If you argue a case strongly on the internet you must expect to receive robust argument back. Plus the odd insult. There has been plenty of both in reaction to my posts about corporate media control of access to the data in the Panama Papers. But I believe it is fair to say that the overwhelming public feeling I have picked up through monitoring online discussion worldwide, is that the full data should be made available online in searchable form so that the public can look through it and form their own conclusions.
I wish to address in a little more depth the arguments which have been raised.
Several people have argued with my reference to “corporate media”, as the consortium includes state organisations such as the BBC. My response to that is that the BBC has become in the last few years a mouthpiece for state propaganda with no effective independence of government, and that the politicians are very much in the pocket of the corporations who fund them. The BBC therefore promotes corporate interests just as much as those outlets directly owned by corporate interests. It is simply a question of direct or indirect control.
The key point is that access to the Panama data has been restricted in accordance with a media order which is decades out of date. It ignores citizen journalism. The only online based platforms given access are the billionaire owned Huffington Post and Craigslist. Nowadays people prefer to find things for themselves.
This ostensibly sympathetic article from Richard Smith illustrates the problem rather well. It is one of trust. Do we trust the – let me use a neutral word – established media to filter the information and decide what we are permitted to see? My answer is no, I do not trust them. I know many mainstream journalists and the vast majority of them are interested in pleasing their paymasters and advancing their careers. Very few and vanishingly less are disinterested promoters of truth.
Nor do I accept that revealing a story about David Cameron’s dead father – a story which had been in the public domain for four years – or securing the resignation of the Prime Minister of Iceland, a tiny state which happens to have taken the most radical action of any against bankers, is sign of balance.
It is a sign of a pretence of balance.
But Richard Smith is entitled to his view and perhaps his naïve trust in corporate media indicates a pleasant and trusting nature. I am often called naïve myself for wanting the world to be a better place. Mr Smith evidently believes it already is.
The only thing I actively dislike in Smith’s article is the contention that I criticised the BBC for not pointing out that the British Virgin Islands were implicated in one document flashed on the screen, obscured, during the BBC Panorama. Actually there were three separate documents about separate transactions, all involving the British Virgin Islands. Those transactions were central to the entire first half of the programme, and for the BBC to hide that it was all happening in the British Virgin Islands was disgraceful.
The BBC of course do not like me and I have been banned from appearing for many years. One of the many thousand people who retweeted my original post on the Panama Papers, subsequently tweeted that he had done so by accident. This brought the magisterial rebuke from Jamie Angus, editor of the BBC Radio Today programme, that accident “is the only acceptable reason for retweeting Craig Murray.” I can understand that Mr Angus does not want people to hear opinions not sanctioned by his employers, but I would be interested to know why he feels it is not “acceptable” to read my pieces. He has since challenged me to mention that the British Virgin Islands were criticised on his radio programme. I am happy to do so, because unlike Mr Angus, I do not believe views other than my own should be suppressed.
I shall not trouble you with the large volume of simply abusive tweets I have received, co-ordinated by the usual two groups – British unionist and pro-Israel lobbyists who for some reason like to troll me. Let us just ignore them.
I should now come to the question of privacy. The Guardian newspaper, along with the BBC the main “owner” of the data in the UK, has made no bones about the fact that most of the data will not be published, and that there are “legitimate reasons” why people have offshore accounts and companies. As the Guardian’s owners operated from tax-dodging overseas accounts for years, they have to say that of course.
There has been surprisingly little discussion of this topic. I do not accept that there is any legitimate reason for owning offshore companies and offshore bank accounts, if you do not have a business genuinely located in and operating from the jurisdiction. Ordinary people do not have accounts in tax havens. The only reason people have accounts and fake companies in tax havens is to avoid tax and other legal jurisdiction. This is not morally acceptable, whether or not our rulers make sure it is legal. I therefore do not accept any privacy argument for keeping the vast bulk of the data from the public.
This argument s absolutely at the heart of the corporate media’s interest in hiding 99.9% of the information – which behind the obfuscation is precisely what they intend to do. This argument needs to be met head on.
The only subject of any interest now in the Panama Papers is whether the data will be fully released on the internet and available to everybody, and not hidden by the corporate media.
We must all campaign to release the data.
Well said Craig. Keep up the good work.
The BBC is a corporation. The clue is in its name.
Like your reasoning … Let´s have all the data accessable online
The leak is now in the hands of a branch of the copyright industry. Whoever leaked it probably didn’t understand about licensing for freedom.
https://creativecommons.org/
Whoever leaked it didn’t upload their only copy – they still have the data! If they are concerned that they released it to the wrong people, they can easily put matters right. The longer the data remains under the control of the “established media”, the more we should suspect the motives of whoever released it.
The question is who leaked it and why.
Quite possibly they know all about the creative commons.
It seems clear enough to me. These are not government leaks where a public interest argument can be made, many of these files contain private information about private individuals who have broken no laws. If the ICIJ were to make them public they would be hit with so many law suites it would take a building the size of Wales to store the documentation.
I’m wondering why people are still arguing for it.
Lawsuits can be avoided if an unidentified individual were to leak the information to, say, Wikileaks.
How does that work?
It doesn’t. Apart from anything else their is the European Data Directive which means Europe is covered by Data Protection acts.
How can you sue if you don’t know who to sue?
The ICIJ have a legal duty to protect personal information they hold on private individuals. Allowing it to be leaked would leave them liable to prosecution.
Here in Scotland the government wants to create a national identity database containing personal information about every Scot including children. It’s most unreassuring to know that there are people who consider they have the right to examine and publish people’s private data whenever is suites them.
