The Daily Mail

[DavidinSouthampton]

I'm really interested how people are going to try and defend this one.

Not only is it morally bankrupt, it's complacent and stupid to a degree I didn't think possible.

EDIT: Also, what a fantastically dignified and well thought out response. I'm really starting to warm to Ed.

Indeed it is a well-measured reply.

 

[El Presidente]

I assume that was meant for SotW.

Indeedly-doodly!

 

[Nibble]

It is a good but pointless reply. Also the addition of the line about it being up to them to respond seems quite churlish albeit well-written and quite correct. He is going to face a lot of flack over the coming year not least from his own party if he enters into this blatant attempt to goad him he will be treading a fine line between being seen as defending himself and tipping over into a needless squabble.

 

[mikeyjh]

It is a good but pointless reply. Also the addition of the line about it being up to them to respond seems quite churlish albeit well-written and quite correct. He is going to face a lot of flack over the coming year not least from his own party if he enters into this blatant attempt to goad him he will be treading a fine line between being seen as defending himself and tipping over into a needless squabble.

You make good points - He's obviously had a good couple of weeks politically and I think this letter is fine but that should probably be the end of it.

Back on topic, I'm still waiting for the Mail's defender in chief's views on the latest......

 

[cunning fergus]

The Daily Mail loves Britain so much that its parent company Rothermere Continuation Ltd is registered in Bermuda.

Indeed, they are not the only member of the British press with ownership in tax havens.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/may/03/1

 

[Nibble]

You make good points - He's obviously had a good couple of weeks politically and I think this letter is fine but that should probably be the end of it.

Back on topic, I'm still waiting for the Mail's defender in chief's views on the latest......

Quite, this whole debacle is a gift to Milliband as much as it is a kick in the nuts for the Mail. He's unwrapped the gift, say thanks and walk away.

 

[spring hall convert]

Indeed, they are not the only member of the British press with ownership in tax havens.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/may/03/1

They pretty much all do this don't they?

 

[mikeyjh]

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/are-you-hated-by-the-daily-mail/

 

[CheeseRolls]

Is the Mail about to back down on this one big style ?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Indeed, they are not the only member of the British press with ownership in tax havens.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/may/03/1

Probably best to read the article rather than the headline...

 

[spring hall convert]

Is the Mail about to back down on this one big style ?

I wouldn't have thought so, despite being caught with their pants down.

 

[Guinness Boy]

They pretty much all do this don't they?

Indeed. The Guardian would LOVE to make as much money as The Mail. On the one hand they don't go about achieving this by accusing dead people of hating their country or gate crashing private memorials. On the other it weakens some of their stance on tax avoidance. The media - like MPs - are far from perfect all round.

 

[CheeseRolls]

I wouldn't have thought so, despite being caught with their pants down.

Source at ITN News seem to think so.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Understand Mail on Sunday to apologise to Ed Miliband. Lord Rothermere will be writing to him. Editor calling him. Staff suspended.</p>— lucy manning (@lucymanning) <a href="https://twitter.com/lucymanning/statuses/385734583897300992">October 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[cunning fergus]

Erm... how does that insinuate he hates Britain? I think what he is saying is that he dislikes all the jingoistic, empire based nationalist BS, that I agree is best left in the past & a barrier to our progress in the wider world.

Pretty sensible stement if you ask me.

As a dedicated Marxist (or a 17 year old with strong marxist sympathies) he evidently would have despised patriotism and its more strident cousin nationalism. That makes perfect sense.

Indeed, his view that the English were rabidly nationalist in character would almost certainly have been accurate before WW2, and I expect it would have been even more pronounced in the general population during the period 1939-40.

Miliband Sr arrived in the UK after the "miracle" of Dunkirk (i.e. a perceived victory in the face of catastrophic defeat), maybe the best piece of political spinning ever to have taken place in the UK. The horrors of the blitz, the battle of Britain, strict rationing and numerous military failures (pre 1942) were still in the future, so I dare say the English he encountered would (in general) have been suffocating in their belief in the final victory.

However, as someone with jewish heritage, who had it on their heels when the Belgian army conscripted him in 1940, I would have thought, whilst politically he would despise any kind of nationalism, as a refugee he would have accepted that English nationalism was a more acceptable "nationalism" than the kind that had swept through Europe in the previous 10 years. A necessary evil to fight a greater evil if you will..............just like Stalin and the Russians.

