Canada and the U.S. asking for access to the 2.5 million files that form the basis of our reporting.

We are declining to do so.

The long-standing policy of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and our parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity, is not to turn over such material.

The ICIJ is not an arm of law enforcement and is not an agent of the government. We are an independent reporting organization, served by and serving our members, the global investigative journalism community and the public.

Once we have finished publishing a planned series of stories over a two-week period, our attention will turn to countries where we still have investigative work to do. A number of other media organizations have reached out to us offering help and support, and we welcome these new offers of collaboration.

If there are more stories to find, we want to find them.

It does rather look like they are more interested in getting a major story than in ‘tax justice’.  The latest leaked documents, the Panama Papers, haven’t been made available to the authorities either…nor have they been released to the public.  Now that’s a bit of an irony when you consider that the big rumpus now is that Cameron supposedly blocked public disclosure of trust beneficiaries.  Let’s have some public disclosure of everything in the Panama Papers.

But of course the ICIJ, the BBC and the Guardian don’t want that because they then lose control of the story and the Public may find out what they have been hiding….where are the big disclosures about Labour politicians for instance?  Why does it seem to be mostly Tories that are in the headlines?  Targeting?  The BBC and its mates are stage managing the release of information for effect…and you have to question the timing…just before local elections and the EU referendum…..we are being told that the EU is cracking down on tax abuse but the UK is blocking it…therefore if you want to stop tax abuse vote to stay in the EU.   Is that too cynical?….the BBC and friends have had the information for over a year and the fact about the government’s position on trusts and the EU has been public knowledge for years…just that no one made a fuss about it before now…so why now?

Speaking of which here’s the BBC report on Cameron and his letter to the EU…….

Panama Papers: Cameron faces questions over trust letter

David Cameron is facing questions about his attempt to exclude offshore trusts from an EU crackdown on tax avoidance.

The PM wrote to EU officials in 2013 to say trusts should not automatically be subject to the same transparency rules as companies.

Labour said this showed he did not take tax avoidance seriously.

But the government said he had felt forcing trusts to reveal who gained financially from them would “distract” from action in more pressing areas.

Critics have said trusts can also be used to hide wealth, with one Dutch MEP saying Britain’s efforts to exclude them from transparency legislation had created a “huge loophole”.

In a letter to former European Council president Herman Van Rompuy in November 2013, Mr Cameron expressed reservation about extending such regulations, designed to reduce secrecy and limit the scope for abuse, to trusts, both those registered offshore and in the UK.

Here the BBC reports a Today programme interview…an interview in which only one side was put and we got no context or opposing voices……

Asked whether a loophole remained Dutch MEP Judith Sargentini, who led the European Parliament’s work on the draft law, told the BBC: “Oh most definitely. Not only in Britain but elsewhere in Europe where they use trusts.”

The British government was, she said, at the “forefront” of the lobbying.

German Green MEP Sven Giegold said the British government had been vital in securing the EU-wide beneficial ownership register for companies.

But he said the exemption for trusts meant “wealthy corporations are able to use this loophole so that poor people have to make up for the missing tax payments”.

So let’s look at that letter and the government position.  Read the letter and you will see that it is hardly controversial and in fact lays out the government’s position as determined to crack down on tax abuse.

Back in 2013 the ICIJ praised the UK government’s position…

The United Kingdom has vowed to push ahead with its plan for a new public register on company ownership to track beneficial owners of British companies. The move, first announced by Prime Minister David Cameron in mid-2013, will force companies to provide details about individuals with an interest in more than 25 percent of shares or with voting rights or control of how a company is run. The information would need to be updated at least once every 12 months, and would include details such as the name, date of birth, and nationality of the owners. New legislation will also limit situations where corporate entities can be listed as directors of other companies. British business secretary Vince Cable said the register will end “the darker side of capitalism”.

So far, only the UK has formally pledged to create a public ownership registry of companies.

Unlike the UK, neither the United States nor the European Union has announced plans to require public disclosure of company ownership.

