May 10, 2016

Emma Watson's name in the Panama Papers leak



First of all, I'd like to remind people that having a count offshore is not something uncommon and does NOT equal to hiding money. Whether Emma did hide money or not will be the authorities' role to find out, not ours.


Now the article from the Mirror:

The Harry Potter star's spokesperson says she gets 'absolutely no tax or monetary advantages' from her offshore arrangement. 
Emma Watson's links to an offshore trust has been revealed in a huge leak of secret documents. 
The Harry Potter star turned political activist is named in the Panama Papers, revealing she has interests in a firm based in the British Virgin Islands.
But a spokesperson for Ms Watson says she does not use the firm to avoid tax, only for privacy. 
The database, released online yesterday, reveals Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson is a shareholder of Falling Leaves Ltd, a company based in the British overseas territory. 
Her representatives told the Spectator: "Emma (like many high profile individuals) set up an offshore company for the sole purpose of protecting her anonymity and safety. 
"UK companies are required to publicly publish details of their shareholders and therefore do not give her the necessary anonymity required to protect her personal safety, which has been jeopardised in the past owing to such information being publicly available. 
"Offshore companies do not publish these shareholder details. Emma receives absolutely no tax or monetary advantages from this offshore company whatsoever – only privacy."

81 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh yes, because the reason for setting up a company when you don't actually run an operating business is not to obtain tax advantages. Loads of rich people do it, yes, but poorly phrased comment from her PR.

Seriously, I don't understand why high net worth individuals try to avoid paying tax. It's not like they wouldn't have enough money if they abided by the rules like the majority of the population.

Yes, haters are gonna hate me for having said - but IT FRUSTRATES ME WHOEVER DOES IT!

Anonymous said...

if she did not get an advantage from that she should provide proof. this is something very serious. you can't talk about equality and avoid taxes.
i couldn't stay a fan if it comes out she avoided taxes. i would have trouble believing others stuff she said in interviews and i would question the rest of her image too.

Anonymous said...

....actually, a very astute comment from the Anon at 10:02. I think Emma really needs to PROVE she hasn't benefitted from her offshore account before she carries on working for a cause she may have herself perpetuated (not sexism, but inequality in general)

Anonymous said...

all the celebrities who appear in Panama papers say the same thing: "This is for my privacy," "I knew nothing of this," "This is not what it seems" .... and then, that's a lie, they They have these companies to evade tax, something I do not understand why they have a lot of money
what I mean is that although Emma says this is for her privacy,The real is that she has a companie to evade taxes and be increasingly rich, like all persons appearing in the Panama papers
It is a pity that she has committed this, because her image is going to be damaged
she talks about equality when she is the person who makes differences not paying taxes,for be more rich

sorry my english

Anonymous said...

The truth is, it's systematic. If someone's rich enough they have an offshore account. Financial advisers and money managers will advocate or do this for their clients without the clients necessarily understanding or knowing what is going on.

It's too early (as always) to make snap judgments. This will be a long process, sit back.

Anonymous said...

Would have been better for Emma to have maintained a dignified silence rather than have her spokesperson give out a statement like that! What she did was perfectly legal (for whatever reasons), but to come up with a statement about privacy puts her integrity to question when she could have simply disclosed off her assets to HMRC and named a nominee, usually a solicitor or an accountant and remain anonymous. Would have expected a better handling from her financial advising team and both her lawyer parents!

Anonymous said...

Old News. Heard about it when the Panama papers first began leaking out names. I googled and voila her name was among those listed. Several people close to her have their names listed. Shall not mention it here. Doesn't change anything in terms of her actual monetary standing. We just know what is the name of one of her companies' is. That's all.
As for the Mirror, it's another of those tabloid rags.

29AndreG said...

Nice tumbler page, Sue. 😠

Anonymous said...

I believe her that it was about her privacy. If it's true she just owns a property via this offshore company because else all her private details like home address and other contact information would appear in databases available to the public like land register. Maybe it's rather something like you would have bought a domain privacy service so that nobody can google or find private details about the owner of the website. Although it's useless for her now hahaahahaha.

Anonymous said...

Dont mention the name of the people "close to her" but could you please say who they are close to her? family? co-stars? friends? romantic partners?

