Nick Cohen wrote in the Observer today:
The banks are as great a threat to our national security as a foreign enemy. We collect intelligence on hostile powers. Why should we not collect it on the hostile City?
He's right in his analysis: the banks, and let's be honest about this, some other parts of the financial services industry and big business, are a massive threat to our well being. What they promote is detrimental to the well-being of the vast majority of people in this country.
And yet it's assumed they're the innocent party. Clear evidence of this came yesterday. As I've noted, I gave several interviews for the BBC on Barclays' tax. All I am asking Barclays to do is to pay their tax in accordance with the letter and spirit of UK law - something they have signed up to do but which i doubt they have done in the past. And yet the BBC were tortured in their attempts to link me to UK Uncut, or not (as is the case - as I made clear - I have sympathy but am not a member - however that might be defined). As was explained to me that's because they had to make clear to viewers "I have opinions, but of course most accountants who come on are just commentators".
No they're not! Most accountants who go on air come from the big firms - and they're the architects of the tax abuse we are witnessing and the failure to account of which we are seeking the consequences. They're not innocent, unbiased parties. They're profoundly political, utterly conflicted by self interest and wholly vested in maintaining the status quo.
But because I simply ask that people comply with the law as parliament intended it my position has to be explained.
Cohen is right - these people have even captured the BBC, and it's time we reclaimed the state for the benefit of the people of this country - because right now it is being openly abused by those who really are its enemies.
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:
As an accountant I agree with Richard Murphy. We have singularly failed to make reporting understandable and to meet social responsibilities such as the payment of tax. As a profession we have a track record of failure from auditing, Enron and everything that followed from then on including the financial meltdown of the banks. But I guess we will not reexamine our roles in all of this.
I have heard the Mubarak family owns property in London. The property was almost certainly obtained with ill gotten gains. I wonder how much money the Mubarak’s and other dictators have laundered in London? I expect the City turns a blind eye despite the Money laundering Regulations and legislation requiring them to report money with a suspicious provenance to the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
>>>I expect the City turns a blind eye despite the Money laundering Regulations and legislation
Let’s get real – virtually all of us bar Richard & the heroic TJN turn a blind eye. As G. Monbiot says (at http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/14/stripped-bare/):
“Our political system protects and enriches a fantastically-wealthy elite, much of whose money is, as a result of their interesting tax and transfer arrangements, effectively stolen from poorer countries and poorer citizens of their own countries. Ours is a semi-criminal money-laundering economy, legitimised by the pomp of the Lord Mayor’s show and multiple layers of defence in government.”
I find the whole concept of applying the law as parliament had intended as rather bogus. It is fairly simple to write legislation in the manner that it was intended, if it is published in a manner which does not correctly reflect the intention of parliament, then parliament is extremely negligent passing such legislation.
Just as the government places a duty upon taxpayers to correctly report their tax obligations, society places an obligation on the legislature to produce statues that correctly reflect the intention of parliament.
@Justin
Your comment is absurd
If you genuinely think that there is no room for misunderstanding in the interpretation of the written word you’re either a) naive or b) deceiving yourself
In which case perfect legsilation is not possible – but the spirit of the law remains intact none the less
@Justin
Your comment is absurd
If you genuinely think that there is no room for misunderstanding in the interpretation of the written word you’re either a) naive or b) deceiving yourself
In which case perfect legislation is not possible – but the spirit of the law remains intact none the less
@Richard Szadziewski
I’m sure you won’t be giving up your membership though, Mr Szadziewski.
Your relationship with UKUncut is indeed an interesting one, Richard. You constantly remind us you are not a member but you always rush to defend them when they are criticised.
I get the impression you don’t want to associate yourselves with these face-covered, hoodie-wearing rabble out of respect for yourself, but you are more than happy to feed them a rent-a-quote line when it pleases.
Am I correct?
@Howard Brocklehurst
I have sympathy with lots of organisations I’m a member of but I do not speak for them as a result
Such as the National Trust
I also attend NT events
I’ve never been to a UK Uncut event
I’m not a member
I don’t speak for them
Any more than I do for the NT
But sure as heck I think they’re picking up a completely valid issue – and a lot more responsibly than any banker is with regard to their duty to society
No wonder they’re popular
And despite the validity of their cause and the peaceful way they pursue it you hurl insults and abuse them
Now what does that say about you?
@Howard Brocklehurst
In all of the footage I have seen of the UNCUT protests I have never seen any of the participants with their faces covered. On the contrary, they seem very open and often are smiling in a good natured and light hearted way.
Whether or not we agree with their cause or tactics they should not be misrepresnted. Truth is a friend.
@Howard Brocklehurst
Howard – your contempt for anyone who does not show deference to money reveals everything about you. Who do you think you are to accuse anyone exercising the rights of protest in a free society as a rabble? On the contrary, they show the dignity of free citizens in a democratic country.