But is it just the UK government that is reluctant to implement open disclosure measures for trusts?

The Germans weren’t keen as Tax Justice points out……

This got close to being a real breakthrough until the UK opposed the proposed wide scope of registration of trusts; and countries led by Germany resisted the public nature of the registry.

Here they are writing to the German government pleading with them not to block the legislation…and not just the Germans and other countries but the EU Council wanted to block the move by the EU Parliament……

Dear Bundesfinanzminister Schäuble – please don’t block public registries

European transparency and anti-corruption campaigning organisations have sent the following letter to German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble requesting that his government should support demands by the European Parliament that information about the ultimate beneficial owners (the true, warm-blooded humans hiding behind shell companies with nominee directors and nominee shareholders) should be made available on public registry.  The German government is apparently resisting this move.

Last week during negotiations the European Parliament called unequivocally for the introduction of such a register, and demanded that there should be no watering down of the proposal, as the European Council and particularly the German government have been proposing.

And here’s another report on that….

Federal government blocks EU Money Laundering Reform
A very worthwhile article in the Tagesspiegel and Zeit.de informed us today on a new chapter in the history of Germany’s less than credible efforts to combat money laundering and tax evasion.

In contrast to full-bodied rhetoric Tagesspiegel explains the true attitude of the Federal Government.

What about the EU….does it actually facilitate ‘tax efficiency’ measures and offshoring?  Why did companies like the one that Cameron’s dad owned, and indeed Pimco, now the employer of Gordon Brown, move to Ireland?  Because the EU passed legislation that encouraged such companies to come into the EU, the EU tax haven……

The fund was redomiciled in 2012, moving from Panama to Ireland.

A spokesperson for Smith & Williamson said the move came after the introduction of new rules in Europe governing retail investment funds known as Ucits.

These rules enabled funds that were registered in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Panama, to move to an onshore European country, typically Luxembourg or Ireland, and adopt the Ucits structure.

Ucits funds have become one of the most popular investment structures for retail and institutional investors globally in recent years as they are considered safe and transparent. The industry has grown rapidly in size to around €8tn of assets globally today.

The Tax Justice Network  tells us…….

The EU is planning to make it easier to own offshore shell companies

Just as the Panama papers reveal the mayhem that can be caused by secret shell companies, the European Union is set to relax ownership transparency requirements for shell companies in its forthcoming Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive.

So despite cracking down on tax abuse the EU is facilitating it.

What about that infamous Cameron letter?….who knew?  It was secret wasn’t it?……..Maybe not so much……

UK demands exemption from EU trust registry plan

Monday, 7 April, 2014

The UK government has confirmed that it will oppose clauses in the EU’s Fourth Money Laundering Directive that would force all trusts to identify their beneficiaries in publicly accessible registries.

 

And here we have the House of Lords discussion in 2014 on that very subject as Lord Newby lays out the government’s case for more discussions on trusts…….secret?  Perhaps not…..

EU: Money-laundering Directive

Lord Newby (LibDem) In September 2012, he was appointed Treasury spokesman in the House of Lords.

The EU’s fourth money-laundering directive is an opportunity to build on that momentum. The directive seeks to implement the revised standards of the Financial Action Task Force and the European Commission’s review of the implementation of the third money-laundering directive. We are committed to ensuring that the directive implements the FATF standards in full. As the Prime Minister wrote to European Heads of Government last year, our first collective step should be to mandate public central registries of company beneficial ownership as the benchmark for transparency of ownership and control. At the same time, the UK recognises that it is equally vital to prevent the potential misuse of trusts and similar legal arrangements.

The FATF sets the global standards to improve the transparency of the beneficial ownership of corporate and legal entities, including companies, and legal arrangements such as trusts. In setting those standards, the FATF recognises that preventing the misuse of trusts is critical but also explicitly recognises that trusts are different from companies. In particular, it is vital to understand that, unlike companies, common law trusts, such as those established under English and Welsh law, are not created by the state. Furthermore, trusts, unlike companies, are used for a range of purposes, such as benevolence, inheritance, protecting vulnerable people and family support. As such, the implications for privacy are far greater, and trusts therefore warrant different treatment.