Anonymous said...

*how they are close to her

sorry. dont want names but would like to know their relation to emma.

Anonymous said...

Till proven that her ownership of an offshore company is for the purpose of tax evasion, they've got nothing on her. They have to prove that she had the motive to evade tax and hide her money for the purpose of tax evasion. What she does with her own money,companies,stocks is her own damn business. Put it under her pillow or up in the attic for all I care. Sincerely, from your friendly neighbourhood solicitor.

Anonymous said...

Obliviate! This witch hunt! ....Send her to Azkaban!

Anonymous said...

To the anon who said 'Several people close to her have their names listed', if you meant Jacqueline Watson, you might want to verify your claim 'coz she's not Emma's mother! Nobody else close to her were listed.

Vicky George said...

I would imagine Emma had little or nothing to do with this anyway, her accountant or her Dad would have been more likely to do it.

Anonymous said...

She's a shareholder. How naive could you be? Stop defending her.

Anonymous said...

Off shore shareholders use the off shore companies for privacy yes, but one can also legally evade paying too much taxes. This is nice for equalitiy.

Anonymous said...

So much for equality offshore!

Robin said...

Sorry to break your ilusion, guys, but this is how the world works. Rich people have a way of evading taxes and poor and middle class work their ass off to support the economy. The system is screwed up, but not one rich person is REALLY gonna suffer because of those leaks, they are protected forever. And why? Because they play in a bloody movie or sing really nice. I don't wanna live on this planet anymore.

Jonathan Andrew Sheen said...

A company is a tool for putting money to work. Someone as wealthy as Emma doubtless has a number of things she'd like to do with her money, without leaving a publicly-accessible paper-trial that could put total strangers at her front door.

It is indeed possible to commit crimes like tax evasion through ownership of anonymous offshore holding companies. It's also possible to commit a multitude of crimes through ownership of a car. Waitamninute!!!! Emma owns a car! That's shocking!!!!! Oh, wait -- no, it's not. It's just that perfectly legitimate and lawful things can be -- but aren't always -- used illegally.

Anonymous said...

Poor Emma, If She has not money, for this reason She evades taxes (Irony)

Jonathan Andrew Sheen said...

You know, Eden, I've said it before, I'll say it again: You're under no obligation to be a host and publisher for anonymous losers with no knowledge and no evidence.

Anonymous said...

JAS no one is saying she did anything illegal. We're accusing her of hypocrisy. "Oh, I believe in equality. I'm a moral person." But just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral.

And oh, she didn't know. Yeah, right. it's all handled by her lawyers/accountants/parents. She still has to sign. And if she really is as educated as she claims to be, she would ask what she's signing.

She doesn't need to evade taxes to continue to be rich and live comfortably. She evades taxes to continue to be richER.

Anonymous said...

"And why? Because they play in a bloody movie or sing really nice. I don't wanna live on this planet anymore."

How about people like Trump or Bear Stearns bankers who made their money off of exploiting others, even causing the great recession? Emma's $60m is chump change to them.

At the anonymous above, you certainly love exercising your 20/20 removed observer "insight" to rabidly jump to conclusions based on a shoddy article and incomplete information. It's quite weird, and sad. One wonders what's deficient in you that motivated you to act like this.

Anonymous said...

Only because other ppl are worse than Emma, or more ruthless doesn't make her behaviour any better. She clearly displayed severe degrees of greed and hypocrisy. She deserves getting called out for that! Nobody is asking for her to be burned at the stake. This is not a witch hunt for an innocent girl, it's a question of integrity and not simply disposing of facts just bc someone is young and pretty.

Anonymous said...

@Jonathan Andrew Sheen "no evidence" yeah, sure all the names on the Panama papers are good enough evidence to start investigations and further inquiries about the others on that list, but when it comes to Emma they don't seem to count? Delusional much?

Anonymous said...

"She clearly displayed severe degrees of greed and hypocrisy. She deserves getting called out for that!"

lol, no. You actually believe this? The only thing CLEAR is that we don't have enough information to make any kind of judgment yet. Get a grip.

Anonymous said...

Emma Watson hides her earnings offshore whilst preaching to the rest of us about "refugees". That is hyprocisy!

Anonymous said...

