11 ms·

Hilarious that BBC, a broadcaster paid for by British tax payers, has a subheading in that article titled "Russian connection" describing various dealings of Ru

Hilarious 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. Not to mention direct implications of various other western puppets (Saudi King, Ukrainian PM, Iraqi former PM) and other dubious "connections".

riazrizvi 11y ago
I look at articles like this and ask myself is this journalism or is it a shake down?
rwmj 11y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
MIKarlsen 11y ago
Disagree. This way they can perhaps force anyone involved to comment, while blowing everything wide open in public would perhaps make the case revolve around a single case, and not the actual political aspects of the case. Or am I just making stuff up here? In my world this is a great tactic. Danish television will be covering this for a week. If politicians are involved it's probably best to let them comment and do their job first, instead of putting them in the spotlight where they will avoid commenting on the case.
Jerry2 11y ago
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 to paranoia about Russians. They're truly in the league of their own. They have tabloids like BILD that devote several pages of every issue on "evil russians". They even print special issues about evil Russians and new Hitler aka Putin. When I visited Germany last year, I felt like they're in a second Cold War or something. In the US, we managed to stop being paranoid after 1990s but Germans are still paranoid about Russians. It was explained to me by a german friend of mine that this is because their biggest publisher, Axel Springer, was started with CIA money and that every journalist who works for any of the Axel Springer properties has to sign a contract that says that they have to foster the relationship with the US. Unsaid rule is that they have to disparage Russians. And sure enough, if you search for some of this stuff, you can find things like [2] and [3] [0]: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journali... [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/reference http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/reference [2] http://i.imgur.com/ufKQh49.png http://i.imgur.com/ufKQh49.png [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE#Corporate_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE#Corporate_pri... Edit : After some googling, I came across this interesting article by Rüdiger Göbel... it sums up things nicely. http://russia-insider.com/en/groundhog-day-german-msm-keeps-repeating-anti-putin-propoganda/ri12042 http://russia-insider.com/en/groundhog-day-german-msm-keeps-... Edit #2 : I see my comment is controversial and is being heavily down/upvoted with downvotes winning. Anyway, to add even more evidence to what I'm saying, see the Twitter feed [4] of Julian Röpcke, who's a 'political editor at BILD'. Go take a look for yourself and start scrolling. Everything that happens in the world, Russians are somehow behind it according to him. Millions of refugees from Syria in Europe? That's because of Russians and Putin (never mind the fact that millions arrived way before Russians started their deployment in Syria). I guess he cannot mention that unrest started after US implemented a policy of destabilizing Assad and funding of various islamic terror organization... because that would be against his pro-US "jounalistic" contract that he signed. [4] https://twitter.com/julianroepcke https://twitter.com/julianroepcke
- tomp 11y ago
  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.
  - neffy 11y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International
    - tomp 11y ago
      That was more than 70 years ago.
      - neffy 11y ago
        There is a continuity to human social organisation and behaviours that transcends both time and ideology.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      Russia's socialist days are long behind it now, for better or worse.
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        However, curiously, at least over here (Finland), the old Communist sympathizers seem to still be friends of Russia. Or vice versa: if someone is uncritically repeating Russian propaganda (re Ukraine, Donbass etc) then if he's standing in the election he's most likely with one of fringe communist parties. It somehow goes beyond just hating America and NATO which are good common enemies. It is weird of course, as some of these people are very wealthy and in a real communist revolution would clearly get a bullet in the back of the head.
sievebrain 11y ago
Maybe, but "father of a PM" is not even close to the same thing as "PM". If Cameron's father has done something wrong, that doesn't (shouldn't) affect perceptions of his son. The days of punishing children for the crimes of their parents are long in the past. Assuming the guy did anything wrong, of course. As these articles note, off shore companies are not illegal.
- mladenkovacevic 11y ago
  A father is certainly a closer connection than childhood friend or "close associate" whatever that means.
- usaphp 11y ago
  Ok so they can talk about Putin's childhood friend, but not about Cameron's father?
  - justin66 11y ago
    The implication was that Putin's childhood friend is running a scheme that Putin is taking part in.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - chris11 11y ago
      But Cameron directly benefited from his father's tax avoidance. He received several hundred thousand pounds as an inheritance from his father's estate. I'm sure he would have received less if his father had not saved money by avoiding taxes. He wasn't running the scheme, but he did directly benefit from it.
      - grey-area 11y ago
        A child has no control over their parent's financial affairs when they were a minor. If they are involved after they reach majority that's very different.
mschuster91 11y ago
Which is why it's good that this massive pile of data is analyzed by a huge load of international newspapers. This way, papers can selectively publish stuff that won't put themselves in too grave danger - just look what happened to The Guardian with the Snowden leak (visits from three-letter agency officials) or what happens in Turkey, Ukraine or Hungary with media that dares to publish stuff too offensive to the respective regimes. The situation sucks, yes, but it's the only viable modus operandi for now.
