Tory cabinet tax dodgers-Osbourne,Mitchell and Hammond + 6bn

27 Oct 2010

What do you guys think of this,the Government cancelled Vodafone's tax bill, an outstanding tax bill of £6bn,a sum which would've prevented nearly all the cuts to all the welfare recipients in Britain ! Why aren't the newspapers reporting any of this

How the Rich Beat the Taxman , Andrew Mitchell and Philip Hammond as well as 'advisor' Philip Green

Remember,'Were all in this together !'to quote George Osborne.

27 Oct 2010

Some are more equal than others !!!
John

27 Oct 2010

Hmmmmm, very unbiased articles......not!!
Private Eye suggested Vodaphone's tax liability was £4.8 billion but according to this article,
the figure was nearer £2.2 billion and far from it all being written off, HMCR agreed a final liability of billion. If you can provide documented proof of a £6 Billion liability, I would be interested to see it.
As for tax avoidance of the 3 MPs in question in the LEFT FOOT FORWARD article, Philip Hammond appeared on Question Time last Thursday and answered those allegations. The article is quite disingenuous in trying to suggest that he had benefited by transferring the shares "just six months before the new higher rates of tax for high-earners was introduced this April"....what it doesn't mention is that Labour implemented the new higher rate of tax not the current government. Maybe he had a crystal ball? dunno

I really can't comment on the other two instances as I have no knowledge of them, except to say that if Osborne no longer declares his interest in the family trust, then he must not have an interest in it, otherwise he will be breaking parliamentary rules and I'm sure someone will take the matter up. Let's wait and see!
Tax avoidance is not illegal and I'm sure that the wealthy of all political persuasions minimise their tax bills.

27 Oct 2010

Quote by Max777
Private Eye suggested Vodaphone's tax liability was £4.8 billion

Here's the Private Eye article doesn't say that at all,it does say this though

£5bn in lost tax and INTEREST so far.

Quote by Max777
the figure was nearer £2.2 billion and far from it all being written off, HMCR agreed a final liability of billion.

How do you know the figure was nearer to £2.2 bn,If the government are sitting on the paperwork ? Here's a recent article from the Guardian,true Vodaphone paid a massivily reduced tax fee ;

Also this little gem from that article above

This does not change the fact that this affair leaves a sour taste in the mouth, not least because days after it was announced, George Osborne was promoting Vodafone in India – a visit that must have been agreed before the tax announcement was made on 23 July.

Quote by Max777
If you can provide documented proof of a £6 Billion liability, I would be interested to see it

Quote by Max777
As for tax avoidance of the 3 MPs in question in the LEFT FOOT FORWARD article, Philip Hammond appeared on Question Time last Thursday and answered those allegations.

And here It is;

David Dimbleby;Were the allegations incorrect that you moved shares into your wifes name and that you took dividends rather than income.
Philip Hammond;Neither of those quotes are incorrect
So according to Hammond the Ch4 Dispatches documentary made an innuendo,NOT an allegation,then again,maybe the reason he didn't pursue legal action and try to block the documentary was that Lord Ashcroft had just lost against BBC's Panorama program,for something very similar, avoiding paying in taxes !

Quote by Max777
I really can't comment on the other two instances as I have no knowledge of them, except to say that if Osborne no longer declares his interest in the family trust, then he must not have an interest in it, otherwise he will be breaking parliamentary rules and I'm sure someone will take the matter up. Let's wait and see!

The C4 Dispatches documentary I linked to outlines the details of all three tax avoiders,I look forward to someone in the mainstream media picking the story up,however I think it will be a long time coming,they're too interested in trash z-grade celebrity stories.

Quote by Max777
Tax avoidance is not illegal and I'm sure that the wealthy of all political persuasions minimise their tax bills.

Tax avoidance isn't illegal unless the likes of me or you do It,then it's another matter !

27 Oct 2010

Quote by john469

Tax avoidance isn't illegal unless the likes of me or you do It,then it's another matter !

Whilst politicians are self serving scum, and I agree with your main thrust, I just thought I'd chime in and tell you that tax avoidance isn't illegal, however tax evasion is.
While It may not actually be illegal,,think how much the deficit could be reduced if you went after people with real money,instead of easy targets like single mothers and pensioners,this looks extremely bad to voters,in fact you could say,hypocrictical,but then what's new !