Yep, I call it greed when you talk about equality and finance your own real estate purchase with money "you saved" through beneficial tax conditions. Greedy rich ppl at work move along nothing to see ... business as usual

Anonymous said...

Maybe she was tired of only having 8 pairs of shoes and getting pencil cases for birthdays, so she thought she can save a few bucks on taxes and get something nice for herself like a condo.

Anonymous said...

All she has to do is publish her Tax returns and Housing bills to prove her privacy claims. That would shut everyone up questioning her unethical methods and integrity, including myself! Or she can be silent about it and let the dust settle but there will always be people who'll keep wondering about her credibility; and yes, put her in the famous company of tax evaders like Donald Trump, David Cameron and co...

Anonymous said...

"All she has to do is publish her Tax returns and Housing bills to prove her privacy claims" All? Are you mentally ill? What reason does she have to reveal personal, private documents? Just so some fools on the internet don't think less of her? Like that matters.

She's not a political candidate. She doesn't need to be vetted. What you're advocating is bullying. It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until you kowtow under our boot and give into whatever we demand. You're no different from the people who called Jennifer Lawrence a slut after her nude photos were hacked.

Anonymous said...

The girl was just sick of people knowing where she lived. Paps waiting outside the house, taking pictures of her and whoever her boyfriend was at the time. Buying a new place using an offshore company to make the purchase keeps the details of the sale private. She just doesn't want people finding out the new address, for privacy and safety reasons, simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Right on! You said it right anon! "Not everything that is leagal is moral."
To another anon, no she is not a political candidate, but she tries to shove her beliefs about feminist equality down everyone's throat. I liked some of the stuff, but she has become unbelieveable.

Anonymous said...

@ Jonathan Andrew Sheen

If your not a fan of free speech then just leave.

Anonymous said...

Emma as all famous, what he has done has been evading taxes, to be richer and buy an expensive apartment in London for the rich only thing they want is to be increasingly wealthy, no matter how you get it, although is illegal, just you want to be rich, rich and the rest of people, we are more poor
and what surprises me is that Emma, she always said she does not spends money on clothes, shoes, she has always gone "humble" , "perfect girl" and now it turns out that she is so hypocritical and liar like other famous
this will affect her career as an actress and activist, who can believe the words of a person who has illegal accounts?

Anonymous said...

Her privacy is already jeopardized by the leak of the panama papers in which her address is listed. Showing her Tax return bills to a bunch of officials who would maintain confidentiality hardly qualifies as dishing out her residence to the general public.

Mind your words dear. I know she's not a political candidate, but she is an UN Goodwill Women Ambassador and that role comes with a sense of responsibility and maintaining a bit more transparency. Same goes for all the public figures, and I mean all, irrespective of their fields. Innocent until proven guilty holds true in front of law not in terms of perception. It varies from individual to individual. To me, what she did was legal but like I mentioned unethical. That's why they are known as legal loopholes. As someone mentioned before, Emma could have simply named a nominee and remain anonymous but she didn't. So there you go...

Jonathan Andrew Sheen said...

There's no evidence of immorality.
There's no evidence of impropriety.
There's no evidence of wrongdoing.
There's no evidence of hypocracy.
There's perfectly appropriate use of a perfectly legal financial instrument in a completely harmless, inoffensive manner for a completely honest and above-board purpose.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the last comment actually seems to be right in some way. She didn't name a nominee as you normally do to evade taxes, but gave her own name and address. So it seems to be plausible that she was just about not ending up in some kind of land list or property list. Else, she would, whether she used a nominee UK company because the details about the shareholders of the company would be disclosed or her own private information. As long as she declared the offshore company and its assets in her tax return it's legal.

Jonathan Andrew Sheen said...

And, gutless Anon, I'm all about free speech. It's why I point out to Eden that her free speech rights mean she's under no obligation to host or publish lies and attacks by morons. (She's under no obligation to host or publish any comments from anyone.)

Your free speech allows you to start your own hate blog and post whatever scurrillous prevarications you please on it. It doesn't give you some inherent right to space on this blog, and I believe Eden would be a happier person if she moderated her comments sections, and left your garbage in the trashcan, where it belongs.

Anonymous said...

"If your not a fan of free speech then just leave?"