Measures placed on trusts must therefore be different from those that apply for companies in order to be proportionate and effective. The Government support a mandatory requirement for trustees to know the beneficial ownership of their trusts. That, together with tax reporting to HMRC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, referred, and future automatic exchange of tax information agreements, will offer more transparency on trusts than ever before. In particular, through automatic exchange agreements, financial institutions will report information to national tax authorities on trusts holding accounts with them where the beneficiary is a resident of a partner jurisdiction. That information is then automatically shared with ​the partner jurisdiction. There are already 44 signatories to this international standard on automatic exchange, which creates a web of information exchange that will provide greater transparency on trusts than ever before.

This approach provides a proportional and effective means of enhancing transparency on trusts holding financial assets, given that they pose the greatest money- laundering risk. The Government oppose the mandatory registration requirement for trusts, which, together with the creation of central registries of trusts, was recently adopted as the European Parliament’s position on the directive. Given the transparency afforded by automatic transfer of information agreements, we consider registration of trusts to be a disproportionate approach and, in particular, one which undermines the common-law basis of trusts in the UK. As such, we continue to work with other member states, civil society and the private sector to ensure effective treatment of trusts.

In response to the question from my noble friend Lord Dykes, trusts would not become default alternatives to companies because there are the requirements to report financial information to HMRC and to pay tax where appropriate and also for the automatic exchange of information where the beneficiary is a foreign national.

To sum up, given that my time is very brief, the UK is leading from the front on an agenda that places a practical emphasis on transparency and accountability. ​The Government are working to ensure that the EU shows similar ambition on what is a cross-border issue, with serious implications for developed and developing countries alike. We want the outcome to be fair and proportionate, but we also require it to be effective. That is what we are working towards and what I am optimistic that we will achieve.

So to sum up…the ICIJ, the BBC and the Guardian are blocking information that would help the EU tackle tax evasion, Cameron’s letter wasn’t secret and nor was it an attempt to block regulations, he wanted more discussions and different methods that might be more effective.  Germany, the EU council and other EU countries wanted to block the regulation, the UK government’s position was well known and widely talked about, and the EU itself has facilitated tax avoidance creating an EU tax haven.

And yet Cameron is to blame for everything.   Merely bad reporting or is something else going on?

The Beebs new favourite Corbyn babe, Abi Wilkinson has tweeted this…

• Abi Wilkinson Retweeted

  anya ‏@anyabike 21h21 hours ago

  The tireless @JolyonMaugham on what the Prime Minister has and hasn’t disclosed https://waitingfortax.com/2016/04/09/the-prime-ministers-tax-returns/ …

Maugham praises Labour’s John McDonnell for publishing his tax return whilst suggesting Cameron’s maybe didn’t give the full picture.  What McDonnell’s doesn’t show is any union subsidies such as the £8000 he got from a Union in 2015 nor the £130,000 odd a year that gets in Parlaimentary expenses……much goes on staff…but who are the staff?  One is Jeremy Corbyn’s son on a possible £40,000 a year…..

The Labour leader’s son, Seb Corbyn, has been made chief of staff to the shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell.

Mr Corbyn, 25, worked in his father’s campaign team during the Labour leadership election and previously as a researcher for Mr McDonnell.  His role was described as “bag carrier and all-purpose aide” by the New Statesman. His appointment as Mr McDonnell’s chief of staff means he could get a pay rise or a slight reduction as the salary band is £30,000 to £41,212.

McDonnell says…

The Panama Papers highlight the growing concern that there is one rule for the very rich and another for everyone else.

Yep….bet you’d like to get a job for your boy or girl or your boss’s boy or girl and pay them £30-40 grand out of expenses.  One rule for the rich and privileged. Another rule for the rest of us.

