'Thanks for the cheque but you are still tax evaders...'

CHRISTIAN AID has defended its decision to carry on collecting money from islanders despite being seen to campaign against Guernsey’s finance industry.

Money is handed over to Christian Aid. Left to right: standing, Vivian Hewlett, Steve Mauger, Jacob Bough, Sarah Bough, Harry Bough, Mick Prince, Kath Prince and Mary Sims. Front, left to right, Roger Browning and church projects manager Martin Nicholls. (Picture by Adrian Miller, 1339507)
Money is handed over to Christian Aid. Left to right: standing, Vivian Hewlett, Steve Mauger, Jacob Bough, Sarah Bough, Harry Bough, Mick Prince, Kath Prince and Mary Sims. Front, left to right, Roger Browning and church projects manager Martin Nicholls. (Picture by Adrian Miller, 1339507)

CHRISTIAN AID has defended its decision to carry on collecting money from islanders despite being seen to campaign against Guernsey’s finance industry.

More than £40,800 was collected by volunteers this year through door-to-door and church collections regardless of the fact that the charity, together with the Tax Justice Network, published a list of the ‘most secretive’ finance centres, of which Guernsey was ranked 21st, in 2011.

It has also called for greater action to tackle ‘tax evasion’ and more commitment from the island.

But Christian Aid area representative Martin Nicholls, who is also church projects manager, said he did not believe accepting money from islanders was contradictory.

He said it was not campaigning directly against Guernsey or Jersey but for more transparency.

Comments for: "'Thanks for the cheque but you are still tax evaders...'"

Here we go again...

I give to a lot of charities both locally and overseas, but not this one.

Why you may ask? The answer is simple, they do not like Guernsey, Jersey and many other jurisdictions, including the UK as they state we are tax havens. What does annoy me though is the fact that they are happy enough to post their envelopes through the door and collect my money. It does strike me as somewhat hypocritical to do that, not just contradictory, but then the bible is contradictory in many places.

Not the only fish

No big problem, boycott them. There are plenty of other charities, including plenty without religious overtones, to donate your money to.


I suppose you could argue it's a bit contradictory but I don't really think so. If they were approaching offshore banks I think they'd have a case to answer but to my knowledge they're not.

OK you might not agree with them but a quick read of comments on these pages suggest there are a fair few on this island who do....and donations of over £40K suggest there isn't a huge backlash.

There are plenty of charities that pester us for money - I don't have a problem with being asked providing they aren't aggressive and are happy to take "no" for an answer.


One of the best tax avoidance schemes - Set yourself up as a charity!

Doug White

There are many fine secular charities working in the same areas as Christian Aid so one can easily avoid this lot without people in need suffering as a consequence.

I'm always a little suspicious of religious charities, do they work for the sake of the good deed or work for the reward of treasure in heaven?


Your last question is a fair one Doug. I'm a Christian and as such I look to do good deeds. What motivates me? I'd love to say it was always purely altruistic but that would be a lie....and I would imagine most of my fellow "believers" would say the same.

I suspect most people that do "good deeds" whether religious or not have a cocktail of different motivations, both selfless and selfish. In the same way that poverty is a complex matter I'd say peoples motivations are equally complex - are they driven by love, compassion, guilt, fear?

At the end of the day though I doubt the person in Africa receiving a life saving vaccine cares too much about what motivates the nurse delivering it.


This news, added to the fact that all money collected goes out of the island, has made me decide that my (modest) donation will go somewhere else next year.

Charitable cause or not, biting the hands that feed you is not a good idea.


previously I have always given very generously to Christian Aid.

Never again! If they dont like Guernsey then get off the island.


I do not give to Christian Aid because of their politicised stance. I do feel a little sorry for the volunteer collectors as I do not think they are aware of the propaganda the organisation indulges in. Perhaps this article will go some way to raise their awareness and CA will have fewer volunteers and donations from the Channel Islands next time.


I stopped giving my cash to this bunch hypocrites years ago. They have swallowed murphy's tax justice network propaganda hook line and sinker and do not deserve to receive a single penny from this community. Next year how about a campaign to send back their little red envelopes (right colour by the way) EMPTY with 'NO TO TJN LIES' writ large in bold, black felt pen.


Christian Aid truly believes charity begins at home - the BBC reports: "Christian Aid chief executive Loretta Minghella was paid £126,072"....so if asked I shall politely decline.


Yes, you're correct FlyingScot. This from the Telegraph last week:

"The top paid executive at Christian Aid was Loretta Minghella, a former chief executive of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, who was paid £126,072 this year, up from £123,729 last year and £119,123 the previous year."

The full story on the charity chief execs who hoover up our donations for their vastly inflated salaries can be found here.


Not the only fish

£126,072 a year. A nice little earner.

I wonder if she banks any of it offshore?


I have politely told collectors to go away the last couple of years precisely because of their stance against Guernsey. It's high time their attitude to us is given a wider local audience, well done to the Guernsey Press.

Those Christian Aid helpers used locally are sadly misguided individuals that should really reconsider their position. I wonder how many of those helpers benefit directly or indirectly from the local finance industry? The majority I would suggest.


Its rumoured Martino will set up a bench outside his home for the town drinkers as a nice gesture


Not quite but I'd much rather give a few quid to the guys at the plantation than to the local Christian Aid hypocrites with whom you appear to have so much in common.


... and I wonder how much they pay their Chief Executive? I think I have read the answer somewhere but would want to check my facts first.

I'm sure the local volunteers are well meaning and give their time for free. As someone else has said though, there are many good charities/organisations.


Why do you all take it so personally, they are not having a go at you or the island for that matter. What they are against is tax evasion per se which is one of the principle reasons for the poverty in poor country’s. If the tax evasion industry did not exist the elite’s in these country’s would have no where to hide their money. As far as the cost of running established charity’s goes well that’s another story.


Because what you say simply isn't true and doesn't bear up to scrutiny. Try getting some real facts instead of relying on the far left propagandist nonsense on on prophet Murphy's website. Poverty in third world countries is a highly complex issue and cannot be boiled down in simplistic terms as you see them.

What is clear, though, is that the highly paid executives at Christian Aid led by Ms Minghella on £126,072 per year (and rising) never waste an opportunity to denigrate these islands for the legitimate business that underpins their economies while at the same time having the effrontery to pocket earnings from the very same industry in the form of donations from you and me. In that way they are having a go at every one of us and they are definitely having a go at our island. Sheer and utter hypocrisy.

