Looks promising. Now, shut up Truss. Liz giving it the big un this morning “we will not reward aggression” etc. SHUT.UP. You bloody fool.
Chatham House
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Errr... that's her job.Looks promising. Now, shut up Truss. Liz giving it the big un this morning “we will not reward aggression” etc. SHUT.UP. You bloody fool.
2018
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Chatham House
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
"UK received the most favourable rating of the 60 countries evaluated by the FATF in the preceding five years in regard to its policies to combat money laundering"
Please do some research before blithely posting baseless rhetoric.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Errr... that's her job.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Chatham House
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
except conflict in the Ukraine and subsequent effect on oil prices will make domestic politics much more difficult for both.
Basically that's what our regulations do: if you're in organised crime they will do a good job at preventing laundering. If you're an oligarch or some other hugely wealthy figure with the backing of a nation state then there's little to stop you. This is why so much Russian and Middle Eastern money ends up in London.
A Conservative MP has even recently admitted it - I don't think anyone seriously doubts it.
You regularly come across as a gobby teenager who thinks he knows it all when it is crystal clear to everyone reading that you know absolutely nothing at all of which you're talking.What is ruled out today could be a different story tomorrow. Just because for example Boris Johnson says one thing today doesnt mean he'll say the same thing tomorrow.
I dont play anyones line. Russia are interested in making Ukraine theirs while several Western countries have a century old dream to colonialise Russia.
It's the whole very one-sided "we're the good guys and they are the bad guys" shit I'm opposing as this idea is the reason people accept wars.
True enough, except it might be better if Truss acknowledge how little influence we have on this particular spat. We only take 3% of our gas from Russia, unlike Germany. And then there's the whole Brexit thing which has weakened our influence further. She should be acting more as a commentator on these things rather than as if she's some big player when she clearly isn't. Talking as if she's put down a list of demands is absolutely laughable, especially given the context that the Russian foreign minister said it was like a deaf man talking to a dumb person or some such. It couldn't have been any more withering about UK influence.Errr... that's her job.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
This sounds promising...
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, London is the money laundering capital of the world.
Well yes, exactly Dazzer...but will we do it? I doubt it. Sadly the UK is open for investment, from anyone, especially corrupt investment, anytime. It drives me mad.
Its certainly an evolving policy, relatively new in its implementation from a point in time when London was an attractive hone for investment of I'll gotten gains,... there is always going to be a period of catchup where historical illicit financial movements are discovered, investigated and addressed....these characters are backed by creative money movers, tracking back these historic transactions is not a simple task.The same Chatham House I've just quoted (the Royal Institute) and the report which concludes with this statement?: "Despite much rhetoric and progress on paper, the UK remains a safe haven for dirty money, a great deal of which comes from Russia and Eurasia. As we have shown, it is not just money that is laundered, but also reputations."
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/12/uks-kleptocracy-problem/06-conclusion-and-recommendations
I hope you'll have the grace to apologise to [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION] for suggesting they do more research.
So it's a win win for the west then.Yes, it could be. But why do they seem to be having a re-think?
It might be that some eleventh-hour diplomacy by the west actually worked.
Or some unreported threat we made, veiled or otherwise, was deemed too dangerous to risk.
Or it might have been the intention of the Russians not to invade all along. I remember someone on here saying they use brinkmanship (as well as all their other negotiating tactics).
What if they moved all their troops to the Ukrainian border, in an 'invasion-ready' mode, to make it appear that they were about to invade?
That would test the response of NATO, test the unity of NATO, test what responses/threats NATO would make in the event of invasion, and put us all on the back foot.
Next time they want to invade another country, they know what the price will be.
several Western countries have a century old dream to colonialise Russia.
A weak and greedy government make for a busy launderette. Free service washes available. Dot Cotton with a fag on in the corner optional.
Hmmm. That's a bit unnecessarily aggressive and suggests you need to do a bit more research, not Thunder Bolt - policies are one thing. Effective implementation is another.
e.g. the independent and hugely respected Royal Institute for International Affairs published a report that explained how it's entirely possible to have great policies and simultaneously be the money laundering capital of the world, actually dissected the FATF rating you quote for the fallacies it has, and said among other things: "UK regulations, while strong on tackling organised crime, are ill equipped to prevent capital flight from kleptocracies."
Basically that's what our regulations do: if you're in organised crime they will do a good job at preventing laundering. If you're an oligarch or some other hugely wealthy figure with the backing of a nation state then there's little to stop you. This is why so much Russian and Middle Eastern money ends up in London.
A Conservative MP has even recently admitted it - I don't think anyone seriously doubts it.