- mladenkovacevic 11y ago
  I mean sure journalists and meme-makers will spin this however it suits them, but I thought here in the west we're assured that we have freedom of press. This type of obvious slant certainly doesn't make it seem that way.
  - mayank 11y ago
    > 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.
    - mdpopescu 11y ago
      That's exactly what freedom of the press is supposed to mean...
      - mayank 11y ago
        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.
supergirl 11y ago
the BBC's bias against Russia is notorious, surpassed only by washingtonpost, but I don't know if that one is taken seriously anyway.
vesinisa 11y ago
I believe they are withholding details regarding any British connections until the BBC Panorama show which airs tomorrow. As before, this leak is coordinated across different media organisations and the whole news cache is released iteratively.
- infodroid 11y ago
  That might be the case, we will have to see. But surely it is strange to single out Russia in this way.
makomk 11y ago
Not surprised. Last I heard, the Government was floating the idea of turning editorial control of the BBC over to a board of their own appointees: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/the-guardian-view-on-the-new-bbc-board-a-threat-to-independence http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/the-gua...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mtgx 11y ago
  BBC is just trying to get ahead - by self-censoring itself. They sure showed Cameron!
  - cb18 11y ago
    > by self-censoring itself. This is is of course an area of concern. It is sometimes referred to as cognitive capture, akin to regulatory capture. It occurs when a regulatee so strongly paints a picture of how they feel the world should work, that a regulator fails to fulfill their duties, because their lens on the world has become so distorted in favor of the regulatee's perspective. It often flows private industry ----> govt, with private industry cognitively capturing the government. But it can just as easily go the other way. Afterall, in the west the media/journalist industry has historically been seen as the regulator of the government, the fourth estate.
mercurial 11y ago
> Not to mention direct implications of various other western puppets (Saudi King, Ukrainian PM, Iraqi former PM) and other dubious "connections". I don't know about Ukraine, but the Middle East would likely be quite different if both the Saudi ruler and al-Maliki were "Western puppers".
Cyph0n 11y ago
But when channels like Al Jazeera do the same thing with issues pertaining to Qatar, which is unethical of course, everyone has their pitchforks ready. I mean come on - everyone knows that BBC is a "neutral" news source.
alkonaut 11y ago
> 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.
- hackerboos 11y ago
  It's funded by the license fee. You don't have to pay but then you can't watch live TV.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    > 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.
    - aninhumer 11y ago
      Not really? The government still controls the licence fee.
- DrJokepu 11y ago
  Actually, the Office of National Statistics now classifies the TV Licence fee as tax.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    It certainly is indistinguishable from a tax from the licensee's perspective, so I agree with the classification in that sense (e.g. for evaluating the tax pressure of UK citizens etc). The important takeaway however is that unlike proper taxes the money isn't politically controlled.
infodroid 11y ago
It is remarkable that this breaking story focuses on Russia, Iceland and unfriendly/anti-Western dictators (Mubarak, Gaddafi, al-Assad). And apart from Cameron's father: - Pamela Sharples, member of the House of Lords - Michael Ashcroft, former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and former member of the House of Lords - Michael Mates, former Member of Parliament And in the EU: - Giuseppe Donaldo Nicosia, business partner of former Italian senator - Jérôme Cahuzac, former French minister - Konrad Mizzi, current Maltese minister - Miguel Arias Cañete, wife of a current Spanish minister and European Commissioner - Paweł Piskorski, former Warsaw mayor - Stavros Papastavrou, former advisor to the current Greek Prime Minister --- Source: ICIJ https://projects.icij.org/panama-papers/power-players/index.html https://projects.icij.org/panama-papers/power-players/index....
- cperciva 11y ago
  What's so remarkable about focusing on heads of state rather than lesser ministers, members of parliament, etc.?
  - eugeneionesco 11y ago
    Then why are they focusing on Putin's "associates" who are not even in the government?
  - infodroid 11y ago
    It makes me wonder why an "associate" of a foreign head of state is a more relevant story than the father of the head of state, or of serving politicians with close links to the party of the head of state, from the same country's taxpayer-funded news service. The story doesn't even mention the implication of Cameron's father in the scheme. Which is odd, because Cameron stood to gain from the inheritance. And if the allegations are true, then he would have benefited from the proceeds of tax evasion. There are also several other heads of state directly implicated in this scheme, yet they were not even mentioned in the story: the current heads of state of UAE, Ukraine, Argentina, and Saudi Arabia for example. And the figure who is apparently at the center of the Russian allegations is a concert cellist who has known Putin since they were teenagers. Yet the link and related BBC story convey the impression (at least to my mind) that Putin was somehow complicit in the scheme, without establishing any proof for this.
vidarh 11y ago
While there may be new information about Cameron's father, his tax schemes were thoroughly covered by the British press years ago. They're not in and of themselves news in the UK, so unless these documents reveal something significant that hasn't already been known, it's not strange they're not making a big deal over it.