Lysias
1/. Cannot the website owner be forced to divulge the identity of the “leaker” with a view to legal proceedings?
2/. Can the website owner be sued for carrying the leak (ie, be treated as if it was the author)?
If there’s an anonymous leak, who’s to say it’s from ICIJ? It could be from the Panamanian law firm. It could be from some unknown party.
Why hasn’t anybody successfully sued Wikileaks?
And the leaker to Wikileaks or whoever could be careful not to let the recipient know who he is.
Because they haven’t published private information about private individuals. They published government files regarding the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, diplomatic cables, all things where they could argue public interest.
Well, if Wikileaks were vulnerable to a suit, a site could be set up in a country where it can’t be touched. Russia, say, might be interested, in order to balance the way the story has so far been reported.
Lysias – as you seem to feel so strongly about the matter, have you considered getting personally involved in getting the info out into the public domain as you urge? Within the limits of what you might be able to do, obviously.
After all, you do seem to be urging someone to undertake action which might have severe legal consequences if I’ve understood properly.
Lysias
I see that you have come up with an idea – a Russian website. It’s a possibility, I suppose.Would you consider getting personally involved?
Yes, with luck you’ll get to share a cell with Chelsea Manning.
Which it would seem you would approve of.
I take it you also approve of the U.S. government’s barbaric treatment of Manning.
Figures.
Lysias
Fred’s comment has given you the opportunity to be evasive, to divert, and not answer my question.
Would you now care to do so?
The question was, in essence, whether you would consider getting personally involved in bringing about what you seem to be calling for, ie, the putting of all the Panama Papers info into the public domain (within the possibilities open to you of course).
Craig
Good (and Fair) post.
Two questions of a very different nature before you get submerged:
1/. “We must all campaign to release the data.”
In the interests of the ideal of total transparency, OK – if you will, and leaving aside the question about how much total transparency there could or should be in many other areas (eg, govt economic policy, foreign policy, etc….)
But practically – to which purpose?
2/. “…simply abusive tweets I have received, co-ordinated by the usual two groups – British unionist and pro-Israel lobbyists who for some reason like to troll me.”
Leaving aside tweets (I assume you’re referring to Twitter), could you say – for the record- whether you think you have been trolled on here iro your last few threads?
“But practically – to which purpose?”
_________
Habb.
Well I would imagine, as to see just how much tax avoidance there is by people in trustworthy and influencial positions with the UK.
One could easily say such cases regarding tax avoidance of people in those position could be construed as a form of moral bankruptcy. Do we really want what can be perceived, as morally bankrupt people running the country?
Or powerful businessmen/women, thought of by young entrepreneurs as role models, actively practicing tax avoidance, yes it’s not illegal to do so, but ethically it is wrong.
____________
”
2/. “…simply abusive tweets I have received, co-ordinated by the usual two groups – British unionist and pro-Israel lobbyists who for some reason like to troll me.”
Leaving aside tweets (I assume you’re referring to Twitter), could you say – for the record- whether you think you have been trolled on here iro your last few threads?”
Habb.
Re your second point are you fishing, to see if you or any of your cronies, in here have been rumbled, if so, I’d say the answer is possibly yes. Afterall you aggressively defend Israel from even the gentlest of complaints, a clear sign that you probably fall into the category that Craig mentioned.
Unless of course you’ve turned over a new leaf and see fit to not retaliate to stinging comments on Israeli policy ?
RoS
Perhaps you would let Craig answer (if he wants to) since the questions were addressed to him?
Habb.
Perhaps Habb, you could answer my questions which I’ve directed towards you (if you think you can) I’m sure you’re dying to clear the matter up as quickly as possible ?
Thanks in advance.
1) What Republic of Scotland said
2) Referring specifically to tweets only
Craig
With thanks.
re 1/. Giving people full info is practical in a way, I suppose, but what I was getting at is, rather, what can the people do – practically – with the info. The Inland Revenue depts of govts can do something (if they choose) but what can you or I do – practically – with the knowledge that, say, Corporation X or individual Y is practicing tax avoidance ( or evasion)?
2/. Noted. I hope other contributors will also take note that you do not think that your last few threads here have been trolled.
Yes I agree completely. Refreshing to get an honest direct opinion for a change. Just what this country needs. Keep up the good work.
The corporate media do what they do.
What they do not do is inquire as to why so few US nationals seemed to avail themselves of the services of Mossack Fonseca. Of the few US nationals so far identified it seems that most (possibly all) had already been convicted in the US for things like fraud, tax evasion, and insider trading.
How strange that around the world senior politicians and their friends were busy squirreling money away via a Panamanian law firm – but in the US only second rate criminals chose this route.
The BBC’s views are extremely skewed to fit the governments narrative, this can be seen in the selection process of BBC Trust applicants picked by the queen and government members of the DCMS.
https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/tag/dcms/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/trustees/appointment.html
If you live in Scotland and favoured independence in 2014, then you’ll have noticed heavily biased reports against Scottish independence two years prior to 2014, as the BBC ran fearmongering stories night and day, the BBC cannot be trusted to report with fairness and parity.
Not only that but the BBC, have for a long time now imposed a “enforced tax” on the citizens of the UK. It will come as a surprise to some to know that Scotland raises around £300 million pounds in enforced taxes, every year, also known as the licence fee, but has in return spent on production within Scotland just £86 million pounds, by 2016/17.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Scotland
One does wonder where the rest of the enforced taxes end up?
