David Cameron has to resign.

(548 Posts)
PirateSmile Tue 05-Apr-16 07:53:18

If there is any evidence he has had even one penny of benefit from his father's dodgy tax arrangement, surely Cameron has to go?
He's saying 'it's a private matter' whilst presumably working on his notes for next month's conference on cracking down on such tax scams. You really couldn't make it up. He will no doubt plead ignorance but that's no defence. He is the PM. He should know he's benefiting from is essentially large scale fraud.
Are we really going to let him get away with this?

WhoTheFuckIsSimon Tue 05-Apr-16 08:02:15

I hate Cameron as much as the next person but he's not responsibile for his dad's tax arrangements.

PirateSmile Tue 05-Apr-16 08:02:59

No he isn't, but if he's had the benefit of it, he is culpable.

Costacoffeeplease Tue 05-Apr-16 08:05:01

No, he's not responsible for his father's decisions

MyLifeisaboxofwormgears Tue 05-Apr-16 08:06:43

He will one day inherit that money...while telling us we all have to be frugal and playing austerity politics and trashing our ability to retire while he awaits millions.

So it makes DC a hypocrite.

Inkanta Tue 05-Apr-16 08:06:59

Well lads go to their dad's for financial advice - my kids do. It's feasible Cameron did.

nauticant Tue 05-Apr-16 08:07:25

Here's video footage of Cameron finding out about the scandal:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMIyDf3gBoY

rosie1959 Tue 05-Apr-16 08:08:28

No he is not responsible for his late fathers tax affairs

PirateSmile Tue 05-Apr-16 08:09:03

If, as it seems, the arrangement is still up and running, and Cameron is financially benefiting, his position is completely untenable, I would draw the analogy of a woman who's husband is making money from criminal activity. She can't simply put her fingers in here ears and say she wasn't responsible for the criminal activity. She is culpable.

Inkanta Tue 05-Apr-16 08:09:36

Apparently his dad died in 2010 so he may have inherited already.

ThroughThickAndThin01 Tue 05-Apr-16 08:10:02

How is he still financially benefiting?

SoupDragon Tue 05-Apr-16 08:10:39

Didn't he close the loophole that allowed it to happen?

WhoTheFuckIsSimon Tue 05-Apr-16 08:11:10

His dad may well not have told him anything.

When my parents were alive I had no idea about their financial affairs.

What counts as a benefit? A cash gift at xmas? I doubt his family have been frequently subbing him money but even if they had they're allowed to. Her family are far wealthier aren't they so I think if they've been getting handouts from anywhere it would be her family?

It's only if DC himself has money tied up in this he needs to go.

WhoTheFuckIsSimon Tue 05-Apr-16 08:12:47

I didn't realise his dad was dead.

But even if he's inherited that money I stand by what I say, that it's not his responsibility. Unless there's proof that DC encouraged his dad to do it which I guess would be dodgy.

PirateSmile Tue 05-Apr-16 08:13:04

He may be a trustee of the fund, or the benefits of the fund.
If he has no financial connection, benefit, whatever then fine, but if he does, then he should resign. We all have a duty to know where our money comes from. Please let's remember that every day, people are sent to prison for benefit fraud, when in reality many of those people just simply failed to understand the system. It really is one rule for the rich and I am stunned people can't see that.

Boogers Tue 05-Apr-16 08:13:34

He's not responsible for his late father's tax affairs any more than I'm responsible for my late mother's debts, however it's an uncomfortable position for him to be in and, as others have mentioned, if he's directly benefitted from his father's aggressive tax avoidance affairs then his stance on cracking down on such schemes rather hollow.

PirateSmile Tue 05-Apr-16 08:14:44

Precisely Boogers

ThroughThickAndThin01 Tue 05-Apr-16 08:16:11

I think you're jumping to quite a few conclusions there OP.

If he had no knowledge, he's not responsible for his fathers actions.

WhoTheFuckIsSimon Tue 05-Apr-16 08:16:14

Have just read the newspaper article. DC doesn't own any shares in the company and when his dad was alive and doing this tax fiddle it was perfectly legal. Morally shit, but legal.

AllThePrettySeahorses Tue 05-Apr-16 08:17:37

No, his father's tax affairs are not his fault, but his office is refusing to confirm whether he is still benefiting from these arrangements (which implies yes to the suspicious mind). Don't forget Cameron said he'd publish his tax affairs a few years ago and he never did. Also, he may not have put the money in tax havens but he certainly knows about it; why has he not come clean and maybe even arranged to pay outstanding tax etc from the capital? Cameron has clearly not done this - if he had, his office would have issued a statement. Mates rates indeed; Osborne's own family company hasn't paid corporation tax for about 6 years and has instead received a tax rebate aka corporate welfare.

In answer to your question, Cameron should not resign - he should be sacked. His role requires far more honesty and accountability than pretty much any other in the country and he demeans his office. Whatever happened to the recall bill? hmm

WhoTheFuckIsSimon Tue 05-Apr-16 08:17:47

He's not a trustee. He has nothing to do with the company....unless any evidence is found to the contrary. He hasn't even got it listed in his declaration of interests.

WhoTheFuckIsSimon Tue 05-Apr-16 08:19:28

Yes I'm more bothered about George Osbourne because he's a share holder in his family's tax avoiding company and receives an annual dividend. But apparantly that's all legal.

FenellaMaxwell Tue 05-Apr-16 08:19:36

Just to reiterate what a PP said - DC is not responsible for his father's actions. Also, whilst he was alive, it wasn't illegal so he wasn't engaged in any unlawful profiteering. And it is the Cameron government who have closed that loophole to ensure it can't happen anymore. Seems fairly above board to me.....

Inkanta Tue 05-Apr-16 08:19:46

'We all have a duty to know where our money comes from'

Yes.

If Cameron has received inheritance where did the money come from?

PirateSmile Tue 05-Apr-16 08:20:09

I'm not jumping to any conclusions hmm I have been very clear on that. Others, have however simply accepted that there is no wrongdoing. I find that astonishing.
Not having shares may not mean anything. The way that these things are set up deliberately hide individuals benefits. They are a complete smokescreen.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now