No, I didn't say it - Ken Livingstone did.
But it's got Guernsey going.
Which is no bad thing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard
The day that anybody takes Red Ken seriously will be a very sad day indeed. Trust me, nobody in Guernsey who possesses a brain cell will worry about what that idiot says.
Richard,
You posted the nextleft link twice. I presume this is the ‘got Guernsey going’ one
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/01/23/put-squalid-tax-havens-out-of-business-red-ken/
Bill
Corrected now
Richard
Its not got Guernsey going one iota. They laugh at these comical news reports and thats that.
Matt
Spot on. A couple of extreme anti-finance idiots will pick up on it and make a few stupid comments about how Guernsey should return to the good old days of knitting jumpers out of seaweed and using tomato juice as a petrol substitute, but nobody takes those idiots seriously either. They are probably mates of John Christensen in Jersey.
David
1) you show your true colours
2) You show you have not realised I am working fr the creation of fair and open markets – which is about as far from being anti-finance as it is possible to be. I am opposed to corruption of the sort that the Channel Islands continue to specialise in – including their dedication to undermining fair and stable markets. But that’s for the good of the stability of the market system as a whole. You may in one of your more enlightened moments have noticed the destruction offshore has caused to the world of finance of late.
3) I’m pleased to say John Christensen is a friend of mine. If Jersey had listened to him it would be in a much better state than it is now.
Richard
Richard
I’m more than happy to accept that I can’t agree with somebody who is clearly so out if touch with what actually goes on in the Channel Islands, and whose assertions are so wide of reality. That’s what happens when you listen too much to your mate Christensen.
David
But what does happen in the Channel Islands?
How do we know?
Your secrecy let’s you hide behind a veil where you spin yarns that are untrue – and you say anyone like me is a liar
If you want to prove me wrong just get rid of the secrecy
Of course, all your business would go with it
But then we’d see the truth
Until then – the problem of credibility is all yours
Richard
Richard
No, I don’t say a liar. I say you are wrong. Not the same thing. One is a deliberate attempt to say something knowing it not to be true. I think you believe it to be true. But it isn’t. Your comments about the CI finance industry are about a decade out of date. It has changed but your views haven’t. That’s why people like me have to fiercely defend some of what you say.
I’m happy to accept that around 10 years ago many of your comments would ahve been accurate.
I will never accept your view that everything offshore should be on public record. That view has no more credibility offshore than it does onshore. Secrecy/privacy/confidentiality from the prying public is everyone’s right, except perhaps for public companies who have to accept that the cost of raising equity from the public is public disclosure of everything they do. I do agree with you that secrecy/privacy/confidentiality should not be abused to secure illegal tax evasion “benefits”. That’s the circle that needs to be squared, but your solution is not the answer.
Of course business would leave the Channel Islands if everything became a matter for public consumption all over the world. It would simply disappear to a myriad of jurisdictions where that privacy would be protected. That’s nothing to do with tax evasion, just a desire for general privacy. The obligations of wealthy individuals for disclosing their offshore affairs is solely to the relevant tax authorities to which they are supposed to account – not to the press all over the world. Why should they be able to access that information ?
I speak to leading international law firms on a continual basis. Their clients have no fear of increased exchange of information by the Channel Islands because they aren’t doing anything illegal and are fully tax-compliant. But they sure as hell want general privacy of their financial affairs as far as everyone else is concerned, and wouldn’t hesitate to move their business to Geneva or Singapore to get it. But that wouldn’t stop them being tax compliant.
Its a cheap shot for you to suggest, as you do frequently on this blog, that its up to the offshore finance centres to open and prove that they are clean, knowing only too well that its impossible for any jurisdiction to go throhgh such an exercise, not because of the findings, but because the very act of doing it would destroy the confidence that clients have in that jurisdiction to preserve that general right to privacy.
You are the one who continually alleges that ongoing current criminality is widespread. I would say that the ball is firmly in your court to prove your allegations. I’m not alleging criminality – you are. Perhaps I’ve missed something but most civilised societies require allegations of guilt to be proven, not for innocence to be proven. I’m not talking about 10 years ago, I’m talking about the present day. A crucial distinction. Just because John Christensen claims that Jersey was rotten when he was in office there a decade ago does not mean that it hasn’t changed 10 years later. It has. Sure – there will be the occasional bad apple. There always will be. But the occasional bad apple does not mean that it is symptomatic of the entire industry, but that’s invariably your conclusion to suit your own agenda.
Your stance shows that its you who has the credibility problem.
I’m an ordinary person with one personal and one business bank account in the the country in which I live and do business (the UK). It has never occurred to me that I need any special secrecy arrangements for my accounts. Perhaps David can explain why the super-rich individual or business are different in this respect.
Carol
Its not a question of need, its a question of entitlement to privacy. You might not want secrecy but would you want a copy of your bank statement and details of your personal wealth nailed to a board outside your house ? Would you want to know that your household bills were on a notice board at your local council office for everyone to find out all about you ? Most people would call that an invasion of privacy. Its none of anybody else’s business whatsoever so long as you are paying your taxes. If you are not breaking the law then you are entitled to the basic right of privacy.
So, David, are you saying that I am in danger of this happening to me? It’s a wonder the Sun hasn’t taken up this issue.
David
Limited liability is a privilege granted by society that carries an obligation: the obligation to put your affairs on public record to show that you have the ability to pay
No one need use limited liability. In that case they can have privacy
It’s an easy equation
There is no answer you can offer to rebut it
Richard
Carol
No I not saying that you are in danger of it happening to you. I am saying that Richard wants full transparency and that would be the effect of full transparency.
Richard
Please point me in the direction of any legislation which details the “obligation [of limited liability companies] to put your affairs on public record to show that you have the ability to pay”. Please show me where legislation states that only individuals and not corporations are entitled to privacy. There is not a jurisdiction in the world (other than Murphyland) which makes that distinction as far as I am aware.
David
I was discussing philosophical principles David
Not law
Richard
David
Can you please explain, then, what a bank account in a secrecy jurisdiction offers me over one in the country where I live and do business.
Richard
An “obligation” is something that the law requires. Adhering to a philosophical principle which is not a law is “voluntary”. When was not doing something voluntarily, not required by the law, wrong ? This is a pointless discussion. The world does not operate based on philosophical principles, except in Murphyland perhaps. For you to infer that it is illegal or wrong to adhere to the law is absurd. A waste of time debating it.
Carol
I am not an expert on secrecy jurisdictions. I have never used them.
Richard
I have never come across anyone so unwilling to accept that they are ever in the wrong. Trying to flit from arguments based on law to those based on philosophical principles is laughable. For an intelligent man you certainly make yourself look stupid on occasion.