Oh Dear

Well said Martino.

Terry Langlois

the reason is that the stance of TJN (adopted by Christan Aid) is extremely biased and political.

the call for transparency is not a general call for transparency in the financial markets as a whole. It targets offshore centres (including Guernsey) in particular and through a combination of a lot of spin, smoke and mirrors and the occasional lie will make people think that offshore centres are greatly different from, say, the UK.

If you read TJN's reasons as to why Guernsey has "secrecy" you will see that many of those reasons are flase as they do nothing to assist secrecy and, secondly, that those same features also apply in the onshore world.

I have no objection to Christian Aid taking a stance against tax evasion, and it is entirely consistent with its ideals and objects for it to do so. What I object to is the fact that they recycle misinformation about Guernsey whilst doing so.

Terry Langlois

I was unclear in the above re TJN - their argument is based on (1) reasons for secrecy which are false, as they do not make anything secret and (2) reasons which do exist, but which also exist onshore and so are not unique to offshore centres and so do not justify a targeted attack on offshore centres.


I have always given to this charity. Not because I am Christian or I give two hoots about foreign aid, much of which ends up in the wrong pockets anyway, but just because it is easier. This year will be different, they can whistle for my Turkish Lire or Albanian Lek. They will get a lecture instead. How dare they talk about hypocrisy when, like so many charities, their own staff enjoy inflated salaries and perks. £126,000 a year for doing 'God's work' and she still gets to feel superior to the hard working people who feed her? Ms Mingella can make up the shortfall of coinage from the bottom of my fruit bowl in future.

Oh Dear

I find not putting anything in the little envelope works better.

Dave Jones

I am with Martino on this one

The reason many of the Africa states are in the wretched poverty they are in, is because their despotic leaders have plundered their treasuries and the millions in aid given to their countries to help their people.

Millions spent on private jets, palaces and water front homes in Monte Carlo on top of that they spend millions more on arms, helicopter gunships and other weapons in order that the army can protect them from the people when there crimes are rumbled.

I think the salaries taken by the heads of these charities are obscene and do absolutely nothing to instil confidence in those who donate tens of thousands to these groups.


But what's the solution?

Should everyone stop giving to that particular charity because it supports transparency generally?

The despots you speak of rely on places willing to hide the proceeds of their crimes.

Maybe they got it wrong with Guernsey but the ill gotten gains must be hidden somewhere.

How do we help those countries?

How do charities recruit qualified and experienced heads willing to work for less?

Or do we just give up and abandon those people and let the despots win?


Answer - We give to charities directly - there are many that are set up by people living in guernsey, Bridge to Haiti, Tumaini Fund, Hope for a Child - these are the ones that come to mind and there are many others! The people running these are not paying themselves obscene salaries - so many people in Guernsey know how fortunate we are and I believe we do give substantial amounts of money to these and other such like charities. I have also been one of those who has had to explain that I can't give to Christian Aid, Action Aid, etc. as I feel cross that the these politicised and clearly union lead charities can come here asking for money when they clearly regard us as a tax haven. This upsets me as many of us work in finance and it does feel like a personal attack. It just seems so hypocritical to me that these charities pay themselves ridiculous salaries.


spartacus,give your money to the tumaini fund run by sue wilson,at least it goes straight to the widows and orphans of tanzania.mfukowatumaini@yahoo.uk no creaming of money by anyone.

Terry Langlois


the answer is that Christian Aid should continue with their work, but they should stop spreading misinformation about Guernsey.

Doug White

Many of the large charities employ hundreds if not thousands of people and handle tens of millions of pounds a year. They need to be headed up by people with the skills and ability to manage people and budgets and they need to have the gravitas to communicate directly with ministers and other elected officials. A bit like senior civil servants, think of what you need to pay to attract the right people to States of Guernsey.



Loretta Minghella OBE seems to be worth her salt.


I would really laugh if it turned out she gets paid via an offshore company to avoid income tax!


When it comes to earnings, so long as charities are completely transparent about where the money goes I don't have a problem. People can then make up their minds whether to donate or not...and if there's one thing we're not short of these days it's charities. If you don't like the "big guns" or if you think a charity is paying its executives too much there are no shortage of alternatives.

Sparty make a decent point too. If I waited until I agreed 100% with everything a charity said/did before donating I'd never give a penny to anything.



your post is good.

I'd ask Dave Jones, senior political figure,

How many of these despots or thier representatives have money deposited here in Guernsey?

I have trouble saying this but PLP is correct. Do we stop giving because all of our dosh does not go exactly where we want it to.

Would I give a fiver if the quid that got there paid for a life saving jab? Absolutely.

What's the alternative?

Dave Jones


On your first point, it is difficult for me to answer but given our stricy "Know your Customer" policies in the banking sector I would be suprised if the numbers are significant. There are far more less well regulated juristictions where they can stash what has been stolen without to many questions.

The alternative is not to give large sums of cash to their governments but to fund individual projects such as schools, medical facilities, clean water projects Etc with small agencies with a proven track record for delivering the projects allocated to them.



Has it ever occured to you that the means by which these corrupt individuals shift their treasures is likely to involve jurisdictions who earn their way in world by providing secrecy. This is why Christian Aid is campaigning so that the aid given actually gets to the people who need it. Secrecy jurisdictions facilitate this crime, so yes, more transparency is needed across the board. Clearly, Guernsey have signed up to greater transparency but there is still a long way to go. Having a pop about an individual's salary is not relevant. Many people, including many in Guernsey, earn salaries that most of us would describe as being undeserved but as you know the market dictates - charities are no different.

Terry Langlois

yes, but what is the basis for saying that Guernsey promotes secrecy?

the fact is that there is no basis - it is misinformation by TJN.

please give me one reason why Guernsey is more secret than, say, the UK.

I have no objections to CA's work, nor to the salary for their chief exec if they are doing a good job, but they should stop spreading spreading the lie that Guernsey promotes or relies on secrecy. It does not.


You're right Terry and so is Dave Jones in his posts, but it is more than just 'misinformation' that Ms £126,000 per year Minghella and her minions are peddling. It's downright lies. To call us 'tax evaders' is a downright lie. We are now so well regulated, some would say over regulated, that there is hardly a snowball's chance in hell of any legitimate Guernsey based business being involved in any illegal tax evasion activity, even unwittingly. There may be one or two rogue individuals who operate outside the orbit of the law and who are not regulated by the Guernsey FInancial Services Commission but when this happens we have shown that we come down on them and come down on them hard.