Here is a guest post from Nibor…

“As the Battle of Brexit moves into higher and higher gear the selective reporting by the Beeb would be worthy of a Panorama, Cause For Concern , Analysis or even better a Crimewatch programme by itself.

Today there has been several ” luminaries ” on the BBC radio explaining why we should never leave the EU including a conceited woman who runs a large multinational who opines that she knows what they are thinking on the continent because she is important in some business dealings there .
She maybe right . She maybe half right . She maybe be totally wrong .
The trouble is one of perspective .

A She who speaks preponderantly to other luminaries in the multinational business world will gauge her outlook on that . Now I run up and down the country and abroad and and get a different perspective . In good old Blighty , I would declare that eight out of ten opinion owners who expressed a preference want out. Mind you I can be a bit forceful at times , and agreeing with me , signing the paperwork for loads delivered and expediting my egress from the premises means their break times are not missed . A trick that can be used by any marketing company or the BBC .
At least my vox poll is not tainted by direct reward for remaining in or leaving the EU . For sure there are the unquantifiable consequences of Brexit ; more or less taxes , more or less jobs , more or less “influence ” ( for that read civil servants and ministers ) , more or less security . These are debated by the two sides .What though , if you know the outcome has a definite effect on your wallet , like the first in a horse race you have bet on ?

Page 18 of the Sunday Times should be given prominence , which is an issue the BBC would omit . EU tax judgements could cost Britain £50bn . If you read the small article another way to headline it is ; Some companies will get money if Britain remains in the EU . Quite right and proper for the companies and their duties to shareholders , but why don’t we get such facts from the lefty BBC ?’

Lily Allen is appalled by Cameron having had an investment (just over £12,000) with an offshore company…..she herself just bought the shore…in a random moment of drunken extravagance she bought a beach…as you do when you are a multi-millionaire….

Lily Allen owns a private beach in Jamaica.  The singer, 23, made the property investment after having a few drinks.  ‘I bought a beach! she tells BBC 6 Music host George Lamb.  ‘It’s in Jamaica. I’m not gonna tell you the road.  ‘I’m happy I bought the beach, best drunken buy ever!’

She could of course just stay at home in her mansion in the Cotswolds and count her money…..and this was in 2010…

According to the Sunday Times Rich List, she is the ninth richest music star under 30, with an estimated £5m in her bank account.

 Now she’s apparently worth $20 million.

I imagine she has been well advised in her investments…perhaps by her lawyers who can ‘assist both financers and those seeking finance and broker and structure deals that protect our clients’ interests.‘

Maybe she has terrific professional advice from the various media investment companies that she has an association with….one of which offers the chance to reduce your tax with some splendid investments…

Key Benefits:

• Income tax relief of 50% of the value of the SEIS investment;

• Ability to elect to carry back investments made in 2013/14 to 2012/13;

• 50% relief against gains realised in 2013/14;

• 100% relief against gains realised in 2012/13 where carry back election is made;

• Capital Gains tax exemption on the disposal of shares when held for at least 3 years; and

• Up to 100% inheritance tax relief after 2 years.

Another multi-millionaire equality campaigner has her say, though didn’t get off her arse to actually protest in person this time…

•  

  Charlotte Church ‏@charlottechurch Apr 8

  Do one Dave.

• Charlotte Church ‏@charlottechurch Apr 8

  I meant the Dave that copulates with pig faces.

The BBC has been canvassing the views of the anti-Cameron protestors outside Downing Street….

Downing Street protest organiser, journalist Abi Wilkinson, told BBC Radio 5 live the week’s revelations raised questions about Mr Cameron’s commitment to tackling tax avoidance.

Abi Wilkinson, a journalist…well, yes, sort of…one that mostly does man bites dog type stories and who refuses to criticise Corbyn publicly because the poor lad has had such a rough time….

I’ve mostly avoided ever criticising Corbyn publicly.

