Re: Those so called 'Panama Papers'...
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:22 pm
Iceland's prime minister's resigned
Your world is waiting...
https://www.quake3world.com/forum/
According to a Finnish news agency, he'll still remain leader of his party.phantasmagoria wrote:Iceland's prime minister's resigned
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-0 ... -power-taxQuestion aside about who it is that gets to decide which "innocent private individuals" are to be left alone, Wikileaks clearly did not like being characterized as conducting "irresponsible" journalism - and to the contrary, many in the public arena have called for another massive, distributed effort to get to the bottom of a 2.4TB treasure trove of data which a handful of journalists will simply be unable to dig through - and moments ago, on Twitter, accused the ICIJ of being a "Washington DC based Ford, Soros funded soft-power tax-dodge" which "has a WikiLeaks problem."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/giant-le ... k-articlesWhat I find even more curious is the lack of U.S., British, European and Israeli exposure in these recent Panama Paper "leaks." Right?
Surely, we are to believe the western epicenters of the global financial system are pristine examples of integrity, moral certitude and beyond reproach? Right?
Surely, we are to believe the ICIJ (The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) is 100% independent, non-partisan, and unbiased? Right?
The ICIJ is funded by the Adessium Foundation, Open Society Foundations, The Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Fritt Ord Foundation, the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, The Ford Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts and Waterloo Foundation.
Adessium (partly funded by George Soros)
Open Society Foundations (George Soros foundations, a top contributor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and guilty of a sordid past)
Sigrid Rausing Trust (based in the U.K.)
Fritt Ord Foundation (based in Norway)
Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting (based in the U.S.)
The Ford Foundation (Based in the U.S. and a key funder of Israeli NGOs)
David and Lucile Packard Foundation (based in the U.S.)
Pew Charitable Trusts (based in the U.S.)
Waterloo Foundation (based in the U.K. (Wales))
The "Panama Papers" were also supported (funded) by USAID, the United States Government agency which is primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid.
He has nothing to defend. The offshore account was a hedgefund based in Ireland, which is used by 90% of the pension funds in the UK. When he sold the shares he paid tax on any profits.losCHUNK wrote:Innit. I wanna see the pig fucker defend again
sure, if the investigator's name is Geoff LeachWho benefits from the leak? This is Caesar's question. "Cui Bono." The first question the investigator asks.
Make the bastards deny itDon Carlos wrote:He has nothing to defend. The offshore account was a hedgefund based in Ireland, which is used by 90% of the pension funds in the UK. When he sold the shares he paid tax on any profits.losCHUNK wrote:Innit. I wanna see the pig fucker defend again
Essentially he has done fuck all wrong and its the media creating sensationalist stories again, which is the bigger issue. We never get the facts as the truth is far to boring and wont sell paper, get channels watch or get web pages clicked.
The guy isnt the most likeable, but this is a bit of a joke.
No he didn't.Don Carlos wrote:He has nothing to defend. The offshore account was a hedgefund based in Ireland, which is used by 90% of the pension funds in the UK. When he sold the shares he paid tax on any profits.losCHUNK wrote:Innit. I wanna see the pig fucker defend again
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... SApp_OtherThe prime minister took the unprecedented decision to release his personal tax records on Saturday, as growing anger over revelations in the Panama Papers threatened to derail his premiership.
But the extraordinary move seems set to plunge David Cameron into further controversy, as it emerged that his mother transferred two separate payments of £100,000 to his accounts in 2011, allowing the family estate to avoid a potential £80,000 worth of inheritance tax.
I'm going to keep it classy. It would be ‘morally wrong’ and ‘hypocrytical’ to comment on another individual’s tax affairs.