Please describe your concerns with this comment. If you simply wish to respond to the comment please use the Comment Box on the story itself:
I was quite happy that the islanders could talk about what was happening to them to such a large audience. I would like to see a second installment which would feature the vine planting as well. I'm suprised the hiring/firing of islanders was not looked into more either. I enjoyed watching the spin on Mr Sweeneys visit to pick up a copy of the SNL as well as the appearance of the doctor. I also liked the reminder that the newsletter never asked the people it featured for their views for balance... In regards to the offer of mortgages to locals I would like to take an excerpt of a letter delivered to Sark residents from the Barclay Brothers: "we would be willing to assist in providing islanders with mortgages to enable their home ownership." In my opinion that's an open offer to the public right there and the GFSC were right to be pro-active in contacting them if this is their intention should the law change. The concern was not disproportionate but relevant and timely. Anything else Delaney offered in response in the paper such as the GFSC had other things to deal with just seemed to attempt to divert from the actual issue in hand. I would ask why would mortgages be offered to islanders by them? Was the timing of this just before an election? I would ask why is it of importance to that Sark get its own customs area? This is following the event of it being found that Brechqou is part of Sark and not seperate (despite legal avenues being followed to attempt to find it was not). It would mean they would then own vast amounts of land, business and then potentially the homes in Sark. Would people want to say anything critical about the person who owns their home? Just things I'm going to keep in mind. I wondered where Richard Murphy got those private BVI trust minutes from. They would not be available to the public. How can we know they are even real? It is noted the Barclay Brothers are quite private and secretive. I think Richard Murphy was incorrect saying that the Ritz had not paid a penny of tax to the UK government in the last 17 years. There would be PAYE, council tax, VAT. I may be wrong however (not an expert on BVI structutres by a long shot) but it was quite the statement to make when the Barclay Brothers are quite happy to sue for incorrect facts about them and their businesses. I also - don't hang me for this - but don't have a problem with them suing for compound interest. It may not be good for the HMRC but if you look at the issue from the angle of a client they have had to wait for money owed to them. If you owe HMRC money in the UK you can become liable to penalties and interest. It seems fair for this to be applied the other way around. Especially if you need a refund for cash flow purposes. The outcome of the case could be positive for small struggling businesses for example that were owed money. I also am not a fan about how the public were not informed of all the ways that the tax bill was reduced on the Ritz. I'd rather see an open honest discussion on it with all the facts on show for them to consider instead of using lack of industry knowledge to suggest it's ALL immoral. Capital allowances as example as a relief would have been used - everyone claims those. It was suggested all profits were re-invested (which gives rise to them) so that is one way the tax bill would have been reduced. Any accountant not claiming them would be doing a poor job. To underline I just want the issue looked at in detail, with all aspects on display so an honest discussion can take place or morality of tax instead of people being manipulated to think one way or the other.