Tony Blair and the £8million tax mystery

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

With no red rose tinted specs I can't reply to many of the curious offerings within Countdown's generous interpretation of events as Tiny Bliar looks different from the perspective of a non-chip carrying non-leftie

TB – I don’t think I’m a chip-carrying leftie (although I would accept that I am probably left-wing compared to many on PH). Your use of the words Tiny Bliar don’t really suggest that you’re exactly impartial either. In any case this thread smacks of “lets throw enough mud and hope some of it sticks”, Its also hypocritical, plenty of politicians of all shades make money once they’ve left office, through their connections. Indeed many have second or third jobs whilst still in office. So I’m not sure why TB is entitled to any special criticism

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

The author of the article I originally linked to, did this for you already.

Presumably you read it?

The “reason” he gave is pure and utter rubbish. There isn’t anybody stood at the gates of Companies House monitoring the information as its filed, who then goes on holiday over Christmas and thereby misses anybody who has submitted their accounts during that period. If anybody seriously wanted to see TB’s accounts all they would need to do is make a note of his year-end and do a webcheck on Windrush Ventures 10 months and 1 day later. What Mckenzie is relying on is throwing enough mud around and hoping the gullible just accept it at face value.

turbobloke said:

all the alleged happenings I listed were as an ex-PM. Did you not see Dispatches and do you not read about this stuff in MSM articles? To argue so assiduously (while advocating so devilishly) you seem to be unaware of a bit too much to form an opinion one way or the other. Premature adjudication problems?

Sadly I don’t appear to have as much free time as you do. I wasn’t judging anything. People expressed strong opinions about TBs tax affairs and I wondered whether it was all froth or whether there was any underlying substance. It looks like froth so far.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

With no red rose tinted specs I can't reply to many of the curious offerings within Countdown's generous interpretation of events as Tiny Bliar looks different from the perspective of a non-chip carrying non-leftie

TB – I don’t think I’m a chip-carrying leftie (although I would accept that I am probably left-wing compared to many on PH). Your use of the words Tiny Bliar don’t really suggest that you’re exactly impartial either.

That's correct, though my view is based on a reasonable amount of reading, .istening, watching and enduring the reality, so it's not bias but a conscious act of disdain for somebody worthy of it. Also my comment was made in the context of your repeated requests for examples and clarification, suggesting any level of support you may have for Blair as PM or ex-PM is based on less.

Finally, my remark referred to my position and that of fully chipped up lefties but didn't refer to any specific other individual. Inference is in the eye of the beholder.

Countdown said:

In any case this thread smacks of “lets throw enough mud and hope some of it sticks”, Its also hypocritical, plenty of politicians of all shades make money once they’ve left office, through their connections. Indeed many have second or third jobs whilst still in office. So I’m not sure why TB is entitled to any special criticism.

The grinning jackanape is unworthy of your defence and I feel no need to say more on that.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

The author of the article I originally linked to, did this for you already.

Presumably you read it?

The “reason” he gave is pure and utter rubbish.

In your view, and possibly so or possibly not.

Countdown said:

There isn’t anybody stood at the gates of Companies House monitoring the information as its filed, who then goes on holiday over Christmas and thereby misses anybody who has submitted their accounts during that period.

This is a strawman, neither Mackenzie nor anybody else has made such a claim so you had no need to counter.

Countdown said:

What Mckenzie is relying on is throwing enough mud around and hoping the gullible just accept it at face value.

He's offering a view, not unrealistic, but as I said previously this could be Blair displaying a playful middle finger sense of humour.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

all the alleged happenings I listed were as an ex-PM. Did you not see Dispatches and do you not read about this stuff in MSM articles? To argue so assiduously (while advocating so devilishly) you seem to be unaware of a bit too much to form an opinion one way or the other. Premature adjudication problems?

Sadly I don’t appear to have as much free time as you do.

Sure if you say so, but probably not.

You don't have selective memory issues then?!

Countdown said:

I wasn’t judging anything. People expressed strong opinions about TBs tax affairs and I wondered whether it was all froth or whether there was any underlying substance. It looks like froth so far.

You mention slinging mud but conveniently forget it's in the context of a mudbath.