It’s not that I don’t have any criticisms. It’s just, with the Tory media attacking everything from the depth of his bow to his choice of tracksuit, and most centre-left commentators being almost as antagonistic towards the Labour leader as those on the right, not to mention the fact the parliamentary Labour party has effectively been in a state of civil war since he was elected and even members his own shadow cabinet are briefing against him, I’ve tended to feel it would be unhelpful to add to the negativity.

But then again it could just be that she is a hardcore Labour supporter who hates the Tories….

7 ways to make a difference if you oppose the Conservative government

Now is the time to get active in your opposition to the Conservative government and its cruellest policies

Not sure her protest outside Downing Street is altogether the honest and principled stand she makes out….just the usual renta-mob who use any excuse to bash the Tories.

Shame the BBC once again presents such a person as a legitimate voice without an axe to grind.

• Abi Wilkinson Retweeted

  Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 Apr 7

  David Cameron repeatedly, deliberately lied by omission about whether he personally profited from the offshore Panama trust. That’s serious.

Only he didn’t lie…he never said he didn’t once have shares…..as the BBC notes….

What Cameron said when:

Asked on Monday whether she could confirm that no family money was still invested in the fund, Mr Cameron’s spokeswoman said: “That is a private matter”

Then in an interview on Tuesday, Mr Cameron said: ” I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And, so that, I think, is a very clear description”

Downing Street issued a statement later that day: “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares. As has been previously reported, Mrs Cameron owns a small number of shares connected to her father’s land, which she declares on her tax return”

No 10 then released a further clarifying statement on Wednesday, saying: “There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future”

On Thursday the PM told ITV News: “We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010”

Quite clear, Cameron said he does not have shares.  Not sure how that is a lie.

Curious how the BBC can totally ignore its own ‘facts’ and still intimate he has done something wrong in its reporting.

The BBC tells us that…

David Cameron remains adamant that he did not break any rules and that his father’s Bahamas-based business had not been established for the purpose of avoiding tax.

But he is well aware that taking several days to confirm that he used to hold shares has allowed his political opponents to accuse him of “misleading” the public.

But Cameron was first asked if he still had investments in his father’s company….

‘….the issue of whether the Cameron family still had funds in offshore investments was a “private matter”.’

So the questioner by the  nature of the question accepts Cameron’s family had shares in the company once, so not a secret, and the only thing Cameron ‘hid’ was the fact that he didn’t have any shares…not sure how that qualifies as hiding a big guilty secret by omission.

The BBC knows this is a non-story and yet continues to stir the pot and not come out and say there’s nothing to show here.

What do you get when you mix a man who wrote songs for Elvis, £3m, and a mysterious set of Chinese-owned offshore companies?

The answer: A company called Gate Ventures which is in a joint venture with Ensygnia…which has close business contacts with the BBC.

Ensygnia’s customers include Visa Europe, PlayJam, O2, Waitrose, and BBC Worldwide.  Ensygnia is the start-up in residence at BBC Worldwide and is collaborating with BBC Worldwide on a number of initiatives including the online BBC Shop, which currently has around 4 million users per annum, and its new flagship product BBC Store. 

 Dr Johnny Hon, Chairman of Gate Ventures PLC, said:

“The Board of Gate is very excited to make our first investment in the e-commerce space through Ensygnia.  We believe that Ensygnia’s Onescan technology is a game changer as its platform can be easily adapted unlike many others in the market, which puts Ensygnia in a great position.  Ensygnia has won important accounts for Onescan since its launch in March 2014, including the recent contract with BBC Worldwide.

On listing, Gate Ventures revealed in its prospectus that it had 10 shareholders, all of whom held exactly 8.75 per cent of its shares each. No beneficial owner was named for any of the investors. All but two of these stakes were owned by high net worth Chinese investors who had invested through specially constructed British Virgin Island shell companies, a person familiar with the listing said. The remaining two shells were owned by associates of Mr Morrow.

The BBC, losing the faith and trust of the British Public?

Panama Papers reveal offshore secrets of China’s red nobility

Disclosures show how havens such as British Virgin Islands hide links between big business and relatives of top politicians…

…and the BBC.