Of course the queen has benefits (what’s new) as head of the BBC, just last week the BBC literally advertised (advertise when it suits them) that the queen was selling her Bentley. Not only did the reveal the sking price, but the mileage as well, they showed a short clip of the car and finished off with saying “one careful owner.”
No paying Auto Trader for old lizzie, when you have a controlling say in the BBC its free.
Did I show you the piece by Tim Harford on ‘“Naive realism”?
http://timharford.com/2016/04/delusions-of-objectivity/
You did indeed Fred, and I got the distinct feeling that you subconsciously saw the symptoms within yourself, ergo you felt the need to reiterate the link. ?
It certainly comes as a surprise to me that Scotland raises £300 million in “enforced tax” through the licence fee arrangement. I thought this was only payable by people who voluntarily chose to acquire a TV set.
The remedy is both simple and effective – don’t have a TV.
Loony, say “The remedy is both simple and effective – don’t have a TV.”
I say the proper channel is for the BBC to raise revenue through advertising like every other channel, no other terrestrial channel applies a “forced tax” that could lead to imprisonment if not paid, it’s tantamount to racketeering.
If the BBC wants to go down the road of say Sky (encryption ), then that’s fine but, to forcibly compel people to pay for something they don’t want or need is a form of blackmail.
For your information Loony, you can have a tv, and watch it as long as it’s not live programming you watch, it must be catch up.
With the state broadcaster in some quarters now held in such low esteem, is it any wonder some of the public see a reformation of the BBC as a necessity.
It’s worked for me since 2004; what a pleasure it was to get a refund of the telly tax.
Loony, 17:26; the law at present is that you need a TV licence if you watch or record programmes at the time that they are being transmitted. You don’t need a licence to own a TV, nor to watch a programme after its transmission.
Craig said: “Nor do I accept that revealing a story about David Cameron’s dead father – a story which had been in the public domain for four years – or securing the resignation of the Prime Minister of Iceland, a tiny state which happens to have taken the most radical action of any against bankers, is sign of balance.
It is a sign of a pretence of balance.”
I agree. Ever increasing numbers of the public are now seeing through the Washington orchestrated charade that is the ‘corporate media’. The Panama Papers seem to be a clumsy attempt to persuade Joe Public that the ‘news’ is real. Also, I believe the media have been sitting on this leaked information for a year now. One has to question the timing of its release, what with what’s going on in Syria and other places.
What I find most frightening about the corporate media in recent years is how co-ordinated it all now is. We seem to be witnessing the biggest propaganda machine in history. For my own part, I noticed a definite turning point after the Snowden revelations started coming out in the summer of 2013. With a few small exceptions, the Snowden saga was the last piece of real reporting by the MSM. The veil has now been drawn, and the implications for free and open societies is quite terrifying.
Agreed! Oh and my retweeting you is entirely NOT an accident ;-))
Speaking of the Empire striking, it turns out that Saudi bombing of the market in Yemen that killed some 100 people, including over 20 children (far more than were killed in the Brussels bombings), was done with U.S. munitions. Democracy Now!: HRW: Deadly Saudi-Led Airstrikes on Market Used U.S.-Supplied Bombs:
were we speaking of the “Empire striking”?
I don’t think we were.
Diversion and irrelevanc to the topic are the hallmarks of the true troll, don’t you agree?
The only subject of any interest now in the Panama Papers is whether the data will be fully released on the internet and available to everybody, and not hidden by the corporate media.
Agree. But I can’t imagine a scandal exposed by the public that wouldn’t be very effectively squashed by the corporate PR industry. F’r instance, Kim Jong-Il’s joint BVI bank account with Elizabeth II…yeah, it might make the Sun for a couple of days, and then so would the denials. The masses would then return to their screens for East Enders and the footie. It’s just easier to stop these things at source – they still get stopped further down the line if that fails.
So, what do you propose doing with any revelations emerging from public scrutiny? Serious question.
its just so weird.. i mean this is the single most important leak in history, so thanks to the leaker for that, but why in all holy FUCK did he go to the MSM?! it just beggers belief.. i don’t even…
Ditto. Cui bono? Let’s see….who was selectively released and repeated ad nauseum?
The single most important leak in history?
I don’t think it is anywhere close. As Rob points out above (“What I find most frightening about the corporate media in recent years is how co-ordinated it all now is. We seem to be witnessing the biggest propaganda machine in history.”)
The Establishment is doing a bit of a strip tease for us: giving us flashes of the forbidden while singing out an exotic cover story ( “do not contact, ever” hundreds of journalists working for more than a year” “an unprecedented amount of material” …)
The problem is that the Establishment underestimates, by several orders of magnitude, the intelligence of the public. This might have worked for Barnum and Bailey but people are a lot more sophisticated now.
Twenty years ago this sort of thing was easy to pull off: for all but a few access to alternative sources of information and analysis was very limited. Now, as Craig’s columns demonstrate, critical ideas can shoot around the world in a day or two.
The age of atomisation, in which the lone citizen sits in front of his TV or radio and is given both the news and the arena in which it may be viewed, is dying. Humanity is coming together, sharing its ideas, involving the thoughts not just of Ivy League Oxbridge elites but of everybody, including the people who, in the phrase of a great Englishman and democrat , “do the work and fight the battles.”
in terms of revealing the magnitude of damage that has been done, the conspiratorial nature of a smash & grab theft by a tiny number of people, to the detriment of so many people.. i’d say it is the most significant leak.. not that we didn’t already know it’s happening, but that the conversation has now started in earnest, about the single biggest problem in the world today.
the wealth stashed could fix a plethora of global problems.. and the system itself is the masthead for the ship that’s sailing the human race into oblivion.
thats why i think its the biggest.