27 Oct 2010

mmmm some one mention Vodafone ?
seems their Tax Department has been either very busy or incompetent.
besides the reported UK tax 'bill/agreement' already mentioned, Indian tax authorities have given Vodafone 30 days to pay a 112bn rupee ($ , ) tax bill, as part of an ongoing tax dispute.
The formal demand relates to the mobile phone company's 2007 purchase of the Indian telephone assets of Hong Kong conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa.

28 Oct 2010

Quote by Max777
As for tax avoidance of the 3 MPs in question in the LEFT FOOT FORWARD article, Philip Hammond appeared on Question Time last Thursday and answered those allegations. The article is quite disingenuous in trying to suggest that he had benefited by transferring the shares "just six months before the new higher rates of tax for high-earners was introduced this April"....what it doesn't mention is that Labour implemented the new higher rate of tax not the current government. Maybe he had a crystal ball?

The tax rates/changes are notified to Parliament (and thus the Country) and voted on in the Finance Bill usually well in advance of the 6th April start of a tax year so Mr Hammond would not have had privileged or insider information. At the time, there was a clear suggestion that the Tories would win the election and as a shadow minister, an equally good chance of serving in the Cameron Government where he is not permitted by law to hold shares in that way. Many Ministers on appointment place their shares in a trust to satisfy the requirement.

Quote by Max
Tax avoidance is not illegal and I'm sure that the wealthy of all political persuasions minimise their tax bills.

And the not so rich too :thumbup:

28 Oct 2010

Quote by medway_garage
the figure was nearer £2.2 billion and far from it all being written off, HMCR agreed a final liability of billion.

Quote by Max777
If you can provide documented proof of a £6 Billion liability, I would be interested to see it

Wouldn't we all !! That's a bit like asking Neil Hamilton, to supply the brown envelopes,in which he got the cash bungs from Mr Fayed lol !
You have got a point about the amount,could be £6bn could be ,perhaps the government should be more transparent and release the paperwork,so we can all scrutinize It before we vote next time,but hey what's a few billion between friends !
I wait with baited breath to see,all the rich tax dodgers the government promised to weed out to repay tax,perhaps they can start with their own party,or Labour .
This case began in 2000, so the previous Labour Government would be well aware of the figures involved and I'm yet to hear a Labour politician crying foul over a figure of £6 billion. It is usual practice for HMCR to issue inflated estimates of underpaid tax, to which they add penalties and interest, whenever they investigate a company in the full knowledge that the estimates will be disputed and ultimately reduced. I know a guy whose companies were investigated and he was issued with demands for over £1 million, the final settlement was around £100k ..10% of HMCR's initial demand. I suspect Vodaphones case is no different.

Quote by Max777
As for tax avoidance of the 3 MPs in question in the LEFT FOOT FORWARD article, Philip Hammond appeared on Question Time last Thursday and answered those allegations.

Quote by Max777
Tax avoidance is not illegal and I'm sure that the wealthy of all political persuasions minimise their tax bills.

Tax avoidance isn't illegal unless the likes of me or you do It,then it's another matter !
Others have pointed out that Tax avoidance is not illegal......even for you. Do you invest in an ISA?
Whatever Tax Avoidance loopholes Vodaphone and/or the 3 Tory cabinet ministers have exploited have obviously existed for all of Labour's time in government. Ask your self the question as to why Labour did nothing about it.

29 Oct 2010

People are up in arms in moral indignation....( and righly so )..when some family with 8 kids is claiming benifit. However this is not against no law, they are intitled to it. They technically are just useing the system. What it does not cost is Billions of pounds !!!
However we have here, someone doing exactly the same. Useing the system. The differance this time is the amount is billions!! Yet instead of moral indignation, we find people defending their actions !!!!
One rule for one....one rule for another !!!!!

29 Oct 2010

If you are referring to my post, what you have here is someone stating the facts of life, not morallising. I have made no comment about housing benefits or any other benefit come to that, so your accusation regarding there being one rule for one and another for others is groundless.