That's funny, cause this is a fan blog yet Eden lets people express whatever they want, even if it's negative towards Emma. But try saying something nice about Emma on one of those anti blogs and see what you get. You get blocked. To me it looks like Sue and her dozen followers are the ones who don't believe in free speech.

Anonymous said...

To ppl who refuse to see what's going on or use their brain, that's fine live in your delusional state. But please cut those double standards! It's bad to be in those Panama papers when you're Trump or Cameron but all of a sudden it's no problem, and is no harm when it's Emma-innocent-angel-Watson? Come off it.

Anonymous said...

Being a fan, does not mean living in a bubble and just slobbering at everything she does. If you are a thinking person, you are critical. I have followed her career since she was a child, and thought she was great, and I still think she is good, but she is not all she says. Her messages are too loud with little content that are long being worked on by other professionals of the field. When you open Pandora's box, make sure you have something to offer people to heal. If she wants to help, maybe she should get her degree in psychology and help women with identity crisis. She could certainly afford it. Actually, I no longer see a long career in acting ahead of her; she just is not that good. There are many younger actresses and actresses her age who are much better. That is not hate, that is seeing her acting and listening to her otherwise and drawing conclusions.

Anonymous said...

There is a huge difference between tax evasion and tax minimisation.
The first is illegal, the second is something every sane person should practice.
I have absolutely no problem with EW setting up offshore accounts to legitimately reduce her tax bill.

What I have a difficulty with in this case is the moral high ground of EW's spokesperson, regarding the supposed protection of EW's privacy/safety.

The suggestion appears to be the offshore account is in relation to EW's property holdings. If that were the case it is far simpler (and cheaper) to set up a structure to protect your anonymity in the UK than it is to establish an offshore presence.

By all means use offshore accounts to legally minimise your tax, but let's not have the nonsense that it is solely to do with EW's privacy/safety.

Anonymous said...

Emma can help the middle class minimize their taxes offshore.

Anonymous said...

@ Jonathan Andrew Sheen

'And, gutless Anon, I'm all about free speech.'


Yeh so gutless that I called you out on your hypocrisy....



'It's why I point out to Eden that her free speech rights mean she's under no obligation to host or publish lies and attacks by morons.'


Calling others names for saying things that you don't agree with? Whose the gutless one now?

This is not a good moment for Emma so naturally fans will express their disappointment. Again if you can't stomach this. Just leave and stopping trying to close the conversation down please.

Good on Eden for letting both sides of this discussion continue.

We are all fans of Emma - It doesn't mean she can ever be free from criticism!

Jonathan Andrew Sheen said...

Yes, Anon, gutless. It doesn't take guts to throw smack from the cheap seats while hiding your identity -- that's the very definition of cowardice. My name is right there for all to see, and with it, it's childishly easy to find my address. Come visit me any time, I'd like to meet you. You won't enjoy meeting me at all.

You're not criticizing Emma, you're lying about her, as the online haters always do. And Eden is under no obligation to help you spread your filth.

Eden said...

I don't care whether people want to believe Emma is hiding money or that she's an angel sent to us or just want, like me, to sit and wait to have more infos about all this to make up an opinion. But DO. NOT. INSULT. EACH. OTHER. How hard is it to comprehend, seriously? Do you honestly think it's going to change the way the people you're disagreeing with are thinking? Because hell no, it's not! And I do know I can delete comments, thanks, but I don't want to. I don't want this blog to turn into another one of those that only accept one part of the fandom. Just stop being rude, all of you.

Anonymous said...

I am totally agree with this message:
Being a fan, does not mean living in a bubble and just slobbering at everything she does. If you are a thinking person, you are critical. I have followed her career since she was a child, and thought she was great, and I still think she is good, but she is not all she says. Her messages are too loud with little content that are long being worked on by other professionals of the field. When you open Pandora's box, make sure you have something to offer people to heal. If she wants to help, maybe she should get her degree in psychology and help women with identity crisis. She could certainly afford it. Actually, I no longer see a long career in acting ahead of her; she just is not that good. There are many younger actresses and actresses her age who are much better. That is not hate, that is seeing her acting and listening to her otherwise and drawing conclusions.

Anonymous said...