I enjoyed reading that post Bevin. Interestingly my great grand-father Benjamin was a telegraphist for some years after which he became a very successful ‘reporter’ to a local London newspaper simply because of that all important ‘alternate source’ – the wire.
I have been appalled at the decline in BBC reporting in recent years, so that it is now nothing more than a mouthpiece for government. BBC bias on Israel is frightening. Example former BBC governor and ardent Zionist Ruth Deech on apartheid. The BBC now routinely employs hasbara terminology and a total absence of balance. A couple of weeks ago someone calling in to Any Answers was politely critical of Israel. You could hear the fear in the voice of the presenter as she desperately tried to shut down the conversation. She was obviously frightened of losing her job. So much for open discussion.
This highlights a problem which is that wherever information is leaked to it becomes a commodity in the possession of the recipient, to be used for whatever purposes the recipient chooses.
So I suppose a solution would be to post leaked information to multiple bodies, possibly chosen in pairs for their existing adversarial relationships.
Maybe a web organisation could be set up to do that; a sort of non-public Wikileaks whose servers are open to many media publishers, but not the general public. Obviously this solution isn’t perfect; I offer it more as a seed for further thought and discussion.
Yes. Release it and let the chips fall where they may. There can be no legitimate purpose for hidden accounts. But what would be an effective campaign? How would it look?
I suspect that if ‘released’ all that would strike us is how little of importance there is to be discovered in these files.
By all means demand the release but it is not something worth spending time on. If people want to act they should be calling for real changes in the regulation (or lack thereof) of Wall St and The City, a wealth tax, a boycott of tax havens and a great deal more including large scale nationalisation of businesses which owe billions in back taxes.
Shoe-leather is how things get done. Inch-by-inch you erode the protective controls. What better way to curtail the anti-ethos than to expose their behaviors. Even Bernie Sanders can see that i’m sure.
and the Russians could demand a leader who does allow his close friends to steal assets which belong to the Russian state and is honest on his tax return
And the Chinese and the Syrians
For some reason larceny and corruption from certain favoured States doesn’t appear to be a concern of Mr Bevin – or perhaps I am wrong?
You are not wrong.
On the assumption that Mr. Bevin resides in the west there is likely not much he can do regarding the activities of Russians, Chinese and Syrians. On the other hand concerns (should they have merit) raised regarding matters closer to home should be capable of remedy by any state wedded to the twin concepts of democracy and the rule of law.
Perhaps you could remind us how long the fellow travellers prevented the full truth coming out about the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, the Holdomor, Katyn etc. Or the role the interfering anti Apartheid movement played in bringing about change in South Africa. There is nothing stopping standing up for justice both at home and away.
No you are right well wisher – as a long time observer of Bevin I have yet to hear even the merest whisper of criticism of any thing other than western democracies – strangely enough you will never find that he is happy to leave US affairs to US citizens.
Craig lucid and to the point as you have pointed out the oligarch owned media are not amused by the simple fact that we the people no longer trust them. Trust is not an issue that can be legislated for, it is earned!
Given the degrees of the bias that the oligarch owned media have persistently shown, as well as the state propaganda in the guise of the beebeecee which is no longer fit for any purpose because anyone that I know of ranging from accountants to analysts etc. None of whom are even prepared to refer to the beebeecee as a “news” organ and effectively classify it as an “east enders” provider for the little old housewives.
Therefore Mr Angus can huff and puff all he likes, when the audiences are voting with their remotes if any of them happen to see a news piece is most certainly through an accident indeed!
Finally as we all know the corrupt and odious hasbara trolls engaged in their traditional zersetzen ought to be discounted fully and not to be taken any notice of.
I must thank you for providing the platform so that we the people can at least have our own piece of the truth the way we like it! Raw and unadulterated!.
The public’s attitude towards the corporate media is rapidly descending to the level of distrust that the Soviet public had towards the Soviet media. And it’s very difficult to regain trust once it has been lost.
In the year after the Nazis seized power in Germany, the circulation of German newspapers dropped by about 50%, because they had become dull, repititious, and uninformative. And that was in a revolutionary atmosphere where most of the German public supported the revolution.
The nazis didn’t seize power, they were jobbed into office by the camarilla around Hindenburg. What did Papen say after Hitler accepted the chancellorship on their terms? “We’ve bought him.”
the BBC has become in the last few years a mouthpiece for state propaganda with no effective independence of government
In that case, could they not put Nigel Farage on Question Time every other week? If my licence fee is going to be used for state propaganda, I’d at least expect it to be vaguely effective propaganda.
As for releasing all the information, I’m surprised to hear that none of us care about privacy rights anymore all of a sudden.
“I do not accept that there is any legitimate reason for owning offshore companies and offshore bank accounts, if you do not have a business genuinely located in and operating from the jurisdiction. Ordinary people do not have accounts in tax havens. The only reason people have accounts and fake companies in tax havens is to avoid tax and other legal jurisdiction. This is not morally acceptable, whether or not our rulers make sure it is legal. I therefore do not accept any privacy argument for keeping the vast bulk of the data from the public.” (Craig Murray)
Is this a good argument or not? If you do not like it, why not?
Lots of people commit lots of crimes, and that is not necessarily enough reason to put detailed personal data about them – even data linked to the crime – in the newspaper.
Can you imagine the following newspaper article?
