The Panama Papers and selective reporting

One headline from ‘The Guardian’ states that the “Kremlin dismisses revelations in Panama papers as “Putinphobia””, another informs us that it is “Sergei Roldugin, the cellist who holds the key to tracing Putin’s missing fortune” ,  and Natalie Nougayrède in the same newspaper tells us of the $2 billion trail that leads to Putin, while stating “kill it, spin it – Putin will do anything to stifle the Panama Papers story.”

No doubt he will, but it is left to Craig Murray to hit the nail on the head when, while agreeing that Putin is without a doubt corrupt and the story is probably true, he points out that “Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca” and that it is all too “obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.” Indeed, this becomes all the more obvious when it is considered that neither the even smaller $2 billion sum attributed specifically to Putin, nor the fact that the Russian president is not  mentioned by name in the documents, is taken into account.

After all, the leak, according to the same blog post, is being managed by a body known as “The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists” which, despite its lofty sounding name,  is supported by entities such as “the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment, the Rockefeller Family Fund, the W K Kellogg Foundation,The Sigrid Rausing Trust (the Tetrapak empire) and the Addesium Foundation (George Soros).”

Are things becoming clearer? Well, if not, it is back to Craig once more and “expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.”

Still, our “free press” wouldn’t be what it is, if it didn’t throw the real story into the mix and in ‘The Guardian’, although it seems to get lost in the stories about the boogeyman in  Moscow, we can still read:

“Mossack Fonseca is the world’s fourth biggest provider of offshore services. It has acted for more than 300,000 companies. There is a strong UK connection. More than half of the companies are registered in British-administered tax havens, as well as in the UK itself.”

Now,we are getting closer to what should really be concerning us. After all, only an imbecile would contend that there is no corruption in China or Russia. However, at least at the time of writing this post, it is the ‘Independent’ that brings the right sort of focus on the real story with its main article stating:

“…critics say the government still soft-pedals reform of an international system in which wealth can be relatively easily shielded from tax and they point out that major centres of evasion such as the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda (many of which feature prominently in the cache of 11 million documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Foneseca) are British protectorates.”

Furthermore, it is not only British protectorates that are the major centres of tax evasion, but it is also, as the ‘Evening Standard’ stated earlier this evening, a fact that British-owned and London-based banks have been providing companies like the Panamanian legal firm Mossack Fonseca with, at times, most of its business. Of course, this is the real story and, as “revealing” as these leaks might appear, Nicholas Shaxon’s ‘Treasure Islands’ does a good enough job in telling that story.

Most interestingly, however, is that the story, or various stories, are hitting the headlines now and, as Craig Murray rightly predicted, “the selective reporting”  is already beginning to stink. Expect “The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists” to use a thoroughly corrupt system made in the West to concentrate on undermining the West’s adversaries.

Advertisements

About sanculottist

There are a lot of poor bastards out there being used and abused; it is just not cricket "old bean". Something tells me that ignorance is not bliss, but is, in fact, simply ignorance and in the global village we cannot look the other way.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Panama Papers and selective reporting

  1. Jordan says:

    Well done. A good post!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s