29 Oct 2010

er....max.....and where do you see your name refered in my comment ? Where do you see me accuse you of anything ?? ( A certain Carly Simon tune springs to mind!! lol )
It says people !! The fact is plenty of threads on here about people taking large amounts of benefit. Some may think wrong....but indeed it is not against the law !! They are useing the system. It costs us as taxpayers money, and quite rightly in many cases, hard working people are up in arms. Indeed Mr Cameron has said, he intends to stop this.
What I am saying here, is that this is exactly the same. Some one useing the system. This time however costing us a damn sight more. So anyone that thinks its wrong when someone gets excessive houseing benefit because they have 8 kids of whatever, should be equally if not doubley, be up in arms about this.
Neither are breaking the law. However that does not make it right either !!
So yes...i'm saying it seems like
One rule for you.....one rule for another !!!

29 Oct 2010

Quote by deancannock
er....max.....and where do you see your name refered in my comment ? Where do you see me accuse you of anything ?? ( A certain Carly Simon tune springs to mind!! lol )
It says people !! The fact is plenty of threads on here about people taking large amounts of benefit. Some may think wrong....but indeed it is not against the law !! They are useing the system. It costs us as taxpayers money, and quite rightly in many cases, hard working people are up in arms. Indeed Mr Cameron has said, he intends to stop this.
What I am saying here, is that this is exactly the same. Some one useing the system. This time however costing us a damn sight more. So anyone that thinks its wrong when someone gets excessive houseing benefit because they have 8 kids of whatever, should be equally if not doubley, be up in arms about this.
Neither are breaking the law. However that does not make it right either !!
So yes...i'm saying it seems like
One rule for you.....one rule for another !!!

I don't see my name, which is why I asked if you are referring to my post. You said The differance this time is the amount is billions!! Yet instead of moral indignation, we find people defending their actions !!!! So which "people" are supposedly defending their actions then? Are we talking of "people" in this thread or "people" in general?

29 Oct 2010

Interestingly, I have found this article from 2008 in the same newspaper that the OP quoted.

Amazingly, the Vodaphone tax liability is quoted as £2 billion then.
The £6 billion figure has been described by HMCR as an "urban myth".
Oh, and for those that think otherwise, housing benefit costs run to some £20 billion annually.

29 Oct 2010

Max......the people I am referring to...are the likes of the " SUN " and " The Mail" newspapers, that run the type of stories I was commenting on, regading benefits . People read it..and run round in total moral indignation. As stated sometimes with due cause.
However I don't see those same papers, and their readership, kicking up a fuss over this.
Also...may I add....Houseing benefit may cost us £20 billion....but lets remember that the majority of that is justifibly claimed !!
As stated......for me these people are one and the same.....and should be treated with the same moral indignation.

29 Oct 2010

Like the issues discovered by Sir Philip Green where Government Departments don't take enough care to ensure value for money for goods and services received, I'm almost certain that the same applies to the housing benefits arrangement. It's supply and demand. If a landlord knows that he is going to get his money direct from the LA, but equally that the tenants might regarded as "high risk" he's going to pump up the rent until someone tells him "too much" and that's where he knows he can fix without further issue.
But if the checks and balances are insufficient, he can generally command what he wants and get it.
The ConDem theory is that you can drive prices back down again by limiting the amount you make freely available. Landlords will be soon re-educated as to what is acceptable for LA funded tenants or they can continue to seek higher rents from within the private sector.

29 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
Like the issues discovered by Sir Philip Green where Government Departments don't take enough care to ensure value for money for goods and services received, I'm almost certain that the same applies to the housing benefits arrangement. It's supply and demand. If a landlord knows that he is going to get his money direct from the LA, but equally that the tenants might regarded as "high risk" he's going to pump up the rent until someone tells him "too much" and that's where he knows he can fix without further issue.
But if the checks and balances are insufficient, he can generally command what he wants and get it.
The ConDem theory is that you can drive prices back down again by limiting the amount you make freely available. Landlords will be soon re-educated as to what is acceptable for LA funded tenants or they can continue to seek higher rents from within the private sector.

absolutely spot on GNV!

29 Oct 2010

Quote by deancannock
Max......the people I am referring to...are the likes of the " SUN " and " The Mail" newspapers, that run the type of stories I was commenting on, regading benefits . People read it..and run round in total moral indignation. As stated sometimes with due cause.
However I don't see those same papers, and their readership, kicking up a fuss over this.
[

and that's exactly what the OP has done, just quoting a different newspaper!

29 Oct 2010

Quote by Max777
Max......the people I am referring to...are the likes of the " SUN " and " The Mail" newspapers, that run the type of stories I was commenting on, regading benefits . People read it..and run round in total moral indignation. As stated sometimes with due cause.
However I don't see those same papers, and their readership, kicking up a fuss over this.

