News Thread 2015: Page 171 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

News Thread 2015

Rex

Was Cameron's dad, no?

Burnwinter

Qwiss! wrote:
Never mind legal action but surely this has to be the end of Cameron? You can't be the Pm and get caught dodging taxes? All moral authority is lost.

Tories have a massive Osborne problem looming right after him though.

Bold Tone

Rex wrote:
The cynic in me is convinced that nothing major will come from this. A few people will be caught with their pants down, a couple will be indicted, and possibly found guilty even, but that's about it. There are too many persons among those who effectively rule the world involved here, and they will certainly make sure not much changes.

Correct.
Plus these powerful people have powerful weapons for retaliation.
This guy springs to mind.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-panel-backs-freeing-julian-assange-20160205-story.html

Irishgunner

Iceland's PM has resigned.

Rex

That changed his tune quickly! 🙂

Mirth

Panama Papers: New Fifa president Gianni Infantino signed off on a contract with two businessmen who have since been accused of bribery, leaked documents reveal.

That lasted - what - one month? 😆

Biggus

😆

Bold Tone

I thought it was a bad sign that he pledged not to stand against Platini.

Biggus

The whole organisation is outmoded and compromised beyond hope.
Burn it down and built something different in its place.

jones

Bold Tone wrote:
Rex wrote:
The cynic in me is convinced that nothing major will come from this. A few people will be caught with their pants down, a couple will be indicted, and possibly found guilty even, but that's about it. There are too many persons among those who effectively rule the world involved here, and they will certainly make sure not much changes.

Correct.
Plus these powerful people have powerful weapons for retaliation.
This guy springs to mind.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-panel-backs-freeing-julian-assange-20160205-story.html

Assange's character doesn't seem beyond reproach but the statement by that government official really shows how blatant governments disregard every opinion they disagree with, no matter how "highly regarded" it is. Everyone who has taken a look at the facts in his case knows that the allegations by those two girls are unsubstantiated horseshit and if Sweden's judicial system was worth anything they'd face serious jail time themselves.

Interesting that you'd post that link as a response to the Panama Papers - whoever leaked those to the Süddeutsche, Guardian and other ICIJ member rags should be ashamed of themselves. Looking at how they've handled the Offshore-, Lux- and Swissleaks it was blatantly obvious they'd do nothing but sit on their information, the Guardian themselves already said they'd "respect the privacy" of the owners (which of course excludes the likes of Putin from being mentioned dozens of times in every article despite not being named even once in the papers). The way it's looking now not even the prosecution authorities will get insight into the documents.

Let's hope some frustrated intern at one of those newspapers gets his hands on them and leaks them to WikiLeaks.

jones

Not sure if it was posted here yet:

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/30/complying-with-israeli-censorship-order-nyt-conceals-name-of-soldier-who-shot-wounded-palestinian/

The boy who was shot is obscured but still, graphic footage:

banduan

The lip service given to leaks over Western gov't and individuals in the media reports over the off-shore funds is obviously not enough.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/corporate-media-gatekeepers-protect-western-1-from-panama-leak/

Burnwinter

Yeah, read that yesterday …

I sort of think the emphasis on the detail of the information is misplaced, to be honest. We know that Mossack Fonseca has various competitors who also handle vast hidden and tax-free investments.

I'm expecting there will be little legal recourse to effectively pursue either the legal or illegal activities that are involved, and obviously this is not an area where existing law leads to just outcomes anyway.

The emphasis of the political response would ideally be on demanding regulatory change to prevent both the legal and illegal forms of tax evasion taking place, and on the implications of this potent reminder that a huge chunk of the elite political and corporate class globally—north, south, east, west—is financially corrupt.

The 2008 financial crisis exposed to an even greater extent the moral hazard associated with direction of public and private funds, but there was no regulatory bonanza.

Mirth

Hmm...I agree with that but only to an extent. The information is not just shared with the Western media but with 80 countries including Brazil, India, Japan, Malaysia and other several other countries.

So while local reporting is likely to be biased (as usual), I don't think it's likely that stories will completely vanish. Furthermore, with the Snowden scandal and the drone papers leak, I think the like of the Guardian (or rather specific journalists working at the Guardian) have shown themselves to be suitably competent in dealing with these situations.

Also worth noting that Mossack Fonseca are only the fourth largest firm of their kind so there might be further information that the media just don;t have their hands on.

Burnwinter

You seem to agree with me Mirth, so was that first statement in relation to Murray's article?

Mirth

Sorry was replying to bandy and his article but you jumped in by the time I clicked post!

Burnwinter

Ah thought as much, I read your post thinking "when's he going to say something I disagree with?" 😃

Coombs

It's the usual hand-wringing that validates conspiracy theorists everywhere, and is itself a colonial mentality. As if the Guardian and the BBC are the end-all and be-all of journalism.

As usual with this sort of thing, the small, bottom-feeding, vampiric fish will be fried and the big ones, whose names are already synonymous with corruption and greed, will be more hated and grow ever more powerful. I'm sure they'll even figure a way to make even more money out of it, just like in 2008.

banduan

Until the day the rest of the reveals are made, the ICIJ team will remain thus smeared.

jones

Mirth wrote:
So while local reporting is likely to be biased (as usual), I don't think it's likely that stories will completely vanish. Furthermore, with the Snowden scandal and the drone papers leak, I think the like of the Guardian (or rather specific journalists working at the Guardian) have shown themselves to be suitably competent in dealing with these situations.

And in the other cases I've mentioned plus the current one so far they are showing themselves to be predictably incompetent. Of course it's possible that they are going to release some major US names in the next few days or weeks but it's alarming how the imagery and reporting so far has a clear focus on Putin who's yet to be mentioned in any of the cables.

Not to say he doesn't have any funds hid overseas, I reckon it's very likely he does, but plastering his face on the website of a number of these papers is a pretty good indication of where this is leading to. The topic came up with a number of colleagues who only had a passing interest in it and the first thing I've got in every case was apparently Putin was caught dodging taxes.

No, to get a real crackdown on the contents of sensitive documents like these the worst thing you can do is hand them to media channels which have a very real link to the powers that be themselves. Snowden didn't contact the Guardian but Greenwald directly; the drone leaks had as far as I know nothing to do with the Guardian anymore altogether but came out on Greenwald's own newspaper the Intercept. Not saying everything should be sent to him; providing it to a distributor like WikiLeaks who then send it to media channels all over the world is the smart thing to do here as it gives those outlets an incentive not to withhold any information. The NY Times or Guardian wouldn't even think of "the investors' privacy" in Panama if they knew RT and Al Jazeera had the same information.. and that's already being optimistic or rather naive in thinking the heads of said corporations wouldn't find their own names in those documents.

edit: I read bandy's article just now and it virtually says everything I was trying to say.

« Previous Page Next Page »