John Spencer-Davis caught stealing
John Spencer-Davis was arrested by the police today on the suspicion of having stolen £1m. He allegedly deposited that information in account no. 123-456-7, sort code 12-14-55, an account he held at HSBC. Sources close to Mr. Spencer-Davis tell us he probably used the bulk of the money to fund his heroine addiction, although it is likely that he used some of it to buy experimental AIDS medication to treat his terminally ill wife.
Data protection violation, right?
I do not have any particular objection to people knowing that I have an ISA, in other words that I engage in a very limited form of tax planning.
If I had not paid a penny in income tax over the past ten years, despite having made use of the NHS, the roads, the police, the street lights, the library, and despite having earned a reasonable amount of money over those ten years, is it not arguable that that is a matter of public interest?
I love the “heroine addiction”, by the way. How did you know that I have a soft spot for Natalia Tena? Now that’s a really private matter.
The fact that you don’t mind that certain information about you is made public isn’t the point. If you like, you’re welcome to take out an ad and publicise it yourself. Where it gets problematic is when journalists start deciding that certain sensitive, private information is too important not to put in the paper. It can be, but it’s at least worth a conversation, particularly when we’re not talking about the A-list of (prominent) politicians and businessmen.
I agree with that. And I am not sure that Craig is arguing that if Mr X’s private address or his personal bank details are in the 2 terabytes of data or whatever it is, that that information should be available to John Psycho Smith. If his argument gives that impression then he should modify it. He is arguing that if enormously wealthy people are deliberately taking pains to pay as little tax as possible, zero if they can get away with it, then the public has an interest in knowing who they are and what they’re doing. Of course there is going to be a continuum. There are probably people in the files who don’t have all that much money, comparatively speaking. It does need to be weighed up, but if Joe Fatbloke has an income of fifty million a year and pays no tax and the only way for the public to find that out is to access his name alongside that of Jennifer Richwidow who has half a million a year and pays fifteen percent tax on it, then judgements may have to be made on her right to privacy.
I’ve often found that, while Americans have no comprehension of the concept of privacy, particularly for accused (!) criminals, even Brits don’t approach the topic the same way as continentals like me. I come from a country where even convicted criminals have their names printed in the paper as “John S.”, and their pictures only rarely, with a black bar covering their eyes. When a newspaper accuses someone of a crime itself, rather than reporting on a criminal prosecution already underway, I’d expect no less.
In some instances, printing Joe Fatbloke’s or Jennifer Richwidow’s name in the paper can help the newspaper make its point. But generally, I don’t see how its reporting is enhanced by printing information that identifies individuals. To my mind, “These are the kinds of schemes thousands of rich people all over the world are using” works just as well as “this is the scheme Joe Fabloke used”, even when Joe Fabloke is a person people have actually heard of. (And a fortiori if they have not.)
Martinned 20.21pm.
Oh don’t worry Matinned we in the UK are catching up at a fair rate of knots.
“Detention without Charge
Prior to 1984, a person could not be held by police for longer than 24 hours without a criminal charge being made against them. The Thatcher government extended this to four days.
New Labour extended this first to seven days, then to 14 days, and finally sought the power to detain citizens without charge for up to 90 days, at the request of the police. Whilst the Blair government was defeated on 90 days, the period was doubled nevertheless to 28 day. The Coalition allowed this legislation to expire in 2011, returning the period to 14 days, only to apply for permission to extend to 28 days in the same year.
Meanwhile, the Anti Terrorism and Security Act 2001 allowed for indefinite detention of non British citizens suspected of committing terrorist acts, where there was not enough evidence to proceed to a court of law.
Unlawful Imprisonment
The Control Orders passed in the Terrorism Act 2006 meant anybody suspected of terrorist related activities by the Home Secretary, but without any kind of trial, can be electronically tagged, monitored, be restricted from making phone calls, using the internet, be banned from certain kinds of work, can be restricted from going certain places, have one’s passport revoked and be under a duty to report to the police.
The current government did not extend the life of Control Orders, but replaced them with TPIMS. This saw two improvements, a two year time limit and approval of a judge required. However, a recent review of TPIMS reported that the burden of proof required to administer such an order was too low and that the extreme restrictions were neither necessary nor working.
Secret Courts
The 700 year old UK tradition of open justice has been withering on the vine with successive legislation since 1997 which allowed ‘Closed Material Proceedings’ or Secret Courts into the Justice system. First introduced in 1997 for immigration trials, they were later used for Control Order and TPIM related charges. Yet, in a stunning move this month, the Coalition government and parliament approved legislation to apply Secret Courts in civil cases. Henceforth, if a citizen takes the British government or its officials to court in cases of torture, rendition, or a whole host of other reasons, the government is able to present evidence to the judge which the claimant, defendant, media and public will never be privy to. It will allow the government to resist due scrutiny for its role in torture, rendition and other crimes. The Rev Nicholas Mercer, a lieutenant colonel who was the army’s most senior lawyer during the last Iraq war, told the Daily Mail:”
“The justice and security bill has one principal aim and that is to cover up UK complicity in rendition and torture. The bill is an affront to the open justice on which this country rightly prides itself and, above all, it is an affront to human dignity.”
Catching up to what? In the Continent, most countries have Constitutions and Constitutional Courts that make such things impossible. Brits are somehow more trusting of their government, though you wouldn’t say so from talking to the average voter.
I think the first four words display delusions of grandeur and it goes downhill from there.