That that makes you correct does It Max !
Quote by Max777
Interestingly, I have found this article from 2008 in the same newspaper that the OP quoted.

Amazingly, the Vodaphone tax liability is quoted as £2 billion then.
The £6 billion figure has been described by HMCR as an "urban myth".
Oh, and for those that think otherwise, housing benefit costs run to some £20 billion annually.

Couple of points here, please supply a link to the HMRC quote where they claim the 6bn is an urban myth, secondly you banged on earlier in the thread about Labour not doing anything about tax avoidance, I totally agree,but my point is ALL politicians are parasites !
Interesting that you choose a link to the Independent from 2008 NOT 2010 ! ,obviously the tax amount was alot higher than they originally thought and more information has come to light.I also see you make no comment on George Osborne's visit to promote Vodaphone in India,after the company cut that dodgy deal with HMRC a bit of a coincidence !

29 Oct 2010

Quote by medway_garage
ALL politicians are parasites !
Interesting that you choose a link to the Independent from 2008 NOT 2010 ! ,obviously the tax amount was alot higher than they originally thought and more information has come to light.I also see you make no comment on George Osborne's visit to promote Vodaphone in India,after the company cut that dodgy deal with HMRC a bit of a coincidence !

Really? ALL?
For me there is a vast difference between large company's who avoid some tax, and individuals who may cheat to receive benefits or make a life style out of it.
I have very little problem with this tax avoidance, it does not seam to grate on me at all. I would imagine they are quite a large employer and add to that the people who are employed manufacturing/selling phones and related equipment. All this is a boost for our economy.
On the other hand, those who falsely claim probably add little or nothing to our economy

29 Oct 2010

Quote by medway_garage
Max......the people I am referring to...are the likes of the " SUN " and " The Mail" newspapers, that run the type of stories I was commenting on, regading benefits . People read it..and run round in total moral indignation. As stated sometimes with due cause.
However I don't see those same papers, and their readership, kicking up a fuss over this.

That that makes you correct does It Max !
Makes me correct about what?
Quote by Max777
Interestingly, I have found this article from 2008 in the same newspaper that the OP quoted.

Amazingly, the Vodaphone tax liability is quoted as £2 billion then.
The £6 billion figure has been described by HMCR as an "urban myth".
Oh, and for those that think otherwise, housing benefit costs run to some £20 billion annually.

Couple of points here, please supply a link to the HMRC quote where they claim the 6bn is an urban myth, secondly you banged on earlier in the thread about Labour not doing anything about tax avoidance, I totally agree,but my point is ALL politicians are parasites !
Try googling Vodaphone tax liability + urban myth........then take your choice.
Interesting that you choose a link to the Independent from 2008 NOT 2010 ! ,obviously the tax amount was alot higher than they originally thought and more information has come to light.I also see you make no comment on George Osborne's visit to promote Vodaphone in India,after the company cut that dodgy deal with HMRC a bit of a coincidence !
You obviously have no idea as how the tax system would work in this instance. I quoted the newspaper article from 2008 on purpose to show the difference between an informed article and the totally "sensationalist" article that you liked to. I can't comment on Osborne's visit to India as I know nothing about it. I didn't even know he had been until it was mentioned in this thread. It could be a coincidence
If you seriously think that Vodaphone had a £6 billion tax liability, which Osborne "wrote off", wouldn't you think that the Labour front bench would be making political capital out of it, especially in view of the spending cuts this government has just imposed?

29 Oct 2010

Well let's wait and see where this goes, Vodaphone's flagship store
was closed down on Wednesday due to very angry protestors lol ! A sign of
things to come for them.
Also I see Unison have TV advertising targeting public sector workers,a
good move considering the cuts.....expect quite a battle on that one !
As far as the £6bn figure goes...urban myth or not..who knows? ,but,If the
government and the HMRC have nothing to hide maybe I could put in a Freedom
of Informaton request !
George Osborne's visit to India a coincidence,lol pull the other one !
Max you don't happen to work at HMRC do you ??????

