It's interesting how this leak just seems completely devoid of US involvement. No US news media talking about it or involved. No US people mentioned in the leak.
Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
151–160 of 452 posts
Re: Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
#152> While much of the leaked material will remain private, there are compelling reasons for publishing some of the data. How convenient. > the papers simply reveal the vast number of people who use offshore to protect their wealth. There is nothing unlawful about doing this. It is not illegal to be a director, shareholder or beneficial owner – the real owner, even though their name may not appear on the shareholder reg…
> Then why hide it?
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to use these kinds of services. Releasing all the data is a huge privacy violation for all the customers who have done nothing wrong. Would you like much of your perfectly legal business and/or personal finance dealings suddenly made public?
Re: Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you were downvoted, but I completely agree with you. It's great that the Panama Papers were leaked, but blaming it all on Putin seems very convenient.
Right, because at no time in its entire history has Russia actively supported organisations whose sole goal was "the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International
Russia's socialist days are long behind it now, for better or worse.
Re: Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not say anything about my beliefs and it is not important WHY do they care about Russia. The only thing that is important, is the result - whether these critics are justified, whether they serve Russian interests or not. They do serve. If this was not someone's goal, shame on that guy, he failed. If it was, thanks to him, he did his job well.
> whether they serve Russian interests or not. They do serve. You're assuming that free elections would benefit common Russians. They wouldn't. You're right about one thing, though: it wouldn't be Putin and his cronies siphoning all of Russia's wealth (resourceful citizens, natural resources, ...). It would be the western conglomerates.
The historical data does not support your theory. We all know that some of the countries now belonging to the "Western world", some time ago were neither democracies, nor successful free market economies. Now we all know about German, Korean and Japanese multinationals. Adopting the "Western" way does not mean surrendering and losing political and economical sovereignity. There were trade wars and political conflicts between Western powers, they all play their own games, they just have agreed on the way of conduct for them.
Re: Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what freedom of the press is supposed to mean...
Not really, freedom of press is much narrower. What you're suggesting is an ideal world where journalists are protected from the egos and reputations of powerful people who might want to retaliate against them for their reporting. There are many forms of legal retaliation that freedom of press cannot protect against. In practice, this freedom is weighed against the consequences of publishing any single piece.
If not freedom from prosecution, then what else would "freedom of the press" guarantee?
Re: Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both the British and (especially) German [0] media are virulently anti-Russian. They blame Russians for all of their ills. Societal problems? Blame Russians. Anything that happens in their countries, they manage to find an angle to blame it on Russians somehow. Norway [1] & Sweden are also under a constant paranoia that Russians are just days away from invading them. But nothing compares to German media when it comes…
Being Russian citizen I find this critical position actually pro-Russian. It's in our interest to have a professional government and a president elected on transparent and free elections, to fight corruption and to work for the prosperity of our Homeland and for happiness of all our people. The government, the president, the courts and the deputees of parliament that do not satisfy these criteria can and shall be cri…
> It's in our interest to have a professional government and a president elected on transparent and free elections
I think everyone has been looking forward for this to happen for hundreds of years. Nothing has happened. It's still land of kleptocrazy (let's not start arguing that there are other equally bad players as well). And even to this day, Russians seem to be like: "there is nothing we can do". And Putin is more popular than ever. Take this as a critizism for Russian people. You have allowed such a bad leaders run to your country. Russians I have met, talk more about leaving the country.
Re: Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> paid for by British tax payers, While that is mostly true, (it's the same people obviously) I'm pretty sure the BBC isn't funded by taxes . If they were, they would be under political control. Which would be silly.
It's funded by the license fee. You don't have to pay but then you can't watch live TV.
> It's funded by the license fee.
That was my point. It might not sound like a difference from a tax, but the difference is pretty substantial when we are discussing the control of the company.
Re: Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
#158Hilarious that BBC, a broadcaster paid for by British tax payers, has a subheading in that article titled "Russian connection" describing various dealings of Russian characters who are "close associates" of Putin and an equally sordid "Iceland connection" but not even a mention of David Cameron's father's tax evading schemes listed in the documents which the people of Great Britain should be vastly more interested in…
> paid for by British tax payers, While that is mostly true, (it's the same people obviously) I'm pretty sure the BBC isn't funded by taxes . If they were, they would be under political control. Which would be silly.
Actually, the Office of National Statistics now classifies the TV Licence fee as tax.
Re: Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I thought here in the west we're assured that we have freedom of press. Freedom of press does not guarantee freedom from persecution (or prosecution), so the international consortium approach is a much better guarantee for all the information actually getting out.
That's exactly what freedom of the press is supposed to mean...
The BBC does have freedom from persecution or prosecution (assuming it doesn't publish things that are e.g libelous). But, due to the particular way it is funded, it doesn't have freedom from government intervention.
In particular the BBC charter is reviewed every so often. This process involves the government and can affect things like the level of funding available to the BBC, and its remit in terms of the services it is allowed to offer. It's no secret that the current government are not big fans of the BBC, both for ideological reasons, and because of cozy relationships with certain commercial broadcasters. They are already waging a war in the press trying to convince the public that the BBC has an intrinsic left-wing bias, and are mooting ideas like preventing it from making programmes that are too popular and so may draw audiences away from commercial rivals. In this environment, and with funding already being cut, and jobs lost, it's not hard to see why you would think twice about running stories that could lead you open to allegations of an anti-government agenda.
Although the particular details of that situation are unique to the BBC, it's important to note that commercial broadcasters, and media outlets in general, also don't have freedom in the sense of freedom-from-consequences. For example there was a story last year about HSBC pulling adverts from media outlets which ran articles critical of its business practices. In an environment where, particularly for print media, margins are tight or non-existent, it's easy to see how this can give commercial interests hidden editorial control over a "free" press.
Re: Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca leak reveals elite's tax havens
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, freedom of press is much narrower. What you're suggesting is an ideal world where journalists are protected from the egos and reputations of powerful people who might want to retaliate against them for their reporting. There are many forms of legal retaliation that freedom of press cannot protect against. In practice, this freedom is weighed against the consequences of publishing any single piece.
If not freedom from prosecution, then what else would "freedom of the press" guarantee?
For example, not having to run all (or huge parts of) your stories through a censor before being allowed to publish them (e.g. China, Israel).
Or, like in Germany, various protections like e.g. the police not allowed without complex judiciary checks to monitor the phones and internet connections of a journalist, or to go into a newspaper office and seizing random data to uncover a source.