Pandora Papers

[CivilDiscourse]

As I noted, I do wonder how some of these people face themselves in the mirror each morning. Have they no shame?

Again, what do they need to be ashamed of. Be specific in that cause of shame and why they should be ashamed of it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps you should have tried this tact before launching into a flailing rant.

And yet more hyperbole. Once again you class a disagreement with you to be a "rant".

I was referring to how the notion that the press used to be unbiased and only reported the facts is a myth.

No one has yet alleged that the press is "unbiased and only reported the facts". You appear to have set up your own straw man argument.

There has always been editorializing in the reporting.

The use of language and syntax will always offer hints and insights into a person's underlying views and/or opinions.

C'est la vie. Not an excuse for editorializing in a news article.

All news articles contain underlying emphasis and/or what might be described as "opinion", because they are all written by human beings utilising language.

Even on Dragnet when they asked for "just the facts" they realized they would get is the facts as they are known. What they didn't want is a bunch of opinions, speculation and editorializing disguised as facts.

That you have dodged answering my question is duly noted.

So let me ask it again. Which in your esteemed opinion is the "correct fact" in these two illustrative statements?

Black man dies in police custody.

Black man suffocates while being restrained by police officer.

Also please note that the popular series Dragnet has no relevance to this thread.

Irrelevant to the point being discussed which is the difference between news and editorializing.

All newspaper articles contain emphasis and/or opinion because they are the product of human beings using language and the grammar and syntax of that specific language.

You're the one that challenged the fact that there is supposed to be a difference between reporting the news (the facts) and editorializing (providing opinions), which has resulted in this side track.

See previous reply.

You're the one that challenged the fact that there is supposed to be a difference between reporting the news (the facts) and editorializing (providing opinions), which has resulted in this side track.

Any written report by a human being will to some extent betray/illustrate the viewpoint of that human being - again we are back to use of language and syntax as well as an understanding of what is usually referred to as "lit crit".

Apparently some of that scored a "hit" for you suddenly to get concerned about it not being on topic. Perhaps it sunk through that skull of yours that there really is a difference between trying to present facts and trying to tell you what to think.

You appear to consider that there exists any such newspaper or spoken news outlet that publishes or recounts nothing but bald facts.

The nearest example I can think of is the British shipping forecast which is read by a human being but almost in a monotone and goes out just before Radio 4 becomes the World Service. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpQmFAuVIj4

Only now you want a definition for MSM? How many posts in threads do you have where they are discussed but it's only now you want it explained what they are?

I asked you for your definition. It strikes me that any MSM that offers opinions and interpretations that do not sit with your own viewpoints are therefore judged negatively by you.

And now back to the main topic. The Pandora Papers have been produced by independent investigative journalists and a sociology professor has offered her opinion on the revelations that have come out over the last five years concerning the behaviours of various powerful public figures around the world and postulated as to how long ordinary people will put up with such behaviour, noting that "forms of accountability" are "being imposed that are effective despite being outside the realm of the law" and that "there is evidence that public opinion is changing quickly, in a way that imposes the reputational costs that matter most."

[rogue06]

And yet more hyperbole. Once again you class a disagreement with you to be a "rant".

No one has yet alleged that the press is "unbiased and only reported the facts". You appear to have set up your own straw man argument.

To quote Rowan Atkinson in his role as Blackadder:

You really are as thick as clotted cream, that's been left out by some clot, and now the clots are so clotted, you couldn't unclot them with an electric de-clotter, aren't you, Baldrick?

In case it needs explaining, you are Baldrick.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

One potentially positive reaction from this latest scandal is that both the USA and EU are looking to tighten up their legislation on offshore wealth.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/202...l-enablers-act
In the US there is a proposal to introduce legislation that would compel trust companies, lawyers, and other financial middlemen to investigate foreign clients seeking to move their money and assets into the US financial system.

The bipartisan bill was proposed in the wake of the Pandora papers, a leak of 11.9m files from 14 different offshore services providers around the world that revealed how the global elite use tax havens to legally avoid paying billions in taxes, and how they are increasingly taking advantage of the US’s liberal trust laws.