29 Oct 2010

Quote by medway_garage
Well let's wait and see where this goes, Vodaphone's flagship store
was closed down on Wednesday due to very angry protestors lol ! A sign of
things to come for them.
Also I see Unison have TV advertising targeting public sector workers,a
good move considering the cuts.....expect quite a battle on that one !
As far as the £6bn figure goes...urban myth or not..who knows? ,but,If the
government and the HMRC have nothing to hide maybe I could put in a Freedom
of Informaton request !
George Osborne's visit to India a coincidence,lol pull the other one !

Lets hope not, I would hate to see lots of people needlessly put out of a job

29 Oct 2010

Quote by medway_garage
Well let's wait and see where this goes, Vodaphone's flagship store
was closed down on Wednesday due to very angry protestors lol ! A sign of
things to come for them.
Yeah, by bloody idiots that believe all they read in newspapers.
Also I see Unison have TV advertising targeting public sector workers,a
good move considering the cuts.....expect quite a battle on that one !
As far as the £6bn figure goes...urban myth or not..who knows? ,but,If the
government and the HMRC have nothing to hide maybe I could put in a Freedom
of Informaton request !
George Osborne's visit to India a coincidence,lol pull the other one !
Tell me, when was the Vodaphone tax bill agreed with HMRC? Osborne visited India in July, and held talks with Tata ( owners of Jaguar and Corus) and according to this link, visited a Vodaphone store to launch a $10 solar powered mobile phone.

So that's what you call promoting Vodaphone?
Now read this link and you will see the true reason that Osborne, Cameron and other senior bigwigs were in India.

Max you don't happen to work at HMRC do you ??????
Nope, nor Vodaphone.

29 Oct 2010

Here you go Max as requested and the date as well;
QUOTE;I do, however, have sorry news for those who want Vodafone to pay up: if HMRC have really settled the case then the matter is done and dusted, and the opportunity to charge will have gone. This does not change the fact that this affair leaves a sour taste in the mouth, not least because days after it was announced, George Osborne was promoting Vodafone in India – a visit that must have been agreed before the tax announcement was made on 23 July. Of course, the coincidental timing may just be fortuitous and no one is suggesting Vodafone has done anything wrong, but the impression given is that HMRC rushed a deal through before the Indian OF QUOTE

Max I sense a lot of hostility on this subject,any reason why ? Also If people want to protest against the Government cuts,HMRC or indeed Vodaphone, they are perfectly within their rights to do so,as long as no laws are being broken,If Vodaphone etc have nothing to fear, easy,show us the paperwork and prove it,surely not too much to ask,then we can stop this endless quoting of left and right wing papers.....I would like to see some facts too,so why won't they provide them ?????????

30 Oct 2010

Quote by medway_garage
Here you go Max as requested and the date as well;
QUOTE;I do, however, have sorry news for those who want Vodafone to pay up: if HMRC have really settled the case then the matter is done and dusted, and the opportunity to charge will have gone. This does not change the fact that this affair leaves a sour taste in the mouth, not least because days after it was announced, George Osborne was promoting Vodafone in India – a visit that must have been agreed before the tax announcement was made on 23 July. Of course, the coincidental timing may just be fortuitous and no one is suggesting Vodafone has done anything wrong, but the impression given is that HMRC rushed a deal through before the Indian OF QUOTE

Max I sense a lot of hostility on this subject,any reason why ? Also If people want to protest against the Government cuts,HMRC or indeed Vodaphone, they are perfectly within their rights to do so,as long as no laws are being broken,If Vodaphone etc have nothing to fear, easy,show us the paperwork and prove it,surely not too much to ask,then we can stop this endless quoting of left and right wing papers.....I would like to see some facts too,so why won't they provide them ?????????

Hostility? If I had been hostile I would just have slagged off the newspaper in question, which is the customary practice on here. You posted a topic for discussion, which is what I'm doing. Or maybe you only wanted others to concur with your view?
I have already seen the article you quote from. It says nothing and is really only an exercise in stating the bleeding obvious. Of course if Vodaphone and HMRC have agreed Vodaphone's liabilty, it's a done deal. What do you expect it would be? A done deal subject to Private Eye's approval? Of course the visit to India would have been arranged prior to the announcement. It was a trade visit ...
"Among those who have travelled to India with Mr Cameron are Chancellor George Osborne and Foreign Secretary William Hague.
The sizeable business delegation includes the bosses of Barclays, Vodafone, SAB Miller and the English Premier League, while leading academics and sporting figures - including 2012 Olympics chairman Lord Coe - have also made the trip."
how long do you think such a visit would take to arrange?
In an earlier post I said I knew nothing of George Osborne's visit to India to promote Vodaphone and that is because it didn't exist. If the reports you quoted from had mentioned the government's trade visit to India, of which Osborne was a member, I would have known of it but they don't because they are very heavily biased articles.
So you think Vodaphone should publish what is probably very commercially sensitive information just to satisfy you? Why not ask Private Eye to publish the proof of their claim? I suspect you will have a very long wait?