[JonRB]

Countdown said:

In any case this thread smacks of “lets throw enough mud and hope some of it sticks”, Its also hypocritical, plenty of politicians of all shades make money once they’ve left office, through their connections. Indeed many have second or third jobs whilst still in office. So I’m not sure why TB is entitled to any special criticism

As the instigator of this thread I can assure you that was not the intent. I just find it interesting that Tony Blair would seek to shroud his business affairs in a complex multitude of companies and LLPs (the latter of which do not have a legal obligation to publish accounts). I'd also be interested to hear how a company that has a turnover of £12million can justify "administrative expenses" of £11million. As an account surely you must be too?

[turbobloke]

As not an accountant I'm keen to know so I can pass details to mine, not that there is £11m to ferret.

Good luck to Blair with legitimate earnings, as long as it's under a no hypocrisy totally transparent modus operandi. So, a fail it is then.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

That's correct, though my view is based on a reasonable amount of reading, .istening, watching and enduring the reality, so it's not bias but a conscious act of disdain for somebody worthy of it.

The fact that you give any credence to Mckenzie's comment suggests that your reasoning is biased/flawed. I'll happily retract my comment if you can present any evidence that filing accounts between Xmas & New Year gives anybody any advantage

turbobloke said:

Also my comment was made in the context of your repeated requests for examples and clarification, suggesting any level of support you may have for Blair as PM or ex-PM is based on less.

Examples & clarifications which haven't exactly been forthcoming

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

In any case this thread smacks of “lets throw enough mud and hope some of it sticks”, Its also hypocritical, plenty of politicians of all shades make money once they’ve left office, through their connections. Indeed many have second or third jobs whilst still in office. So I’m not sure why TB is entitled to any special criticism.

The grinning jackanape is unworthy of your defence and I feel no need to say more on that.

As you'll understand, that's nothing more than your opinion. I'd like to retain the option of choosing whom I wish to defend.

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

The author of the article I originally linked to, did this for you already.

Presumably you read it?

The “reason” he gave is pure and utter rubbish.

In your view, and possibly so or possibly not.

Do you have any "logical" "reasonable" grounds for asserting that it's possible and not complete tripe ?

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

There isn’t anybody stood at the gates of Companies House monitoring the information as its filed, who then goes on holiday over Christmas and thereby misses anybody who has submitted their accounts during that period.

This is a strawman, neither Mackenzie nor anybody else has made such a claim so you had no need to counter.

He's suggested that there is "some" form of monitoring process that lessens in intensity over the christmas period. I thought the example I gave was apt

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

What Mckenzie is relying on is throwing enough mud around and hoping the gullible just accept it at face value.

He's offering a view, not unrealistic, but as I said previously this could be Blair displaying a playful middle finger sense of humour.

. Its a completely false view - like saying red cars have higher insurance premiums.

[Countdown]

JonRB said:

As the instigator of this thread I can assure you that was not the intent. I just find it interesting that Tony Blair would seek to shroud his business affairs in a complex multitude of companies and LLPs (the latter of which do not have a legal obligation to publish accounts). I'd also be interested to hear how a company that has a turnover of £12million can justify "administrative expenses" of £11million. As an account surely you must be too?

That's what Accountants are paid for (tax mitigation). Pretty easy to rack up $11m expenses depending on how many staff you employ, which offices you lease, what comapny car you run, how much you pay for security. I couldn't tell you how he's done it without looking at his return but given that it was PwC who prepared his Accounts I'd be confident that it was legal.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

As not an accountant I'm keen to know so I can pass details to mine, not that there is £11m to ferret.

Pop into your local PwC office. they'll happily give you some tips (for a small fee).

turbobloke said:

Good luck to Blair with legitimate earnings, as long as it's under a no hypocrisy totally transparent modus operandi. So, a fail it is then.

Bound to be

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

That's correct, though my view is based on a reasonable amount of reading, .istening, watching and enduring the reality, so it's not bias but a conscious act of disdain for somebody worthy of it.

The fact that you give any credence to Mckenzie's comment suggests that your reasoning is biased/flawed.