Was a time when you went to work and got pound notes in a pay packet at the end of the week, those days are gone, your hard earned and tax paid wages go into a bank and the government has control over that bank, they can freeze your account and make you an un-person any time they want. So that is a good reason for having an offshore account, not trusting the government. That is why Julian Assange had a Swiss bank account, they froze it anyway, he should have got an anonymous account in BVI through a lawyer in Panama.
some of us have raised that point, Martinned .
Yes quite, but the soon to be implemented “beefed up” Snoopers Charter” kind of makes a mockery of your statement, dont you think?
Also if you live in the UK, you live in a nation with one of the highest amounts of security cameras per head of population.
So my thoughts on your assertation,are tinged, with scepticism that the general public at large have any real form of privacy.
Article 12 of the UN DoHR, will need to be rewritten to encompass the Snoopers Charter, and possibly the unknown variable the “British Bill of Rights.
Wait, because the government intrudes on your and my privacy in various unjustified ways, and is proposing to do so even more, that justifies us private citizens intruding in each other’s privacy as well? One sin justifies another?
Martinned.
A fairly reasonable point, but it’s the ICIJ who allegedly hold the files and documents, now correct me if I’m wrong, but when have journalists at large every respected anyone’s privacy?
If the private citizen was so concerned about privacy as you say, then why does sensationlism sell so many papers. Indeed we as a species want to know everyone else’s dirty little secrets, but the cry of injustice goes out when our secrets are on the verge of publics gaze.
Are you saying that the press should have their free and independent voice stifled?
Still, from a moral point of view I accept your point.
Are you saying that the press should have their free and independent voice stifled?
I’m saying that sufficiently serious data protection infringements by journalists can be litigated in the courts in much the same way that libels can be. And I’m saying that that is a good thing. The only question is where the balance should be struck.
The entire Mossack Fonseca data dump could have been orchestrated by a branch of the US National Security State – who knows? and how can anyone know given that no-one is asking the question. The US seems to have a lot to gain from these “revelations” and most others seem to have a lot to lose.
Anyway it hardly matters – in the “advanced west” paying tax is a purely voluntary arrangement for the rich, and mostly they choose not to volunteer. This could be a bit of a problem really, what with increased wealth inequality producing more rich people who choose not to pay tax and a lot more poor people who cannot pay tax.
“One of the many thousand people who retweeted my original post on the Panama Papers, subsequently tweeted that he had done so by accident. This brought the magisterial rebuke from Jamie Angus, editor of the BBC Radio Today programme, that accident “is the only acceptable reason for retweeting Craig Murray.” I can understand that Mr Angus does not want people to hear opinions not sanctioned by his employers, but I would be interested to know why he feels it is not “acceptable” to read my pieces.”
Was this hapless retweeter a BBC employee? If not, what the thump had it to do with Jamie Angus that he retweeted your piece?
Seems to me that beartrap creation is a jolly good reason for not placing all these documents in the public domain. The newspapers and others will want to be able to ask tax evaders whether they hold offshore assets and won’t want the evader to know whether or not their data is in the stuff leaked. The evader will have to either lie or take the Osborne “no comment route”. Why allow them to know what you hold in advance?
If the information is all released, then Western governments or whoever can no longer use it to blackmail people.
Twisting and turning.
A couple of days ago he wanted more info to come out. Now that more info is coming out, he finds a specious reason why all of it might not.
Typical conspiracy stuff from the Master.
How is my posting not a call for the information to come out?
Lysias
Why won”t you tell us whether you yourself would consider getting personally involved in getting all the info into the public domain (within the mimits of the possibilities open to you)?
I ask because you have been urging “someone” to do so – and have even suggested that “someone” should open a Russian website to do so.
Surely you’re a doer and not just a talker?
Lysias already there are rumours of a certain SIS being involved, probably Mark Golding could corporate this, through his network.
The notion that “trust us we are telling you the truth” no longer obtains, show us the evidence and we will make our own minds up, is the operative phrase!
Media organisations can be sued for releasing information, for instance information deemed to be private.
Maybe there should be countervailing laws under which media organisations could be penalised for not publishing information they had access to, for instance if publishing would have been in the public interest.
Who is going to lobby for this law? The oligarchs who own the media? Or their sponsored lickspittle who masquerade as our dear leaders?
Why don’t you try? What are you doing – or are you just sounding off on here?
I do not accept that there is any legitimate reason for owning offshore companies and offshore bank accounts, if you do not have a business genuinely located in and operating from the jurisdiction.
But there are, of course, plenty of legitimate, i.e., lawful, reasons for owning offshore companies and offshore bank accounts.
You then say that such offshore arrangements to avoid tax are immoral. But business has always been, by your standard, immoral in seeking to maximize profit by every legitimate means, and always will be for the simple reason that competition drives out of business those who, by your standards, are “moral”. (As H.L. Mencken remarked, making money in business is easy, but loosing it is even easier.)
It is the law that that creates the unfair advantage enjoyed by those with offshore tax avoidance mechanisms. The solution, therefore, is not to condemn those who do what anyone in business is impelled to do to survive in a competitive environment, but to change the law. First, inclusion of all offshore transactions should be required with every tax return. Second, all offshore income should be treated for tax purposes in the same way as domestic income. That way, no point in most offshore arrangements.
“The solution, therefore, is not to condemn those who do what anyone in business is impelled to do to survive in a competitive environment, but to change the law.”
I’ve heard advice akin to this for ages. It’s bromide insists it is a simple matter and it certainly is easier if you have a chain of evidence for such condemnation. Maybe even those participating in the legal venture can be shamed into joining in condemnation of existing legislation. We don’t have time for evolutionary crawling.