We are in fact far more transparent than organisations like Christian Aid. I would like to see them publish a full account of their income, where is it derived exactly, the earnings and 'expenses' they pay ALL of their staff and supporters, both in percentage and actual terms, and where all the money they raise goes to exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the aid they send ends up in the hands of brutal jihadists, despotic dictators and corrupt government officials. In fact I a pretty certain this is the case and even if I cannot prove it I am no more casting an aspersion that they do when they call us a secrecy jurisdiction or tax evdaders. As I have said all along, absolute bloody hypocrites.


Are you sure Christian Aid have called Guernsey tax evaders?

Do you have any evidence of that?

Your statement "there is hardly a snowball’s chance in hell of any legitimate Guernsey based business being involved in any illegal tax evasion activity" is naive, sorry.

Many of Guernsey's customers engage in legitimate tax avoidance which is bad enough but some are tax evaders, without doubt.

Guernsey is indeed commendable in that it does it's very best to regulate against the latter however doesn't it encourage the former? Are there still loopholes to be exploited?

Guernsey should be seen to cooperate with all well meaning efforts to improve transparency which on the whole it does but frankly all this public fighting talk against Tax Justice Network and Christian Aid, makes us seem overly defensive and therefore implies guilt. I don't personally see how this defensive attitude is helpful to Guernsey's reputation.

Here is an example of what Christian Aid are actually saying for anyone who is interested.




I believe all the financial information you have referred to is available either on their website or on request from Christian Aid.

If they have failed to provide it to you perhaps you can let us know or otherwise perhaps you should stop making false statements and insinuations which you cannot prove?

Terry Langlois

I think that was Martino's point - using the same tactic as TJN in making false statements and insinuations which cannot be proven.


That was my point Terry. Spartacus just didn't get it. She has simply ended up making an absolute fool of herself for the umpteenth time on these threads and I quote:

"Many of Guernsey’s customers engage in legitimate tax avoidance which is bad enough but some are tax evaders, without doubt."

To which I answer with another one of her direct quotes:

"Perhaps you should stop making false statements and insinuations which you cannot prove?"

One thing that is not in doubt is that the head of this organisation, which is now more like a self serving, politically motivated, public funded corporation than a charity, is led by a person on an obscene annual wage that equates to more than three years' giving by generous islanders. Total hypocrites.



So you can't prove that Christian Aid have called us tax evaders, because there is no evidence to suggest they have.

You can't prove that Christian Aid are secretive and corrupt because they prove they are not.

Your only grounds for making false allegations against this charity is because you you want to show how easy it is to be a lying hypocrite. Well done you have succeeded! Egg on your face!

But why? Just because you don't like the fact that Ms Minghella OBE gets paid the going rate? Because they want greater transparency to protect the countries they serve from the villains who control them?

As for the tax evaders and criminals with money in the channel islands, if there are any, (of which of course we can only speculate because to prove they exist we would need to drag them out of hiding) we will only find out through improved transparency which is being forced upon us. Why would anyone not want improved transparency? That's the point you have missed.

Oh and now you say that this charity is like a politically motivated corporation, well duh!

Terry Langlois

One person's transparency is another person's invasion of privacy. Different people draw the line at different points.

It sounds good and reasonable to call for transparency but what is it that they are actually calling for? Our businesses are more transparent with the authorities than equivalent businesses in the UK (for example). TJN use inuendo to say that we promote secrecy, but it is nonsense. TJN would only be happy if they have the right to walk into any business, look through its accounts and see all payments which it makes. Ask any business owner whether that is a reasonable request and they will tell you where to go. Are we unreasonable for adopting the international standard of not having public visibility of accounting records and beneficial ownership? Of course not. And yet you ask why anyone would not want improved transparency.

Another example is that our trust companies are regulated, UK trust companies are not. If CA are worried about people misusing trusts, then they should look at the onshore tax avoidance industry before attacking us.


What a rambling, ranting piece of hysterical nonsense from Spartacus the shrill.

Of course they called us tax evaders. it's in the bloody headline on this story. And they did it without a single piece of evidence to back up their claim.

Let's have that quote of yours again.

“Perhaps you should stop making false statements and insinuations which you cannot prove?”

You're the hypocrite. It's in black and white. Perhaps I should highlight it in bold or caps next time. It is YOU who are making false statements and innuendos that you cannot prove and as a result you have fallen directly into Murphy's camp of brainwashed followers, including the Christian Aid lot who don't have a clue.

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge can appreciate that there is far, far more chance of this charity's funds ending up in the hands of despots, corrupt third world politicians and jihadists than there is of any tax evasion being carried out by the legitimate companies operating in this island.

You are living in a complete fantasy land.


Ha ha ha! "It said so in the Press headline so it must be true" Grow up!

I have not made one false statement or innuendo. Not one.

And I can't believe that you are naive enough to imagine that not one tax evader in the world has a penny invested in an investment vehicle or Trust structure in Guernsey.

I'm not sure you know what you mean by "legitimate companies" or have a clue what the Guernsey finance businesses do or why.

Calls for transparency would only be a problem if our clients have something to hide. There are plenty of valid reasons for wanting privacy other than because the client is a crook and Terry has made some very sensible and valid points above.

But without doubt the world is changing, the net is closing in on the crooks and here's the thing - that is a GOOD thing!

Guernsey needs to make sure it continues to adapt accordingly albeit this is expensive and inconvenient and generally bad for business. Fighting back against regulation and transparency will not work. I don't follow TJN but there are plenty who do.

Guernsey should take note of the changes and avoid at all cost aligning against the positive progress which is being made on a global scale.


You really are getting desperate now Spartacus, digging deep into the distant past when, in all probability, some dodgy money did find its way to these islands. Nobody is denying that but today, as even you appear to accept, it is a very different world and it is simply not worth the risk for any dodgy investor to come here and place their money with a legitimate locally based finance house.

Your entire argument throughout this thread is based on false statements and innuendo. Remember this?

“Many of Guernsey’s customers engage in legitimate tax avoidance which is bad enough but some are tax evaders, without doubt.”

".. tax avoidance which is bad enough.." = innuendo

"...some are tax evaders, without doubt = false statement and innuendo

The tax evasion slur you repeated was reported by the GP as coming from Christian Aid and it has not been refuted by the charity. They said it and they have not denied saying it.