riazrizvi 11y ago

I look at articles like this and ask myself is this journalism or is it a shake down?

rwmj 11y ago

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

MIKarlsen 11y ago

Disagree. This way they can perhaps force anyone involved to comment, while blowing everything wide open in public would perhaps make the case revolve around a single case, and not the actual political aspects of the case. Or am I just making stuff up here? In my world this is a great tactic. Danish television will be covering this for a week. If politicians are involved it's probably best to let them comment and do their job first, instead of putting them in the spotlight where they will avoid commenting on the case.

Jerry2 11y ago

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 to paranoia about Russians. They're truly in the league of their own. They have tabloids like BILD that devote several pages of every issue on "evil russians". They even print special issues about evil Russians and new Hitler aka Putin. When I visited Germany last year, I felt like they're in a second Cold War or something. In the US, we managed to stop being paranoid after 1990s but Germans are still paranoid about Russians. It was explained to me by a german friend of mine that this is because their biggest publisher, Axel Springer, was started with CIA money and that every journalist who works for any of the Axel Springer properties has to sign a contract that says that they have to foster the relationship with the US. Unsaid rule is that they have to disparage Russians. And sure enough, if you search for some of this stuff, you can find things like [2] and [3] [0]: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journali... [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/reference http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/reference [2] http://i.imgur.com/ufKQh49.png http://i.imgur.com/ufKQh49.png [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE#Corporate_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE#Corporate_pri... Edit : After some googling, I came across this interesting article by Rüdiger Göbel... it sums up things nicely. http://russia-insider.com/en/groundhog-day-german-msm-keeps-repeating-anti-putin-propoganda/ri12042 http://russia-insider.com/en/groundhog-day-german-msm-keeps-... Edit #2 : I see my comment is controversial and is being heavily down/upvoted with downvotes winning. Anyway, to add even more evidence to what I'm saying, see the Twitter feed [4] of Julian Röpcke, who's a 'political editor at BILD'. Go take a look for yourself and start scrolling. Everything that happens in the world, Russians are somehow behind it according to him. Millions of refugees from Syria in Europe? That's because of Russians and Putin (never mind the fact that millions arrived way before Russians started their deployment in Syria). I guess he cannot mention that unrest started after US implemented a policy of destabilizing Assad and funding of various islamic terror organization... because that would be against his pro-US "jounalistic" contract that he signed. [4] https://twitter.com/julianroepcke https://twitter.com/julianroepcke

