Search results

thats a fair point.

that's a substantial assumption made on the basis of your view and no real evidence. i could argue apathy indicates implicit acceptance of the process. we live in a pretty free country but i don't see a real "change the system" party emerging, despite the claims of the radicals that that is...

has it ever occurred to you (or anyone else complaining about lack of choices) that the democratic consensus is content with this arrangement?

not sure what "massive assumption" you think ive made. the chap extracted data from the banks system is a fact. it demostrates flawed auditing and controls on the data, so its reasonable to suspect it may occur elsewhere. and everyone seems quite content to carry on with the original...

there is nothing in the story posted to suggest that. a little further reading reveals he was detained in Switzerland, then went on the run and only gave details to the French later. his motivation was apparently to sell on data for his financial gain. and you know this because...? i'd...

not sure i see where that follows on in relation to this story, other than two cases of tax authorities chasing money being in the public eye, what else to they have in common?

possibly, but the article implies they've wrapped up their investigation. getting £135m out of 1100 individual sounds like a pretty decent haul, £123k each on average. i dont trust any "whistle blower" that doesnt go to authorities immediatly. to sit on this sort of information for years...

another one... where is it that i'm defending anything? are we not allowed to highlight unsaid issues that may be as significant as the prescribed story? must fit in to neat for/against sides?

apart from the £135m reportedly recovered by HMRC to their satisfaction. seems to some want the HMRC to send people to court to recover money, when their current process has already done so. sounds like a waste of courts time to me.

why have you read into my point somthing that i've not said? if it wasnt for the data theft, i was going to completly ignore the old story. im not sure how much it smears the Tories when it happened in 2007, other than their appointing the chap running HSBC into government, but thats par for...

if the "whistleblower" could walk out with 100k records of high value customers, how easy to walk out with 100k of low value. or a million. do you see? this is a 7 year old story and information has been with HMRC for 4 years according to the article, why it wasnt passed on immediatly should...

if you're a HSBC customer, you should probably be more concerned about the "wistleblower" taking the account information from the bank. thats the real story here, not that a bank offers offshore bank accounts.