Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Emma Watson named in Panama Papers [View all]nxylas
(6,440 posts)16. I don't know what to believe
But this statement sent up a huge red flag.
The British conservative weekly The Spectator used the database and found that "Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson" is a beneficiary in an offshore company based in the British Virgin Islands. The magazine used the discovery to suggest that Watson's continued political activism could lead to more questions about her use of this offshore company.
In other words, even the most anodyne form of liberal activism (and surely her modest suggestion that men ought to treat women with more respect barely even qualifies in that regard) is enough to get the right-wing press going through your financial records with a fine-tooth comb, looking for dirt.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Oh I bet is was for privacy reasons, alright. Surely she is one of highest paid of her profession.
silvershadow
May 2016
#4
Tens of thousands of companies avoid hundreds of millions … in tax through the …“Delaware loophole”.
w4rma
May 2016
#68
No. You obfuscate the facts. You cherry pick one fact, and pretend others don't also exist.
w4rma
May 2016
#70
See post #11 that I inadvertently addressed to someone else instead of you NT
Ex Lurker
May 2016
#19
If she was using that phony corporation to avoid paying her share of taxes it is everybodys business
GummyBearz
May 2016
#71
yup, no big deal, just avoiding to pay taxes. no big deal. move along nothing to see.
Javaman
May 2016
#18
I know, lol, it sounds goofy, but "protecting assets" has been a marketing strategy
closeupready
May 2016
#35
It's still perfectly legal to have offshore accounts, you're just required to report them to the IRS
Xithras
May 2016
#46
I had to look up Emma Watson to see who she was. I wouldn't recognize her if I tripped over her. nt
valerief
May 2016
#22
Emma Watson is a good soul. I'll take her at her word, unless I specifically find out otherwise.
w4rma
May 2016
#25
Considering that it's legal and that she would support making it illegal, I don't see the hypocrisy.
w4rma
May 2016
#36
You're not making any sense, Democat. Would you murder the 1% down to the last woman and child?
w4rma
May 2016
#42
Keep digging that hole for yourself. I've been a member of DU since right after the (s)election.(nt)
w4rma
May 2016
#63
Finally: A reason to care about the Panama Papers leak—attractive people you know from your teevee
w4rma
May 2016
#65
They still never found who 'leaked' the banks records to the "journalist consortium"?
Sunlei
May 2016
#26
some of the account names are billionaire Russians the USA placed financial sanctions on last yr.
Sunlei
May 2016
#34
I'm not liking excuse V1.0, maybe the next one will be more convincing
MowCowWhoHow III
May 2016
#40