Don’t really follow your reasoning. Are you saying that by calling tax avoidance illegitimate often enough people will be shamed into paying up? Seems doubtful to me. As for shaming tax avoiders by exposing them to public view, why would it stop them doing what they are fully entitled to do and what, in their view, only a fool would not do?
The only way to stop stop objectionable forms of tax avoidance (except by criminals) is to make them illegal, which could be done easily.That it is not done, is because those who profit from it not being done own the politicians who allow it to continue to be done.
Thus it is that US law has made the US the world’s biggest tax haven.
Wish the blog software could be updated with an edit function, allowing five minutes of review and revision after posting.
I second that.
Just use the reply function as an edit button. I thought you liked things simple.
“The only way to stop stop objectionable forms of tax avoidance (except by criminals) is to make them illegal, which could be done easily.That it is not done, is because those who profit from it not being done own the politicians who allow it to continue to be done.”
Repeating the same words does not persuade. Let me use some plain language. It’s not easy to change laws. But it will be easier when transparency leads to anger in the populace, making it a priority for the bastids who want to be re-elected. In Jake’s words, let me ask you for the benefit of all those decent folks who have the means and the opportunity to hide the vast majority of their assets; “How much better can you eat?”
I actually think a cap on personal wealth needs a look. Call me a commie, but when i hear of billion-dollar wedding festival it may be time to address how responsibility dove-tails with liberty. You can’t really have freedom without responsibility.
Piketty thinks a wealth tax would be a way to reduce income and wealth inequality.
The ancient Athenian democracy used what in effect was a wealth tax, imposing on wealthy Athenians the obligation to pay for communal expenses like warships and drama productions through the system of liturgies.
Although the wealth tax is no longer in effect in them, until recently Sweden and Germany had wealth taxes. In the world wars, the United States imposed an excess profits tax which in effect was a wealth tax.
Lysias; (this is where the reply function breaks down)
i find that unavoidable for the upper ninety-percentile and you could make the numbers work for them by using mortality tables and the back-scratch of eliminating Estate taxes. They might bite at that.
BTW; No need for estate taxes when wealth is capped, Canspeccy,
Craigslist? How are they involved?
I am not sure I buy the argument that an immoral act negates the right to privacy. Who decides what is and isn’t moral? Craig Murray? is chasing other women while married an immoral act that negates the right to privacy? is excessive drinking? is disloyalty to one’s own country?
Is being a pathetic tosser, as painful as you make it out to be?
Does being an abusive git really give you fulfillment in your life?
No! But helps to call you out for the pitifully pathetic tosser that you really are!
Why can each case not be evaluated on its merits? After all, newspapers make enormous sums of money by reporting on the sexual high jinks of celebrities. Personally, I don’t think that is in the slightest a matter of public interest, but judges have spent weeks deliberating such matters.
I would say that the overriding factor is whether the public interest in knowing something outweighs the harm done to someone’s privacy when revealing it. And you are quite right – somebody has to make a decision on that, don’t they? Judges do so all the time.
Yes, but given the numbers apparently involved, the courts would be doing nothing else for months/years.
Ted Koppel is a veteran American journalist. I won’t go into his credentials. You can easily search for them.
Last month Koppel was on the Bill O’Reilly show on Fox ‘News’, and a quite extraordinary exchange took place (the following video link is only a few minutes long)…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmOZPE-CFN8
Wikileaks are claiming that the US government and George Soros are behind the leak, and that its sole purpose is to make Putin look bad: https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/
USAID has a history of doing the CIA’s dirty work. CIA Front, USAID, “Spreading Democracy”, Gearing Up in Ukraine – Suharto II?
You already said that yesterday.
Stay on topic, stop diverting….you troll.
You appear to have attached yourself, parasitically, to Lysias in much the same way that you did to Mary-the first victim of your effrontery and malice.
What you do is quite evident to any rational person following this blog and its comments. It simply has the effect of robbing your rehashes of neo-con and hasbara apologetics of any credibility. Keep up the good work.
Bevin
Firstly, you’re diverting and moreover ascribing motives to people, which Craig has said is rather naughty.
But I shall answer you.
I “attach” myself to anyone whose posts are characterised by a certain kind of sly and pretentious fakery or obsessiveness. Even when they carry illustrious handles.
Luckily, there are not too many of you on this blog
Those who expose themselves on a public blog must expect the content of their posts to be subject to rigorous scrutiny and, where deserved, robust criticism..
Hope that clarifies.
Remora ‘attachment’ heh. Parasites Unite !
By “obsessiveness” he means I’ve been more critical of Israel than he likes. Just like with Mary.
To me, his obsessiveness in attacking me means I’ve been being effective.
I’m aware, Lysias, that you often post things just to attract my attention, and possibly even to annoy me.
I suppose that’s what you mean by “I’ve been being effective”…….? 🙂
“I “attach” myself to anyone whose posts are characterised by a certain kind of sly and pretentious fakery or obsessiveness. Even when they carry illustrious handles.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, Hasb you crack me up! The irony runs rampant! Funniest thing I’ve read for a long time.
And you never flinch or blush – a hide like a rhinoceros and the logical rigour of a five year old. You’ll say anything. But that’s not a criticism! More power to you. You are exactly as special as your mother told you you were.
Long may you etc. etc.
@Mayeaux Wren
April 8, 2016 at 01:55,
You have made me fall off my chair with laughter! (I seriously nearly did fall off) thanks mate for such a funny comment. I shall unashamedly steal this paragraph;
“I “attach” myself to anyone whose posts are characterised by a certain kind of sly and pretentious fakery or obsessiveness. Even when they carry illustrious handles.”