Having a discussion with different opinions is fine. The only one who acts all butthurt and bullying ppl is @Jonathan Andrew Sheen. He gives an agressive thouch to the comments who haven't been neither insulting nor mean just different from what he wants to believe. He's trying to shut up everybody else. He has no right to do so, it's not his blog and he's even trying to tell Eden how to handle comments.

Anonymous said...

Preach, Eden. I think it would be great if we could debate this without insulting each other.

I disagree with the comment about tax minimisation being a smart thing for everyone to do. I think paying tax is my duty. Its like charity (when you think of the money that goes on the schools, NHS etc.). The only issue I have with taxes is what they are spent on. The people who I think should be minimising the taxes are the people who can't afford to - the people who are working hard but struggling to afford a basic standard of living.

Anonymous said...

@ Jonathan Andrew Sheen

Come visit me any time, I'd like to meet you. You won't enjoy meeting me at all.



No need for that at all.

29AndreG said...

I'm sure this is all a misunderstanding.

Anonymous said...

"Same goes for all the public figures, and I mean all, irrespective of their fields. Innocent until proven guilty holds true in front of law not in terms of perception. It varies from individual to individual. To me, what she did was legal but like I mentioned unethical."

You have no rational basis for assuming it was unethical. You're free to think what you want, but if you're going to push these wild assumptions just to promote the hatred already in your heart, you WILL get a negative response in return. To heck with all this "oh, poor me, people r so mean". If you went to an Arsenal blog and started promoting making completely baseless comments about how awful Arsenal is, would you be surprised if someone started questioning your motives and/or sanity?

Anonymous said...

What are you even talking about? First of all, criticism does not equate to hate, and secondly, I'm not ASSUMING it is unethical, it IS unethical to use an offshore company for privacy reasons when there's a perfectly legitimate system in UK to maintain your anonymity. That's how other celebrities do it! Thirdly, who's the one hating on others for having an opinion different from their's? As someone who pays my taxes completely, I have a right to question others who're exempt/evade/benefit from its loopholes! And, dear friend, I will say it again, you can always put forth your point without being rude to others.

Anonymous said...

It's very true that making a point without being rude is a sign of intelligence. Only individuals lacking mental resources retreat to doubting the sanity of ppl who have different opinions. Criticising people is part of a free society, and even popular celebrities are no exception. They are not above right and wrong, no matter how privileged they are.

Anonymous said...

It's easy for the aggressor to claim moral high-ground, like a bully silently flicking your ear and then getting you in trouble when the teacher catches you reacting. Shame on "both" of you. You don't get to be incendiary, and then smugly whine about it when you catch something on fire.

Funny how you'll defend people's "right" to write any wild baseless accusation against Emma as "right to criticize", but when it comes to legitimate criticisms of your own posts you get all bent out of shape and retreat to an entirely artificial moral high-ground.


"ASSUMING it is unethical, it IS unethical to use an offshore company for privacy reasons when there's a perfectly legitimate system in UK to maintain your anonymity"

Yes, you are assuming. You don't even know she hasn't payed her taxes. You don't know if there's legitimate reasons why it was a better option for privacy. You don't know, and don't care. That is what makes your actions hateful. You relish the opportunity to throw Emma under the bus, regardless of whether you have any legitimate reason. That is not valid criticism. If you were posting valid criticism, there would be no problem.

"I have a right to question others who're exempt/evade/benefit from its loopholes!" It's not a loophole. It's a perfectly legal practice. Where it can be used to evade taxes, it should be illegal, but it currently isn't. But we don't even know if that's the case here.



Anonymous said...

I agree with the last comment. We don't know if she claimed some kind of tax advantage or not and the laws in the UK force you to publish private details about you in appropriate registers if you used a UK Limited or buy a property in your own name.

Anonymous said...

Hi folks,
i found a funny comment in the Internet:
"50 points from Gryffindor for the lack of honor, 5 points from Slytherin for not doing ist first !

Anonymous said...

I said it was perfectly legal, but unethical. Loopholes are by definition legal but shady. If you base my views on 'assumptions', same goes for yours based on your assumption that she did pay her taxes, and if she did, all it takes is to disclose her Tax returns to authorities. A lot of people will ask questions because this is a serious issue. There may not be any proof of wrongdoing but her credibility will always remain under scanner as long as she remains silent.

