Geoff Cook of Jersey Finance was on the Today programme this morning.
John Whiting of PWC was the respondent.
Let’s be blunt this was blatant bias within the BBC — John Whiting is a recognised apologist for Jersey — has sought to exonerate its abuse in the past — has been paid to do so — and is a partner in one of the biggest firms purveying services out of the island (PWC). It is blatantly obvious he should not have been asked to say things like “There’s no problem with tax havens” and “Jersey is well regulated” (I paraphrase).
But worse was Geoff Cook about whom I am struggling to resist the temptation to use non-parliamentary language. So let’s settle for saying he made blatantly untrue statements in that they gave an impression that was blatantly different from the reality that exists. Amongst them:
“Our disclosure is better than the UK”. Oh yes Geoff. Try to get the accounts of Jersey company.
“In recent years we have entered into the new OECD tax exchange agreements” You mean in the last fortnight with the UK Geoff.
“If the UK have concerns about anybody, corporate trust or private individual they can request information in the required form and we will disclose it” No you have not. You have never done so with the UK yet. And in eight years you have done it five times with the USA. That’s because the required form makes it nigh on impossible to get anything out of Jersey — and Geoff Cook must know that.
I’m sorry — I’m disgusted with the BBC for allowing this. I’m disgusted with PWC and John Whiting for being patty to such blatant misinformation. And I’m disgusted by Jersey for simply saying things that are not true — but which I mean the interpretation that the ordinary listener would place on what was said was blatantly different from the reality that exists.
And if Jersey Finance are willing parties to blatant misinformation on air then why on earth should I trust them when it comes to eliminating tax evasion? I don’t. And with good reason.
And I don’t rate PWC much higher. After all — they advised Barclays.
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 – are you saying the BBC has not given organizations or spokespeople like those you represent the same degree of airtime? If so then the case for bias is fair. The segment was short and I’m not certain there was time to explore the counter arguments.
Having said that, the interviewer could have started from the abuse angle – if he’d understood it. Upon listening, I got the impression he was only armed with less than half the story. I’m not being an apologist but as someone who has found himself asking questions that lead me into deep water, I understand the difficulty in being adequately prepared.
I think you’d agree that these are arguments where specialist knowledge is crucial to tease out fact from fiction and where experience such as your own is thin on the ground. (Hardly surprising given the nature of the industry that supports tax avoidance.)
…and to add…my argument goes to the need for ‘the man in the street’ to have a case presented that he can understand and digest its implications. As we both know from recent excursions into the banking world, that can be testing for even the brightest minds.
I’d further argue that when viewed through this lens, it is not hard to understand why many people’s eyes glaze over. It’s not for the want but OUR need to be more effective as communicators.
Evan Davis seems to be an apologist for tax havens – based on past meetings between him. me and John Christensen. I suggest bias here.
The BBC does not offer us airtime
Jersey would have been OK if with an opponent
PWC Ok with an opponent
As it was it was very biased
Richard
As it was it was very biased
SO just like the Guardian then, and most politicians over the last couple of months
Just because Geoff Cook says “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” doesn’t mean they not a tax haven. Don’t stress out Richard, no-one believes a word Geoff says.
There is terrible bias against the tax havens. The All-Powerful Guardian is against them and all they have on their side is the FT, The Times and The Telegraph. Someone must do something about this. 😀
Richard,
Why attack Geoff Cook? He is paid well by Jersey Finance to promote the Island’s finance industry. So what do you expect him to say? That he agrees with everything you say and Jersey is a rotten little tax haven.
Obviously not. I absolutely detest people who shoot the messenger. It displays social apathy and a lack of moral fortitude, and is the typical tactic of a bully.
Talking about parliamentary language, have a word with our Jim. He also knows a thing or two about bullying, and offers a perfect solution. It is just a pity he didn’t use Jerrais, as it translates very well.
Malcolm
Who else would you like me to target?