In that context, I don't see any sense in his comment...............on the contrary its provocative invective on the English with no concept of reality (in that time). He really was typical Marxist even at than young age.

That said, he made it in his personal dairy, and that's where it should be left.............not sure how it was made public.

 

[mikeyjh]

Indeed. The Guardian would LOVE to make as much money as The Mail. On the one hand they don't go about achieving this by accusing dead people of hating their country or gate crashing private memorials. On the other it weakens some of their stance on tax avoidance. The media - like MPs - are far from perfect all round.

Not sure I agree, I think it's the good thing if a newspaper has the freedom to criticise people engaging in tax avoidance while knowing that their owners do precisely that. Shows editorial integrity IMO.

 

[cunning fergus]

Probably best to read the article rather than the headline...

Sure, when you get a statement like:

"The structure is complex and the financial information made publicly available about the new companies remains limited."

I am sure for all businesses with offshore holding companies based in the Cayman Islands and companies in Luxembourg there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sure, when you get a statement like:

"The structure is complex and the financial information made publicly available about the new companies remains limited."

I am sure for all businesses with offshore holding companies based in the Cayman Islands and companies in Luxembourg there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Guardian Media Group is a UK registered company which is actually owned in trust in the UK to secure its financial and editorial independence.

The article was merely about GMG being involved in the purchase of some other companies with another company that were registered in the Caymans. You seem to be implying that the GMG itself is held offshore. I still don't think you've read the article....

 

[spring hall convert]

As a dedicated Marxist (or a 17 year old with strong marxist sympathies) he evidently would have despised patriotism and its more strident cousin nationalism. That makes perfect sense.

Indeed, his view that the English were rabidly nationalist in character would almost certainly have been accurate before WW2, and I expect it would have been even more pronounced in the general population during the period 1939-40.

Miliband Sr arrived in the UK after the "miracle" of Dunkirk (i.e. a perceived victory in the face of catastrophic defeat), maybe the best piece of political spinning ever to have taken place in the UK. The horrors of the blitz, the battle of Britain, strict rationing and numerous military failures (pre 1942) were still in the future, so I dare say the English he encountered would (in general) have been suffocating in their belief in the final victory.

However, as someone with jewish heritage, who had it on their heels when the Belgian army conscripted him in 1940, I would have thought, whilst politically he would despise any kind of nationalism, as a refugee he would have accepted that English nationalism was a more acceptable "nationalism" than the kind that had swept through Europe in the previous 10 years. A necessary evil to fight a greater evil if you will..............just like Stalin and the Russians.

In that context, I don't see any sense in his comment...............on the contrary its provocative invective on the English with no concept of reality (in that time). He really was typical Marxist even at than young age.

That said, he made it in his personal dairy, and that's where it should be left.............not sure how it was made public.

Shall we agree that the statement is open to interpretation?

I wouldn't view myself in any way as a nationalist, I find all the talk of empires and general xenophobia distasteful. Am I proud of the country I was born in? Damn right I am.

 

[cunning fergus]

Guardian Media Group is a UK registered company which is actually owned in trust in the UK to secure its financial and editorial independence.

The article was merely about GMG being involved in the purchase of some other companies with another company that were registered in the Caymans. You seem to be implying that the GMG itself is held offshore. I still don't think you've read the article....

I read the article, and that's as maybe.

But there a wider context, the Guardian is not profitable and makes a loss year on year (e.g. very low corporate taxes) Other parts of the group do make a profit and pay some of their profits into a trust is used to maintain the Guardian finances.............with an ownership structure involving other comapnies in Luxembour and the Caymans.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...e-rapidly-deteriorating-finances-8376386.html

I am sure there is no tax avoidance hypocrisy here at all..................absolutely none.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I read the article, and that's as maybe.

But there a wider context, the Guardian is not profitable and makes a loss year on year (e.g. very low corporate taxes) Other parts of the group do make a profit and pay some of their profits into a trust is used to maintain the Guardian finances.............with an ownership structure involving other comapnies in Luxembour and the Caymans.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...e-rapidly-deteriorating-finances-8376386.html

I am sure there is no tax avoidance hypocrisy here at all..................absolutely none.

Well, you certainly haven't been able to find any with the links you've posted so far!