tomp 11y ago
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.
- neffy 11y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International
  - tomp 11y ago
    That was more than 70 years ago.
    - neffy 11y ago
      There is a continuity to human social organisation and behaviours that transcends both time and ideology.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    Russia's socialist days are long behind it now, for better or worse.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      However, curiously, at least over here (Finland), the old Communist sympathizers seem to still be friends of Russia. Or vice versa: if someone is uncritically repeating Russian propaganda (re Ukraine, Donbass etc) then if he's standing in the election he's most likely with one of fringe communist parties. It somehow goes beyond just hating America and NATO which are good common enemies. It is weird of course, as some of these people are very wealthy and in a real communist revolution would clearly get a bullet in the back of the head.

sievebrain 11y ago

Maybe, but "father of a PM" is not even close to the same thing as "PM". If Cameron's father has done something wrong, that doesn't (shouldn't) affect perceptions of his son. The days of punishing children for the crimes of their parents are long in the past. Assuming the guy did anything wrong, of course. As these articles note, off shore companies are not illegal.

mladenkovacevic 11y ago
A father is certainly a closer connection than childhood friend or "close associate" whatever that means.
usaphp 11y ago
Ok so they can talk about Putin's childhood friend, but not about Cameron's father?
- justin66 11y ago
  The implication was that Putin's childhood friend is running a scheme that Putin is taking part in.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - chris11 11y ago
    But Cameron directly benefited from his father's tax avoidance. He received several hundred thousand pounds as an inheritance from his father's estate. I'm sure he would have received less if his father had not saved money by avoiding taxes. He wasn't running the scheme, but he did directly benefit from it.
    - grey-area 11y ago
      A child has no control over their parent's financial affairs when they were a minor. If they are involved after they reach majority that's very different.

mschuster91 11y ago

Which is why it's good that this massive pile of data is analyzed by a huge load of international newspapers. This way, papers can selectively publish stuff that won't put themselves in too grave danger - just look what happened to The Guardian with the Snowden leak (visits from three-letter agency officials) or what happens in Turkey, Ukraine or Hungary with media that dares to publish stuff too offensive to the respective regimes. The situation sucks, yes, but it's the only viable modus operandi for now.

mladenkovacevic 11y ago
I mean sure journalists and meme-makers will spin this however it suits them, but I thought here in the west we're assured that we have freedom of press. This type of obvious slant certainly doesn't make it seem that way.
- mayank 11y ago
  > 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.
  - mdpopescu 11y ago
    That's exactly what freedom of the press is supposed to mean...
    - mayank 11y ago
      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.

supergirl 11y ago

the BBC's bias against Russia is notorious, surpassed only by washingtonpost, but I don't know if that one is taken seriously anyway.

vesinisa 11y ago

I believe they are withholding details regarding any British connections until the BBC Panorama show which airs tomorrow. As before, this leak is coordinated across different media organisations and the whole news cache is released iteratively.

infodroid 11y ago
That might be the case, we will have to see. But surely it is strange to single out Russia in this way.