I don't think anybody is denying that there IS some dodgy money in these islands, only you!

All Guernsey is saying is that we are well regulated and do our utmost to mitigate it.

So firstly, my claim that there is money belonging to tax evaders here in Guernsey is not a false statement.

Secondly I don't think the GP has "reported" that Christian Aid called us tax evaders I think it's just a catchy caption.

Thirdly, I agree with spokesperson Martin Nicholls "He said (Christian Aid) was not campaigning directly against Guernsey or Jersey but for more transparency."

Fourthly Tax avoidance is becoming rather frowned upon which you would have noticed if your head wasn't firmly in the sand. You can blame TJN and/or Christian Aid if you like but all I'm saying is that is a rather infantile attitude and Guernsey should not throw it's toys out of the pram in response to the shift in zeitgeist.


I have never said that their is no chance of dodgy money being channelled through local institutions, only that it is highly unlikely nowadays. Probably less likely than aid from Christian AId being channelled into the hands of some very dodgy operators in third world countries where these things cannot be checked or regulated very easily. You are the one stating things with certainty. 'Without doubt' is what you said.

I'm getting fed up with this circular argument, save to say that there is nothing wrong, per se, with tax avoidance, which you see as some sort of crime. Every self employed person in Guernsey avoids paying too much tax by claiming tax relief on vehicles, machinery, even on the cost of getting a good accountant to help out.

I think Terry has dealt adequately with your crazy obsession with 'transparency', which is a meaningless term employed by TJN to further its extreme socialist agenda. Also, it is clear that what happens in these islands has almost b****r all to do with third world poverty, which as Dave Jones has rightly said has far more to do with the despots and dictators who hold sway in these corrupt states.



I think there is a big difference between having transparency between the authorities of other jurisdictions and publishing information for anyone in the world to see.

If the authorities have access to information they can pass it on legally and privately, to other creditors in certain circumstances.

Terry Langlois

Sparty - what do you mean by "other creditors"?

If you are saying that you accept that transparency stops at the authorities and should not involve the public, then please tell me what more Guernsey should do in this regard. What international standard are we not adhering to?

No, actually CA should tell us what more we could do because I am at a loss.



As far as I can see no one at CA has said that Guernsey is not adhering to any international standard nor criticised Guernsey in any way. If I'm wrong please correct me and show me some evidence.

Of course Guernsey is doing everything it is supposed to and of course the finance businesses are not going to do more than that because that would be breaching their client confidentiality.

CA are campaigning for more transparency than is currently required and reduction of the confidentiality which clients currently enjoy.

If they and other supporters of these aims achieve that then Guernsey will have to comply with stricter controls but of course that would be costly and reduce business.

Fighting this only makes us look bad.


So Spartacus, we shouldn't fight something unjust because it will make us look worse?

I think CA have clearly said something, why would they feel the need to apologise?



No Pontoon,

we shouldn't fight against a just cause.

Re your link, I don't know what the secretary of the local branch said exactly, as there is no apology quoted, there is just a headline, which as we have seen, can be very misleading and misrepresentative.

Terry Langlois

Really Sparty? How about this?


Seems pretty critical to me (not to mention misleading, erroneous and unsubstantiated).

Terry Langlois

Sparty - have another look at Pontoon's link and check out comment 105.

This was made by me 3 years ago dissecting the basis on which TJN claimed that Guernsey is a secrecy jurisdiction. With proper analysis, the accusation simply does not stack up.

CA is piggy-backing on TJN's flawed analysis.

I have no objection to CA calling for more transparency in the financial world, but they should drop the suggestion that the Channel Islands are any more of a target for their campaign than the onshore world. They should just campaign in respect to the global financial system as a whole.



Are you saying there is no problem with the international finance system?

No money laundering? No tax evasion?

Are you suggesting that Guernsey's finance industry is watertight from bad business?

Or are you just saying Guernsey's finance industry is compliant therefore if there is any dirty money washing through it's not our problem?


You clearly know more than me Terry, and you know a whole lot more than Spartacus about this subject. You only have to look at the nonsense in her latest response to you. Guernsey IS compliant and there is no 'dirty money washing through' here. Perhaps she regards ALL money as dirty?



Guernsey is as compliant as it is compelled to be.

You seem to have the idea that means that therefore there is no dirty money here.

Get real, you really are being an idiotic buffoon.

In contrast to your random clueless attacks, I agree with Terry's sensible comment that "I have no objection to CA calling for more transparency in the financial world, but they should drop the suggestion that the Channel Islands are any more of a target for their campaign than the onshore world. They should just campaign in respect to the global financial system as a whole."



Once again you are wading well out of your depth, dabbling in topics that you know nothing about. First pensions, now offshore finance. I accept that you know something about education, even if your views are driven primarily by your socialist views.

Don't call Martino a "buffoon". He/she seems to know more about the subject than you will ever possibly know.



Martino suspects that transparency means bad news for Guernsey. Do you agree?

If so please give us the benefit of your superior knowledge of why transparency is such a bad thing.



Its very simple really. Law-abiding wealthy people have a right to privacy and confidentiality. They should be obliged to disclose information regarding their offshore affairs only to those to whom they owe a duty to disclose, ie the taxman and to law enforcement agencies.

Any demand for "transparency" which goes beyond that is nothing more than socialist-driven jealousy of wealth, with information sought by those who have no right or reason to know it.

If Guernsey offers up more information about law-abiding and fully tax-compliant clients of our core industry then we would be handing perfectly legitimate business on a plate to competitor jurisdictions which are not influenced or controlled by socialist-driven governments like the EU.

That of course does NOT mean that we should provide any sort of harbour to those who are not law-abiding and who are not fully tax-compliant. The right balance has to be struck with an appropriate but not excessive regulatory regime, and with severe penalties for those who might turn a blind eye to their regulatory obligations.


Sparty i could be wrong but the way i see it is that it is the singling out of certain places like the C.I. which CA and the TJN seem to be focusing on when in fact we are more transparent then most other places. And by picking on such places as the C.I. which give the impression we are less transparent then it IS damaging to us and i think that is what Martino is getting at? I am sure he has nothing against a level playing field for all but when you read through the literature of CA and TJN it doesn`t seem they are willing to accept there are places which are less transparent i.e. the UK.



We are not talking about law abiding wealthy people who fulfill their obligations.

We are talking about crooks who use privacy and confidentiality to hide or launder the proceeds of their crimes.