The Pandora papers show how a handful of US states, led by South Dakota, are now providing growing competition for more traditional tax havens such as the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

An analysis of the leak by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and the Washington Post showed that nearly 30 trusts had been established in South Dakota holding assets connected to people or companies accused of corruption, human rights abuses or other wrongdoing.

Following a series of deregulations, South Dakota’s trusts enjoy some of the world’s most powerful legal protections from taxes, creditors and other claimants in the world, and hold $367bn (£273bn) in assets, up from $75.5bn (£55.36bn) in 2011.

The proposed legislation, the Establishing New Authorities for Business Laundering and Enabling Risks to Security (Enablers) Act, would require the treasury department to create new due-diligence rules for American middlemen who facilitate the flow of foreign assets into the United States.

The act would update the 51-year-old Bank Secrecy Act, which requires banks to investigate their clients and the source of their wealth but had excluded trust companies, accountants, lawyers and other professionals.


“If we are serious about fighting dictatorship, we need US professionals to do the most basic due diligence,” he said.

While in the EU:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ffshore-wealth
Members of the European parliament have voted for tighter rules on the super-rich who move their wealth offshore, in a resounding vote that reflects widespread anger and exasperation in the wake of the Pandora papers revelations.

Although the European parliament’s resolution does not bind EU member states who wield decision-making power on taxation, it puts wind in the sails of reformers, who say transparency changes introduced in the last decade have not gone far enough.

One of the parliament’s main targets is reforming the EU’s code of conduct on business taxation, a process led by a little-known group of government officials, which is meant to ensure tax policies of EU member states avoid a race to the bottom. Since 2017, the group has also been responsible for drawing up the EU blacklist of tax havens, which currently consists of nine jurisdictions outside the bloc.

French socialist MEP, Aurore Lalucq, who drafted the resolution, said the code of conduct needed to become “a sharp weapon in the fight against tax avoidance and evasion” and proposed a revised code called Fatal, the framework on aggressive tax arrangements and low-rates.

Under her proposal, jurisdictions with very low or zero tax rates would be automatically classed as tax havens. EU ministers were heavily criticised on Tuesday when they removed three jurisdictions from the bloc’s blacklist on tax havens, including one (the British overseas territory of Anguilla) with a zero tax rate.

The MEPs also want tougher controls on wealthy individuals who move their wealth offshore, benefiting from “preferential personal income tax regimes”, including special citizenship programmes that enable them to get passports, in exchange for a large investments in a country.

While recent tax reforms, such as the global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% currently under discussion, have focused on business taxation, the Pandora papers highlighted how individuals hide their wealth with elaborate and opaque offshore structures.

How much effect any of this will actually have, of course, remains to be seen.

I suspect with its present government Britain [and London] will carry on with business as usual and remain a money laundering centre. Judging from his response to questions its Prime Minister appears indifferent as to how, or from whom, his political party gets its cash and so is unlikely to tighten up laws that would prevent such individuals making substantial contributions and/or investments in that country.

[rogue06]

I won't be holding my breath.

Probably the best we can hope for is for a very public showing of closing some of the most obvious avenues while leaving all the back doors wide open -- and maybe even establishing a couple of new ones.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I won't be holding my breath.

Probably the best we can hope for is for a very public showing of closing some of the most obvious avenues while leaving all the back doors wide open -- and maybe even establishing a couple of new ones.

When money speaks all law is silent.

[rogue06]

When money talks, everything else walks.

[CivilDiscourse]

As I noted, I do wonder how some of these people face themselves in the mirror each morning. Have they no shame?

Again, what do they need to be ashamed of. Be specific in that cause of shame and why they should be ashamed of it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

When money talks, everything else walks.

Well we could carry on for a few mores posts offering variations on that theme but I would suggest we have covered it sufficiently

[CivilDiscourse]

When money speaks all law is silent.

When CivilDiscourse Challenges her, Hypatia_Alexandria is Silent.