__________________
Habb.
How refreshing that you’ve decided to reveal part of your remit (see above) as to why you’re really shall we say , squatting on this blog.
Though in all fairness, to other posters, it has been well known, one just has to see for whom or where you make a staunch and robust defence to realise that casual commenting isn’t your thing, no its methodical and focused, still occasionally you do post some very interesting articles.
One could say however that you suffer from Allodoxaphobia, a (fear of opinions) on certain matters anyway. ?
I think it’s primarily an issue of US tax havens versus non-US tax havens.
Sure, it’s an opportunity to have a go at US enemies as well.
But, it’s primarily a way of showing that non-US tax havens are leakier than US tax havens. An attack on non US controlled tax havens.
The US wants these monies under its control.
Swiss secrecy has already been compromised and now it’s BVI’s turn.
OECD have been banging on about Panama for a while now.
The Globalists don’t want any hidey places they can’t get at.
http://www.oecd.org/tax/statement-from-oecd-secretary-general-angel-gurria-on-the-panama-papers.htm
Catherine Austin Fitts was saying in 2011 that they’d be coming for the tax havens.
It’s not the moral issue that many think.
Simply US crooks fighting to control non US crooks.
It’s not clear from your post whether you think it’s the US which is behind these leaks or the “Globalists”.
Would you care to tease out your claom (or claims) a little more?
Globalists are multinational, but it’s currently US resources that are being used to promote the goal.
I believe you’ve squared the circle, Herbie.
AHEM ! (cough, cough)
If it were the sole purpose then might I suggest that the leak would have been rather more selective and contained rather less diversionary material. Perhaps you might wish to question why WikiLeaks doesn’t publish any leaks from the Russian government ( at least in recent years) or its mafia corporations – the existence of Rospil is proof positive that such information is available if you want it.
Assange is of course paid by RT for making documentaries and a member of Putin’s FSB Review Board has been a sponsor of Snowden’s stay in Moscow.
Next.
Are you suggesting that Assange and Snowden are working for the Russians, whatever that might mean.
Russia has its own divisions so far as the Globalist/Multipolar agenda.
But then, so do Europe, the UK and US.
Point is, Assange and Snowden could be said to be working to interests in any of these, and in all of these.
And talking of Ted Koppel, he hosted a tv debate back in the 1980s about nuclear weapons. Taking part were the scientist Carl Sagan, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the philosopher Elie Wiesel, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, General Brent Scowcroft and conservative commentator William F. Buckley. The only remotely sane people in this debate are Carl Sagan and the host, Ted Koppel. This is a long video – 1 hour and 20 minutes…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3CLeA2bOKU
It’s important to see this because it’s a tent peg to where we are now. Listen to the voices, and watch the body language, of participants like Kissinger, McNamara and Buckley, who basically try to intellectualise mass murder (exactly the same as the Nazis did). It should be noted that at the time of this debate, in 1983, the USA and USSR each had about 20,000 nuclear warheads, which was enough to wipe out all life on Earth many, many times over. It should also be noted that even today both the USA and Russia still each have about 5,000 nuclear warheads, the majority of which are on hair-trigger alert. In otherwords, armageddon has never gone away. It’s just as mad now as it was back then; but keep taking the drugs, folks, so that you don’t have to think about the psychopaths with their fingers on the button. Many of us in the western world are guilty, because we vote into power lunatics who should really be in an asylum. And so it goes…
Peeps thinking that Walter Cronkite was some sort of friend of truth and honesty is a bit of a laugh.
He himself was self-declared Globalist, and very proud of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oFS-KT377M
He even did the voice of the owl at Bohemian Grove ffs!
Minerva had long since left the stage.
His own memoirs take pride in his support of Eisenhower over Adlai and he used his media image to promote that. Fuck his ilk.
Absolutely.
Think they’re better, more knowing than ordinary folk.
There’s more humanity and decency sleeping on the streets of London than ever there was in any corporate boardroom.
But surely you think you know more than most folks, don’t you, Herbie?
After all, do you not keep using the words “sheeple” and “peeps” and have you not on several occasions talked about your unique ability to “see the bigger picture”?
“After all, do you not keep using the words “sheeple” and “peeps” and have you not on several occasions talked about your unique ability to “see the bigger picture”?
Haven’t used the term “unique” in this regard.
Rarely if ever used the term “sheeple”
“Peeps” simply means all of us excepting psychopathic elites.
Easily disposing of habby lies since around 2013.
If you are the only one who can see the bigger picture, does that not make you unique?
As for your use of certain words – words which would seem to emphasise that unique ability – we must agree to disagree, I’m afraid.
Let the record speak for itself as the saying goes.
There are plenty of people who see the big picture.
Not least those who are implementing it.
You’re simply another clueless bureaucrat, habby.
A useful idiot.
Globalist – is that the new term for internationalist i.e. something those on the left used to aspire to be before they decided to adopt nationalism and sectarianism.
Leftists still mostly aspire to Internationalism.
To that extent they’re being used by Globalists.
But yes, both nationalism and sectarianism have been used by Globalists along the way.
You see those maps in the Middle East.
They were drawn that way to ensure sectarian division.
But, at this moment in time it’s important to retain nationalism in some areas to fight off the Globalists.
They’re an existential danger to the whole of humanity.
That fraud, Buckley, pretending to be a Conservative.
Skull and Bones, CIA, I’m afraid.
Pirates all.
Plunder and pillage versus free trade.
Real trading peoples tend not to kill their customers and suppliers.