You suggest it is the duty of the individual to disclose information to the taxman and law enforcement agencies whereas surely you cannot rely on crooks to fulfill that duty. Greater transparency would put the burden of disclosure on the service provider.

To be fair the CA campaign is targeting all our competitor jurisdictions, it is an international aim so losing business to those jurisdictions is not a valid concern.

Guernsey cannot impose penalties for those who might turn a blind eye to their regulatory obligations. Only the country in which those obligations exist can enforce them. Without greater transparency how is that ever going to be possible?



contrary to something Terry said earlier, UK Trusts for example have extremely onerous reporting requirements.


If anyone wishes to substantiate the claim that the UK is less transparent than the crown dependencies I will be interested to see the evidence otherwise I remain skeptical.


The ongoing irony here is that Sparty is being less than transparent with her use of the word transparent.

She still can't tell us how and why Guernsey's financial sector is any less 'transparent' than the UK's in London?

Plucking an isolated link on trust reporting from the UK HMRC website is meaningless. We have nothing to compare it with.

As one of the posters in one of the education threads has said, what she is an expert at is peddling nonsense.



By comparison, there are no reporting requirements for Guernsey trusts.




What on earth are you talking about? The regulated banks and service providers here are under enormous and endless pressure to comply with their obligations. They will be closed down and prosecuted for failing to do so (re Kingston). Directors are very likely to be charged with serious criminal offences, and at the very least they will be blackballed from working in the industry again.

What evidence do you have that any significant criminal money is here? You've very naively fallen for Murphy's trick of claiming that because nobody is able to find out who's got assets here, he can say that its dirty money as its not possible to prove a negative. This is his strategy and has been for many years. If you challenge him robustly on it on his thread, he gets backed into a corner and instantly closes down that thread and/or blocks the poster. He's done that time and time again. Its naive, gullible people like you who fall for his propaganda. A little knowledge is very dangerous.

Why would crooks place their money here? We are more likely to report it than just about anywhere else BECAUSE we are so heavily regulated.



Oh dear, you really are well out of your depth here. Your post re UK trusts makes that abundantly clear.

Providers of trusteeship services in the UK are not regulated. There is no fiduciary services regulator in the UK, unlike here. So, anybody can form UK trusts and make a living out of running them, without being regulated.

So, those UK tax reporting obligations to which you refer can be completely ignored by any trustee who doesn't want to comply, because the trustee itself isn't even on the regulatory radar, and so is not exposed to regulatory prosecution, just to HMRC prosecution.

Pretty impressive huh? The UK is literally 25 years behind Guernsey when it comes to fiduciary services regulation.

But of course you would know that if you knew anything about the subject.



You seem to have forgotten that we were talking about transparency not compliance but I have no problem with extending the conversation to compliance obligations.

Do you agree that in the UK all Trust or company service provider's are obliged to register with HMRC and in Guernsey Trust or Company service providers are not obliged to register with the GFSC?

I have not made any allegation that there is significant criminal money here. Of course most reputable organisations would report any suspicious activities.



For heavens sake get back to a subject that you know something about, instead of simply pulling up Internet links which you don't understand the relevance of.

Guernsey trustees of Guernsey trusts with UK-connected Settlor's and/or beneficiaries have the same self-assessment and automatic reporting requirements as a UK trustee of UK trusts. Of course they have less Guernsey tax reporting obligations - trusts are exempt from Guernsey tax when there are no Guernsey-resident beneficiaries and when there is no Guernsey-source taxable income.

You are way, way, out of your depth.


Thank you GM for putting myself and Spartacus in the picture re trust and fiduciary businesses vis a vis Guernsey and the UK.

The difference between me and Spartacus is that I will happily acknowledge that I am well out of my depth here. I do believe, though, that I do have an intelligent and inquiring mind and that, because I have been following the more general debate between TJN and its detractors for several years now, I am perfectly able to weigh up the relative merits of both sides of the argument even though I am no expert (although more of an expert than Spartacus if that is anything to shout about).

I remain willing to be persuaded that Murphy's lot (including Christian Aid's overpaid Guardianista chief executive) have a good case to back up their constant stream of abuse and propaganda. So far, however. their arguments are about as persuasive as those we see from Intelligent Design 'scientists' who tell us that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that homo sapiens was around at the same time as the dinosaurs.



You didn't answer my question.



Your second paragraph is totally wrong on both counts.

UK trust and company service providers don't "register" as such with HMRC. HMRC is NOT a regulatory body. It is a tax agency. UK providers are no different from any other UK-taxable business of any type.

All Guernsey trust and company service providers MUST register with the GFSC. It is a criminal offence to conduct fiduciary business in Guernsey without a GFSC licence. The fact that you are unaware of this once again highlights your ignorance of this subject. Why on earth do you seek to claim that you have any clue what you are talking about?

No - I have no wish to waste my time debating compliance obligations with you. It would be like debating English grammar with somebody who hasn't yet learned the alphabet.




What question have I not answered?

I doubt very much that you would understand any answer that I give to any question on this subject matter. Its clearly all Greek to you.



I don't know why you are objecting to my use of the word "register". The point is that notifying the HMRC is an obligation of the Trust and company service provider - do you agree?

Care to explain Guernsey private Trust companies? Do they need to be registered with GFSC? What's that all about then eh?

Terry Langlois

Sparty - you are clearly very confusing and are talking yourself around in circles.

On the one hand you say (in relation to Guernsey) that we need to worry about the crooks that do not comply with their obligations to declare tax - hence a need for greater (unspecified) transparency, in your mind

And yet on the other hand you try to back up your argument that UK trusts are more transparent than Guernsey trusts because they are obliged to report to the HMRC...

So what about the UK crooks who choose not to comply with their obligations?

The key is not local tax reporting (surprise, surprise, we have no reporting here for trusts as they are not liable to tax...) but instead the question is whether the persons setting up and administering those trusts are known to the authorities, obliged to comply with AML regulations and subject to criminal sanctions if they do not do everything by the book. Here, they are. In the UK, even you could set up a business administering trusts (heaven forbid) for Russian oligarchs and you would not have to tell any regulatory authority what you were doing.

In Guernsey, by contrast, you would only be able to set up and administer trusts if you were licensed by the GFSC and you would have some heavy obligations to fulfil on an ongoing basis to ensure that the money coming into the trusts was not dirty.

So, if the FCA does not even know who is setting up trusts in the UK, but the GFSC intimately knows everyone that is doing it in Guernsey, I would say that the Guernsey fiduciary industry is significantly more transparent to the authorities here than it is in the UK.