Terry le Sueur? I’ve done that.
Frank Walker? I’ve done that in the past.
Colin Powell? Ditto.
Jersey financial services as a whole?
Why not Geoff Cook? He seems to have taken the 30 pieces of silver.
Richard
John Whiting and I have discussed this blog post.
Unsurprisingly he does not agree with it.
I think it fair to note that he thinks his appointment to prepare a report for the States of Jersey on its tax system four years ago was not a conflict of interest he should have declared on this matter.
I do.
We have cordially agreed to differ.
”
As it was it was very biased
SO just like the Guardian then, and most politicians over the last couple of months
”
Of course, the rather obvious difference being that the BBC is sworn by statute to neutrality whereas the Guardian and politicians are specifically not…
“I absolutely detest people who shoot the messenger. It displays social apathy and a lack of moral fortitude, and is the typical tactic of a bully.”
I absolutely detest messengers who are prepared to pass on messages of lies, corruption and theft.
You could say that messengers prepared to pass on messages of lies, corruption and theft display social apathy, lack of moral fortitude, and all the typical tactics of a bully.
You could say that.
Some people might say such things, however, without noticing the giant writing on the wall in front of them which reads: HOW IRONIC
Richard the way you are counter attacking PWC and JF it sounds like you have very deep rooted personal problems with Jersey.
Well I work in Jersey and the general comments that now go around is that your organization and others have fallen flat on their faces over the past 2 weeks, mainly due to inaccuracies and blatant lies.
This was highlighted at a ridiculous seminar which finance people who attended have dismissed as rubbish.
Nobody in Jersey finance will take anything either you, John or any other ATTAC type organization remotely seriously anymore.
Its over.
Matt,
Since when did Jersey Finance take anything serious from TJN or ATTAC? Yeah sure, Richard’s work is over 😀
Matt
I don’t think it’s in your gift to decree it’s over. I hear loud and clear that you want it to be over but as long as you and your mates are continuing to post comments on this site, everyone will know you know it is not over.
As a speaker at the public event in question, I should point out that the hall was full to standing, that the debate was lively and varied, and that only one person from the finance industry attended. He made a couple of somewhat idiosyncratic points, but was listened to with respect as were the range of views on offer from all other walks of Jersey life, including several Deputies of the States. Sadly, none of the invited government representatives were willing to attend and put their point of view.
For those like Matt who didn’t attend, all is not lost! The meeting was captured on video, and can be seen on youtube and ifiwatch.tv. Immodestly, here’s a link to my opening remarks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odha7KkFI4I&feature=channel_page
From the list at the right hand side of this page you can then find each part of the discussion in 5-10 minute sections.
As I make clear in that clip, the event was hosted in Jersey not to single it out as the worst offender, but for two reasons: because we are keen to work with Jersey people to identify alternative economic development paths when the G20 measures against havens become effective, and to bring together the NGO community across Europe and beyond to ensure a common agenda in our engagement with G20 governments before the London summit.
The G20 will not make final commitments on this issue – but they will kickstart a process which is far from over. Christian Aid and others will be working to ensure that the process mandates a level playing field for all jurisdictions, and that it is ultimately effective in preventing the terrible damage that is done to developing countries.
When we know the argument against has flaws in it through inaccuracies and BS, we know that there is a lot of clutching at straws going on so they have become desperate.
Hi Matt,
Sticking your fingers in your years, closing your eyes and repeating what you said the first time i defiance of everyone around you looked bad in primary school.
It looks worse now.
Why don’t you post a comment when you decide to offer an argument?
Give me something that is factually accurate for me to chew on then you can have your argument.
But first of all I demand a level playing field. Not any more do as we say and not do as we do suggestions. That really does come from primary school.
[…] Posted in Media, Politics, Society, The Police at 8:32 am by Paul There’s already mounting evidence that BBC Radio 4 Today programme presenter Evan Davis is an apologist for tax havens. […]