30 Oct 2010

Quote by medway_garage
Here you go Max as requested and the date as well;
QUOTE;I do, however, have sorry news for those who want Vodafone to pay up: if HMRC have really settled the case then the matter is done and dusted, and the opportunity to charge will have gone. This does not change the fact that this affair leaves a sour taste in the mouth, not least because days after it was announced, George Osborne was promoting Vodafone in India – a visit that must have been agreed before the tax announcement was made on 23 July. Of course, the coincidental timing may just be fortuitous and no one is suggesting Vodafone has done anything wrong, but the impression given is that HMRC rushed a deal through before the Indian OF QUOTE

Max I sense a lot of hostility on this subject,any reason why ? Also If people want to protest against the Government cuts,HMRC or indeed Vodaphone, they are perfectly within their rights to do so,as long as no laws are being broken,If Vodaphone etc have nothing to fear, easy,show us the paperwork and prove it,surely not too much to ask,then we can stop this endless quoting of left and right wing papers.....I would like to see some facts too,so why won't they provide them ?????????

Meds, I have to say that I like your posting style.
However, the fact is, there are probably no facts in this issue other than the date of the visit to India and who attended. Most of the discussions before, during and after other than that shown on TV is pure speculation. I accept Max's take on this absolutely.
Of course, the job of HMRC is to maximise it's "take" for the Government of the day and it will always "load" its claim - doesn't everyone - in the expectation it will eventually be reduced. Witness the HMRC payroll claims against certain football clubs for example. As a preferential creditor they have first call but at the end of the day, the Courts of Justice (yes, the UK still do have them) will and do require HMRC to act responsibly and claims made are often not realised.

31 Oct 2010

Quote by Max777
So you think Vodaphone should publish what is probably very commercially sensitive information just to satisfy you? Why not ask Private Eye to publish the proof of their claim? I suspect you will have a very long wait?

Not to satisfy me,but to satisfy the protesters who are closing their shops !
Good point about 'Private Eye',might be worth a try,probably get nowhere as you say,but you never know !
As far as the quotes on the £6bn go,you take your choice on that,right wing press lower figure,left wing press higher figure....neither is probably correct,unless proof is provided.

Quote by Max777
Of course if Vodaphone and HMRC have agreed Vodaphone's liabilty, it's a done deal. What do you expect it would be?

It may well be a done deal, but then because of the publicity this case is starting to generate,they have to justify this double standard to the public and people who buy their products, who I imagine will see this in very different terms !

31 Oct 2010

You mean the alleged double standards, right?
Also, you do realise that Ian Hislop is the most sued man in English legal history and as far as I can tell, he has won only 2 of his court cases. Not exactly a reliable witness then!

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
Also, you do realise that Ian Hislop is the most sued man in English legal history and as far as I can tell, he has won only 2 of his court cases. Not exactly a reliable witness then!

If 'Private Eye' etc don't take on these stories,who will.....not the right wing toilet papers that's for sure !
So, If what you claim is correct,we should be expecting legal action against 'Private Eye','The Independent' and 'The Guardian'................mmmmmmm, nothing yet, I wonder why ????????

1 Nov 2010

Quote by medway_garage
Also, you do realise that Ian Hislop is the most sued man in English legal history and as far as I can tell, he has won only 2 of his court cases. Not exactly a reliable witness then!

If 'Private Eye' etc don't take on these stories,who will.....not the right wing toilet papers that's for sure !
Good to see you are true to type wink

So, If what you claim is correct,we should be expecting legal action against 'Private Eye','The Independent' and 'The Guardian'................mmmmmmm, nothing yet, I wonder why ????????
You obviously want to believe this story, so there is really no point trying to have a reasoned debate on the issue.
My final comment however, is to re-ask a question which you haven't yet answered. If what you claim is true, why have we heard absolutely nothing from the opposition front benches on the matter?