And whilst you still call for more transparency you dodge the question of what extra information you would like to become transparent. You cannot keep dodging that question.

Until it can be shown that Guernsey is any more secret than the norm, then CA's position of attacking Guernsey (amongst others) for promoting secrecy and encouraging tax evasion is an unjustified slur. I know that you cannot show this, because it is not the case. But I bet that won't stop you defending CAs position anyway.



come on, in the UK it would be impossible for any UK operation to sneeze without HMRC knowing.

The GFSC know their clients i.e. the service providers but they don't keep any information at all about the underlying clients of those service providers and rarely ask for any further details or check that those service providers are competent at screening incoming funds. Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is a reason why our wealthy clients want privacy and confidentiality and are willing to pay handsomely to preserve it. Maybe this is simply because, as GM has suggested, they are worried that others will be jealous of their good fortune.



You are asking the sort of questions that a 16 year old school leaver would ask in his/her first week at work.

There is only an obligation for the Guernsey provider to register a specific trust or company with HMRC if there are income or gains which are required to be reported (ie UK-source income and/or UK-connected beneficiaries). Many structures administered in Guernsey have no UK connections whatsoever, so they would never be notified to HMRC, and no tax returns would be filed with HMRC.

Private trust companies can only be administered by regulated trust and company service providers. The PTC itself is not regulated as it is prohibited from charging fees. It is not "in business" as it cannot be remunerated for its services. It is therefore not a regulated service provider.

I still don't think you have grasped the difference between "register" and "regulate", but that's hardly surprising based on your limited knowledge.



I never said a Guernsey Trust would be obliged to report to HMRC!

So are you admitting that PTCs are a way of getting around the regulations?

I said UK Trusts are obliged to register with HMRC, they are not regulated by HMRC. I could use the word report if you prefer it but register is a perfectly suitable word to use.

Regulate is to do with the rules or laws which govern the activities we are talking about in both the UK and in Guernsey.



I suggest you re-read what you said in your 1.02 pm post today. I don't think you understand what you've said.

And no, I'm not suggesting for one moment that a PTC gets around the rules. A PTC can only be managed by a regulated FSP, who is subject to exactly the same reporting obligations re the PTC as they would be if they were the trustee themselves.

But of course you would already know that if you had even a basic knowledge of the subject, which you clearly don't.

Terry Langlois

Spartacus - re your post @ 4.20pm.

you say that the GFSC rarely ask for client details. The point is that they have the power to ask if they wish to (and can go on a general fishing expedition through all files of the service provider, without needing to know what they are looking for). In contrast, in the UK, there is no regulatory body that has the power to ask to see the files of trust companies - unless they can already prove criminality.

That is precisely why the system is more transparent (to the authorities) here than in the UK.

Another example is beneficial ownership of companies. In the UK, a private company does not even need to know who owns it, and it has no power to find out. A UK private company just deals with the registered shareholder, end of story. As a result, the UK authorities have no means of knowing who owns private companies. In Guernsey, every company has to take reasonable steps to ensure that it knows at all times who are its beneficial owners and the GFSC, police and others have the power to ask for that information.

So again, more transparent to the authorities here than in the UK.

You said above that you have yet to see evidence that we are more transparent than the UK. I have given you 2 examples. Please give me one example to justify your claim that our wealthy clients come to us for reasons of "privacy and confidentiality". Just one reason why they can expect more privacy and more confidentiality here than in, say, the UK?

It is clear that TJN's and CA's misinformation is working as you have swallowed the assumption that people bring their money here to hide it. The system is absolutely not set up to facilitate or encourage that, nor do we rely on it.


Sparty in response to my post you replied "If anyone wishes to substantiate the claim that the UK is less transparent than the crown dependencies I will be interested to see the evidence otherwise I remain skeptical"

well it seems TL and GM (and Martino to some extent) have certainly given you enough to suggest my view was correct and i`m just a simple layman on this subject and am happy to leave this to those who really know what there talking about. I suggest you do the same? :)

I am not an advocate of hiding money for the rich or anyone else from the tax man and in fact deplore it so on that we can agree. But to follow the garbage the TJN spill out and especially the constant picking on places such as the C.I. is NOT trying to fight for a level playing field and as i have said before that is what IS damaging to us.

Terry Langlois

Spartacus - still not been able to come up with an answer to the question posed in my last post above?

No, thought not.

Michael R

Martino, your comments may well be correct but can you please explain why just about all the banks are falling over each other in rushing their 'remediation' processes, dumping dodgy clients by the score?

Platoons of reinforcements have been drafted in from Eastern Europe and India to assist in getting rid of the perceived dodgy clients, many of them from Iran and Iraq.

This does not sit well with your statement that there is no dodgy money in Guernsey. Clearly there is an awful lot of it but many people seem to be burying their heads in the sand, especially and worryingly, States Deputies.

Has the Financial Services Commission belatedly grown some teeth? If so, why has it taken so long?

Although it is not his claimed sphere of expertise, perhaps GM would have a view on this too?


I am not an industry 'insider' Michael R so I cannot really help you there, but I know people who work within the local industry. They don't post on here but they are livid when they see people like Christian Aid and TJN and now Spartacus highlighting and slagging off the Channel Islands as 'secrecy jurisdictions' where all sorts of murky goings on happen, and without presenting a shred of real evidence.

I have also looked much more closely than Spartacus ever has at the anti Channel Islands propaganda spewing out of TJN and Christian Aid central command and it simply does not stand up to scrutiny. I seem to remember one dubious 'list' of 'secrecy jurisdictions' put together by TJN itself where Guernsey and possibly Jersey were deemed to be more transparent than the City of London. Where are the focused campaigns by Christian Aid against the City?

Over the last few years I have also followed the posts of GM and Terry and others who DO know more than me and who argue against this anti CI propaganda in a most calm and persuasive fashion.

As a non expert I tend to look at the 'macro' picture, having weighed up all the evidence, and bcb (a fellow non expert like me) is bang on the button when he says I have nothing against a level playing field. Terry made the same point above and I think it is worth repeating, not least because Spartacus wilfully ignored what he was saying:-

"I have no objection to CA calling for more transparency in the financial world, but they should drop the suggestion that the Channel Islands are any more of a target for their campaign than the onshore world. They should just campaign in respect to the global financial system as a whole."