Or that we have heard, read and seen the same things, which you must have missed

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Also my comment was made in the context of your repeated requests for examples and clarification, suggesting any level of support you may have for Blair as PM or ex-PM is based on less.

Examples & clarifications which haven't exactly been forthcoming

How odd, have your red rose tinted specs become opaque?

I've been soooo generous with all the clarification that your remark cannot be taken seriously. Just look at all those bullet points

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

In any case this thread smacks of “lets throw enough mud and hope some of it sticks”, Its also hypocritical, plenty of politicians of all shades make money once they’ve left office, through their connections. Indeed many have second or third jobs whilst still in office. So I’m not sure why TB is entitled to any special criticism.

The grinning jackanape is unworthy of your defence and I feel no need to say more on that.

As you'll understand, that's nothing more than your opinion. I'd like to retain the option of choosing whom I wish to defend.

No it's clearly not limited to my opinion - precisely as evidenced by the clarification I gave to your previous query on propriety, go back and take another look, the evidence I refer to is all over the MSM even if you did manage to miss Dispatches.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

The author of the article I originally linked to, did this for you already.

Presumably you read it?

The “reason” he gave is pure and utter rubbish.

In your view, and possibly so or possibly not.

Do you have any "logical" "reasonable" grounds for asserting that it's possible and not complete tripe ?

Yes and they are self-evident not to mention given already, sheesh.


And your strawman is now in pieces (of straw) btw.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

What Mckenzie is relying on is throwing enough mud around and hoping the gullible just accept it at face value.

He's offering a view, not unrealistic, but as I said previously this could be Blair displaying a playful middle finger sense of humour.

. Its a completely false view - like saying red cars have higher insurance premiums.

Another strange one. Red cars? Freudian politicoboob? Why not blue cars

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

As not an accountant I'm keen to know so I can pass details to mine, not that there is £11m to ferret.

Pop into your local PwC office. they'll happily give you some tips (for a small fee).

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Good luck to Blair with legitimate earnings, as long as it's under a no hypocrisy totally transparent modus operandi. So, a fail it is then.

Bound to be

Sure thing.

[turbobloke]

Now go for it again and watch the anti nested quote brigade get jiggy

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Now go for it again and watch the anti nested quote brigade get jiggy

You seem to be getting mixed up in the hype and emotional stuff you criticise others for. "Tiny Blair"? His name's Tony. "Grinning Jackanape"? Who are you? Richard Littlejohn?

[pacman1]

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Now go for it again and watch the anti nested quote brigade get jiggy

You seem to be getting mixed up in the hype and emotional stuff you criticise others for. "Tiny Blair"? His name's Tony. "Grinning Jackanape"? Who are you? Richard Littlejohn?

Not sure what your point is. Even Labour supporters realise what a complete Tony's turned out to be.

[turbobloke]

pacman1 said:

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Now go for it again and watch the anti nested quote brigade get jiggy

You seem to be getting mixed up in the hype and emotional stuff you criticise others for. "Tiny Blair"? His name's Tony. "Grinning Jackanape"? Who are you? Richard Littlejohn?

Not sure what your point is. Even Labour supporters realise what a complete Tony's turned out to be.

Listening to the apologists we'd be forgiven for thinking Bliar was a saint.

As you correctly point out, on the basis of evidence the man has turned out to be an odious piece of work, fulfilling all the 'promise' so clearly visible as PM.

Wallace Gump thought there was mileage in saying he wasn't Blair

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

That's correct, though my view is based on a reasonable amount of reading, .istening, watching and enduring the reality, so it's not bias but a conscious act of disdain for somebody worthy of it.

The fact that you give any credence to Mckenzie's comment suggests that your reasoning is biased/flawed.

Or that we have heard, read and seen the same things, which you must have missed

Help me out then. Which things have you and KM read that I've missed?

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Also my comment was made in the context of your repeated requests for examples and clarification, suggesting any level of support you may have for Blair as PM or ex-PM is based on less.

Examples & clarifications which haven't exactly been forthcoming

How odd, have your red rose tinted specs become opaque?