makomk 11y ago

Not surprised. Last I heard, the Government was floating the idea of turning editorial control of the BBC over to a board of their own appointees: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/the-guardian-view-on-the-new-bbc-board-a-threat-to-independence http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/the-gua...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mtgx 11y ago
BBC is just trying to get ahead - by self-censoring itself. They sure showed Cameron!
- cb18 11y ago
  > by self-censoring itself. This is is of course an area of concern. It is sometimes referred to as cognitive capture, akin to regulatory capture. It occurs when a regulatee so strongly paints a picture of how they feel the world should work, that a regulator fails to fulfill their duties, because their lens on the world has become so distorted in favor of the regulatee's perspective. It often flows private industry ----> govt, with private industry cognitively capturing the government. But it can just as easily go the other way. Afterall, in the west the media/journalist industry has historically been seen as the regulator of the government, the fourth estate.

mercurial 11y ago

> Not to mention direct implications of various other western puppets (Saudi King, Ukrainian PM, Iraqi former PM) and other dubious "connections". I don't know about Ukraine, but the Middle East would likely be quite different if both the Saudi ruler and al-Maliki were "Western puppers".

Cyph0n 11y ago

But when channels like Al Jazeera do the same thing with issues pertaining to Qatar, which is unethical of course, everyone has their pitchforks ready. I mean come on - everyone knows that BBC is a "neutral" news source.

alkonaut 11y ago

> 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.

hackerboos 11y ago
It's funded by the license fee. You don't have to pay but then you can't watch live TV.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  > 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.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    Not really? The government still controls the licence fee.
DrJokepu 11y ago
Actually, the Office of National Statistics now classifies the TV Licence fee as tax.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  It certainly is indistinguishable from a tax from the licensee's perspective, so I agree with the classification in that sense (e.g. for evaluating the tax pressure of UK citizens etc). The important takeaway however is that unlike proper taxes the money isn't politically controlled.

infodroid 11y ago

It is remarkable that this breaking story focuses on Russia, Iceland and unfriendly/anti-Western dictators (Mubarak, Gaddafi, al-Assad). And apart from Cameron's father: - Pamela Sharples, member of the House of Lords - Michael Ashcroft, former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and former member of the House of Lords - Michael Mates, former Member of Parliament And in the EU: - Giuseppe Donaldo Nicosia, business partner of former Italian senator - Jérôme Cahuzac, former French minister - Konrad Mizzi, current Maltese minister - Miguel Arias Cañete, wife of a current Spanish minister and European Commissioner - Paweł Piskorski, former Warsaw mayor - Stavros Papastavrou, former advisor to the current Greek Prime Minister --- Source: ICIJ https://projects.icij.org/panama-papers/power-players/index.html https://projects.icij.org/panama-papers/power-players/index....

cperciva 11y ago
What's so remarkable about focusing on heads of state rather than lesser ministers, members of parliament, etc.?
- eugeneionesco 11y ago
  Then why are they focusing on Putin's "associates" who are not even in the government?
- infodroid 11y ago
  It makes me wonder why an "associate" of a foreign head of state is a more relevant story than the father of the head of state, or of serving politicians with close links to the party of the head of state, from the same country's taxpayer-funded news service. The story doesn't even mention the implication of Cameron's father in the scheme. Which is odd, because Cameron stood to gain from the inheritance. And if the allegations are true, then he would have benefited from the proceeds of tax evasion. There are also several other heads of state directly implicated in this scheme, yet they were not even mentioned in the story: the current heads of state of UAE, Ukraine, Argentina, and Saudi Arabia for example. And the figure who is apparently at the center of the Russian allegations is a concert cellist who has known Putin since they were teenagers. Yet the link and related BBC story convey the impression (at least to my mind) that Putin was somehow complicit in the scheme, without establishing any proof for this.

vidarh 11y ago

While there may be new information about Cameron's father, his tax schemes were thoroughly covered by the British press years ago. They're not in and of themselves news in the UK, so unless these documents reveal something significant that hasn't already been known, it's not strange they're not making a big deal over it.