The bottom line for me is that if TJN and CA were to have their way with their unilateral approach of attacking what we do here within our finance sector it would not make a blind bit of difference to third world poverty, which as Dave Jones has highlighted elsewhere on these threads, has much more to do with other factors not really connected with the world of international finance.


Michael R

This is very much my area of expertise!

Its not "just about all the banks" who are falling over each other with their remediation processes. It is one in particular, together with its related private bank. This is part of a global regulatory attack on this particular bank, which admitted systemic money laundering breaches in another part of the world (Mexico/Cayman).

If it had been a smaller bank, them it would have been closed down and its directors prosecuted. Because its a global bank with a global high street presence, it instead had to pay massive fines and agree to a global remediation process. Closing down the bank would have caused major problems for millions of its high street customers.

Locally, the bank is demanding up to date CDD for all of its thousands of clients, even though it previously held that information (it seems that the local bank sent all the information to its Isle of Man office a few years ago and has lost it - you couldn't make it up). Its clients have been told that failure to provide new CDD will result in automatic closure of the relevant accounts, even if its Mrs Le Page from Torteval. It does not mean that such clients are crooks. The seriousness of the bank's position cannot be understated.

The bank's lax attitude globally to anti-money laundering procedures was apparently systemic, and global regulators have every reason to believe there could be dirty money in any of that bank's operations. It doesn't mean that there is any here, but there could well be, based on what global regulators have found. In any global institution, and we are talking one of the very biggest banks worldwide, when something is systemic then the remediation process must be both global and absolute.


Thanks again GM. A persuasive, plausible response from someone who is 'in the trade' and who deals in facts, not propaganda.


Also speaking about poverty and charities that try to alleviate it, most of the countries which Dave Jones mentions also have very fast growing populations so it's not just the leaders plundering their states' coffers, these countries are caught in a vicious cycle where their populations grow much faster than their economies. UN data shows some like Mali, the population is forecast to increase by nearly 1000% between 2010 and 2100 because they have very high fertility rates, ie. an average of 7 children per female and lower death rates due to improved medicine thanks to charities. Charities that concentrate on improving education first and foremost are the ones I like to support rather than ones providing aid by way of food etc. on an indefinate basis.


some pretty decent posts on here,

just watched Lester Queripel on channel, sorry, Jersey news,

someone needs to have a word with this Deputy.

If he can't see that the cause of a child lying face down dead in a filthy pool of water should be prioritised above what's happening here, a wealthy juristiction, he should not have been elected.

it's bad enough that we give the least of any "western country" in terms of g.d.p. to foreign aid then we have elected people like Lester making comments such as he has on t.v.


I gather he suggested on TV and radio that overseas aid should be cancelled because we need to reopen toilets in town. What a clanger.


I disagree. Guernsey taxes are collected to provide services on the island, toilets being a fairly basic one. The States have absolutely no business giving my money away abroad, that is not what they were elected for. If people care more about hygiene in Africa than they do about whats on our own doorstep they have the option of voluntarily giving to a charity. Such as Ms. I'm-on-£126k's so-called Christian Aid, she is a damned hypocrite.



Guernsey is a wealthy jurisdiction and we have the means to organise ourselves efficiently.

We can reopen our toilets and have pay to pee facilities. It's such a petty issue.

The UN aid target is 0.7% GDP and Guernsey gives 0.1% which was frozen by the states last year. It's internationally embarrassing. It is a reputation risk.


Spartacus, I'm not the slightest bit embarassed. Why do folks like you always insist on giving other peoples' money away rather than their own? You draw the comparison with the UK without mentioning that the amount they give is second ONLY to the USA, more than many countries better positioned to do so.

The collection of our taxes to be given away as foreign aid is a disgrace. Especially when I consider what it is used for: atomic weapons, shoring up oppressive regimes, shopping sprees for the extended families of dictators, fleets of limos, planes and helicopters. Every country with nukes spends an estimated 300M USD EVERY DAY on their nuclear forces. Don't you think that money should be spent on relieving poverty in those countries before we give them a single penny more?


Oh, I forgot to mention Nigeria's space program - why the hell should UK and Guernsey Aid fund that? Especially when Nigeria is dripping in oil money and has a shocking record of corruption and radical Islamic terrorism? Would I rather have a public toilet in town rather than pay for this nonsense in Nigeria, you bet I would.

Terry Langlois

not sure that you can say that he should not have been elected - I am sure that there is a sizeable body of people who agree with him.

you (and hopefully the majority) can disagree with him and perhaps not vote for him next time (assuming you are in the right parish...)

Charity begins at home

I think if you ask people whether they would prefer overseas aid contributions to rise or local facilities to improve you might be surprised at the response.

I regularly donate to various causes, often after seeing Children in Need, Comic Relief etc, and the images portrayed are very powerful. I think that Guernsey people in general are very generous with their charitable donations, and this is to be applauded.

When it's taxpayer's money however, I firmly believe that the priority should be local services, I prefer to have the choice of whether donations are made, rather than politicians making that choice for me (let's face it if they're as good in that area as they are in most others then it probably disappears into some despot's pocket).


The Overseas Aid Commission decides where the money is distributed. It has one politician as a chairman and the rest are non-political. Check out http://www.gov.gg/overseasaid for more info.

I agree with Kevin and Sparty on this. The island has a moral and ethical responsibility to contribute towards overseas aid....yes we need to make sure the money goes to the right place, but that's why we have the OAC to scrutinise applications, and there seems to be some pretty high calibre people on it.

Even if you find the whole "moral and ethical" thing a bit queasy, cancelling overseas aid to fund public toilets wouldn't be send a good political message to our overseas trading partners, particularly at a time when we're trying to convince them we're a successful and well managed jurisdiction.


And how much do the one half of one admin staff at the OAC get paid?

No added value to the donation stream just an extra layer of cost to the taxpayer.

Why we need such a fuss and bother with seven unpaid staff etc when we could just hand the money to Water Aid or Save the Children it really is beyond me.

Typical Guernsey, lets make it really complicated when simple would do...

185 applications for funds in 2012, why?


No sign of the FTP here then.


So it's all smoke and mirrors and left wing propaganda,that old chestnut again. If it's all so above board where do all the despots (drug barons and dishonest US bankers)put the money.


Pete: "where do all the despots...put the money." Hard to say since dozens of jurisdictions, about 15% of the entire World, can be classed as a tax haven. If I was a despot I would go for somewhere a lot better at keeping secrets than Guernsey.