I've been soooo generous with all the clarification that your remark cannot be taken seriously. Just look at all those bullet points

The bullet points which make extensive use of the words "allegedly", "apparently", and other examples which you can't recall. You know he's probably a witch as well

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

In any case this thread smacks of “lets throw enough mud and hope some of it sticks”, Its also hypocritical, plenty of politicians of all shades make money once they’ve left office, through their connections. Indeed many have second or third jobs whilst still in office. So I’m not sure why TB is entitled to any special criticism.

The grinning jackanape is unworthy of your defence and I feel no need to say more on that.

As you'll understand, that's nothing more than your opinion. I'd like to retain the option of choosing whom I wish to defend

No it's clearly not limited to my opinion - precisely as evidenced by the clarification I gave to your previous query on propriety, go back and take another look, the evidence I refer to is all over the MSM even if you did manage to miss Dispatches.

As far as I can see it IS your opinion and nothing more. Allegation, assumptions, and guilt by association are not evidence, just because they fit with your agenda. Not that you're biased in any way

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

If you could tell me any possible advantage that Blair would get (however remote) by requesting is Accounts are filed between Xmas and New Year I would be grateful.

The author of the article I originally linked to, did this for you already.

Presumably you read it?

The “reason” he gave is pure and utter rubbish.

In your view, and possibly so or possibly not.

Do you have any "logical" "reasonable" grounds for asserting that it's possible and not complete tripe ?

Yes and they are self-evident not to mention given already, sheesh.

No they haven't. To clarify for the umpteenth time Kelvin Mckenzie suggesting that Blair's chosen date for filing accounts is "suspect" is not evidence fact or anything other than tripe.

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

What Mckenzie is relying on is throwing enough mud around and hoping the gullible just accept it at face value.

He's offering a view, not unrealistic, but as I said previously this could be Blair displaying a playful middle finger sense of humour.

. Its a completely false view - like saying red cars have higher insurance premiums.

Another strange one. Red cars? Freudian politicoboob? Why not blue cars

That would be just as accurate.

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Good luck to Blair with legitimate earnings, as long as it's under a no hypocrisy totally transparent modus operandi. So, a fail it is then.

Bound to be

Sure thing.

Glad we agree

[DonkeyApple]

Both of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Giving so much of your important and valuable time over to discussing the merits of some words scribbled down by an offensive, low functioning spazmoidtodos the purpose of taking money off low functioning muppets.

[pacman1]

Countdown said:

To clarify for the umpteenth time Kelvin Mckenzie suggesting that Blair's chosen date for filing accounts is "suspect" is not evidence fact or anything other than tripe.

But you don't seem to understand, Tony Blair is is/still is a Champagne Socialist. Just LOOK at the WAD in his back pocket. A man who devoted his life to the Labour Party, the party of the common people.

G'wan, admit it, you think he's a as well..

[vonuber]

In hindsight the only person Tony Blair was interested in helping was himself. He was a true career politician, and has set the template for the current lot we have.

[Countdown]

pacman1 said:

Countdown said:

To clarify for the umpteenth time Kelvin Mckenzie suggesting that Blair's chosen date for filing accounts is "suspect" is not evidence fact or anything other than tripe.

But you don't seem to understand, Tony Blair is is/still is a Champagne Socialist. Just LOOK at the WAD in his back pocket. A man who devoted his life to the Labour Party, the party of the common people.

G'wan, admit it, you think he's a as well..

I think as a person he left a lot to be desired. With regards to political views I don't think there was/is a huge gap between him and the current Tory party. In fact he's probably closer to Cameron than he was to Brown (politically speaking).

That doesn't mean that everything he now does must, by default, be dodgy or criminal though. It might well be but lets base any accusations on facts rather than media smoke and mirrors.

[pacman1]

vonuber said:

In hindsight the only person Tony Blair was interested in helping was himself. He was a true career politician, and has set the template for the current lot we have.

Sorted. So we all agree he's a then

[DonkeyApple]

pacman1 said:

Sorted. So we all agree he's a then

The only real arguement to have is whether he is a , a st, or a wker.

[Mermaid]

DonkeyApple said:

The only real arguement to have is whether he is a , a st, or a wker.

Or all, but a smart one.