Terry Langlois

Pete - I have no idea, but there is very little incentive for them to bring it here.

Try dealing with the compliance procedures of any Guernsey FSB and you will see that it is not at all easy to pretend to be clean when bringing money here. The dirty origins of the money would have to be extremely well hidden for it to slip through our procedures. There are some much easier places in the world to take dirty money.

Plus, if the dirty origins are uncovered in the future, the chances of that despot getting their hands on their money are extremely thin as we are signed up to every protocol going and have a robust legal system. If you want to make sure that your assets are not seized if their criminal origin is discovered, you would go elsewhere.


I see that having failed to impress us with her apparent knowledge on the topic in hand, Sparty has pulled a flanker in her own inimitable style and started wandering off the subject.

Bearing in mind the cr*p being spouted, her new topic de jour is somewhat apt.

Here is just one of many articles I found, issued by C.A., talking about the CI's. It is less than flattering and supports the views of the majority the Editor of the Press and most people with an inkling of 'nouse have about C.A's views on the CI's.


I don't think the CI's are perfect, I'm not saying that despite extensive laws to ensure dirty money doesn't get in, that maybe some does, inadvertently or otherwise, but for CA to so openly and prolifically slate us to the rest of the world whilst asking for donations from us - that'd be the islands as a whole who benefit from the finance industry and our tax status in many, many ways - is a bl@@dy cheek, and their representatives comments on the letters page just goes to show that they are fans of pointing out inconvenient truths to others, but less gracious when one is aimed in their direction.

There are plenty other ways to benefit those less fortunate, and I hope that if CA learn one thing from this it's that we ALL must take responsibility for our actions, and that includes them.

Oh Dear

I normally disagree with your posts but this one was absolutely spot on, very well said.

I've never given any money to this "charity". I remember even as a child hearing that there were major flaws in the way they operate.

Give to charities that truly deserve it.

The two I always give to without hesitation are Les Bourgs and RNLI, they're both fantastic charities. I do give to charities that give aid to "third world" countries as well but not as frequently as I give to these two.


Well said both BSFE and Oh Dear. I don't think Sparty has ever grasped the principle of being careful not to bite the hand that feeds. In this instance we're feeding Christian Aid by placing 1000s of our £ in HANDS of the charity's local agents only for the same charity's HEAD office to use its sharp propaganda teeth to take huge bites out of us. What is particularly galling here is that the local hands try to pretend they are somehow divorced from the national head. Well, they are not fooling anyone here, except perhaps Spartacus.



Christian aid is not biting the hand that feeds them.

You are the one who is jumping on the press sensationalism and spreading propaganda against Christian Aid.

All they are trying to do is improve transparency to stop the crooks.

All you are worried about is that Guernsey might lose some business irrespective of whether some of the business we do is unknowingly with crooks.


No I'm worried about the fallacious spreading of damaging propaganda BY Christian Aid against this island and its main industry and its people.

Propaganda spread deliberately, repeatedly and maliciously by the leaders of an organisation whose footsoldiers then add insult to injury by asking us to donate to their coffers.

If that's not biting the hand that feeds I don't know what is.


So Martino,

What is the motive for this alleged deliberate malicious propaganda against it's benefactors?


The motive? Quite clearly because the Christian Aid organisation at the top and throughout its middle professional ranks has been overtaken by ideologically driven left wing loonies racked with 'white man's guilt'. Almost indistinguishable from the supporters of the TJN in fact.

I must admit, though, that you have to feel a little for the long standing local unpaid volunteers who began supporting CA before it became politicised in this way. Like 99 per cent of the population they know in their heart of hearts that this tax haven bashing line is pure propaganda. It has put them in a quite invidious position and if they really do not want to appear as donation grabbing hypocrites they must hold their leadership to account.


I have no difficulty in reconciling Christian Aid's acceptance of donations from decent Guernsey people who equally deplore any kind of tax evasion taking place within these shores or elsewhere. There is no hypocrisy in that.

Guernsey is not just the finance industry and our finance industry is not just tax evasion.

If Christian Aid really thought we were all tax evaders as this ridiculous headline suggests, then of course they would not take our donations. But of course they don't think that.

If you don't like their campaign for better transparency it is fair enough that you shouldn't give them any money.

Guernsey has every reason to support their campaign for greater transparency requirements because the problem is minimal, we can easily afford the costs of additional regulation, and we don't need bad business in order to succeed at what we do.


Your ignorance of this subject is stunning Spartacus. Tax 'evasion' is simply not a part of our local finance industry. If it did happen in the past it was only on a small and isolated scale and over the last couple of decades it has been regulated out of existence.

Another simple fact for you to get your brainwashed head around is that Christian Aid used to be a decent organisation but it has now been hijacked within its upper echelons by anti 'tax haven' fundamentalists who are unquestioning disciples of Murphy's Tax Justice Network sect. You are simply their latest useful idiot recruit.

If you and your fundamentalist friends were to have their way the economy of Guernsey would be destroyed and the people of this island would not be in the position to be able to give £4 a year let alone £40,000. That is where the hypocrisy lies.



Please explain your contradictory statements that

"over the last couple of decades (tax evasion) has been regulated out of existence."

and yet if there was greater transparency

"the economy of Guernsey would be destroyed"

How so?


You clearly haven't a clue as to what you are talking about Spartacus. I'm going to call your bluff now by challenging you to tell us what you actually mean by 'transparency'. I certainly don't know what you mean. I think it's just a term that you've picked up from the TJN and Christian Aid propaganda sites and that you continue to squawk out like one of Murphy's pet parrots. How are we any less 'transparent' here, for instance, than they are in the City of London, which is in the UK if you didn't know it? I am confident you can't even begin to answer that one.


Hardly the first time Christians have called foul....from the bottom of their own stinking cesspool of murdeous, anti semetic, gay hating and paedo protecting history..... though is it?

Island Wide Voting

No need to drag the Daily Mail into this!

vic gamble

I think he is dragging in the Daily Femail and Mail....no one ever escaped the blizzard of bigotry.



The more questions you ask the more convoluted and vitriolic this thread becomes.

We will have to make our own minds up.

If there is no problem I don't see why the TJN campaign is harmful in any way.

If our expert contributers are to believed it is difficult to understand why there is an offshore finance industry at all.


Sparty i am sure there is a lot of things i would agree with you on this subject but slinging mud in one direction or chosen directions as is the case with TJN does not help.