Being insulting towards me is not a legitimate criticism of my post. I'm all ears for hearing different opinions but questioning my sanity just for calling a spade a spade is not cool. If you believe Emma, good for you. But don't be derogatory towards others for having different opinions. To each his own.

Anonymous said...

Investing in offshore companies and settling one's privacy away from UK may not be illegal, but no matter how you argue it is shady. One always minimizes taxes. The loophole is the poor and middle-class are overburdened with taxes. I know a homeless man who collected bottled and the government tried to tax him. I remember Matt Damon saying that he wanted the US government to tax him properly according to the millions he makes. I was impressed. Of course he did not say it that way, but the message was equal to that.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but nobody knows if she claimed some tax advantage and it's rather not her who does the taxing, but some kind of specialist. If she had evaded taxes she would already get accused, because of the whole publicity. So it's likely that it was just about her privacy. Although now it's useless, haha.

Anonymous said...

"If you base my views on 'assumptions', same goes for yours based on your assumption that she did pay her taxes."

Wrong. I am not assuming she paid her taxes, I am merely acknowledging, as many others have, that there isn't yet enough information to make an accurate judgment. That is the ONLY rational position here. Yours is the assumption. The only reason for you to be so eager to throw her under the bus with insufficient information, as far as I can tell, is that inside you want Emma to be wrong and shady. Read that back to yourself, and and see how that sounds.

Anonymous said...

@ Mr Sheen

"My name is right there for all to see, and with it, it's childishly easy to find my address. Come visit me any time, I'd like to meet you. You won't enjoy meeting me at all."



Yeh I did that and well let's just say you'll never pose a threat to me or to anyone for that matter lol

Peta said...

Now I can see how many peple have been manipulated by her carefully drafted image: oh, I am so normal, I used to take a metro to go around town and I went to school, look at me, I am normal like you.

She surrounds herself with bodyguards, never goes out to people (like Dan, Tom, Evanna, Jo Rowling) and now is involved in this utterly fake activism. Working for equality is great, but what does she actually do besides talking to other famous people and repeating the same stuff over and over. Just for comparison, Tom stayed closed to fans (he made this movie), Evanna attends tons of active events, she runs marathons for a cause, helped with her own hands in water and supply distribution in some destroyed third world countries, JKR founded Lumos that actually has awesome results in helping children (not just talking about it over and over). I am sorry, but Emma is super fake to me and now this Panama Papers thing. You have to be blind to think it is ONLY for "privacy".

But hey, let's forgive her everything, because she's famous.

Anonymous said...

I LOVE this comment
"Now I can see how many peple have been manipulated by her carefully drafted image: oh, I am so normal, I used to take a metro to go around town and I went to school, look at me, I am normal like you.

She surrounds herself with bodyguards, never goes out to people (like Dan, Tom, Evanna, Jo Rowling) and now is involved in this utterly fake activism. Working for equality is great, but what does she actually do besides talking to other famous people and repeating the same stuff over and over. Just for comparison, Tom stayed closed to fans (he made this movie), Evanna attends tons of active events, she runs marathons for a cause, helped with her own hands in water and supply distribution in some destroyed third world countries, JKR founded Lumos that actually has awesome results in helping children (not just talking about it over and over). I am sorry, but Emma is super fake to me and now this Panama Papers thing. You have to be blind to think it is ONLY for "privacy".

But hey, let's forgive her everything, because she's famous. "
I am totally agree with you!!!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, despite the fact that Em supports a children hospital in London financially and goes from time to time to visit the children or that she donates a lot to charity she doesn't do anything or maybe it's rather she is not that kind of person who exposes to everyone what she does with a pr campaign and all that stuff because she does more than just shaking some hands and hand over to a children a bread only one time for the publicity.

Anonymous said...

Support a children hospital in London financially ? Great ! So she can mention it in her tax computation ... ;-)

Anonymous said...

People get off on tearing down celebrities they think are supposed to be role models. It's a sick pleasure for them. Especially the women celebrities, Jolene-esque. That's why people like Emma, Jennifer Lawrence, Gwyneth Paltrow, etc get so much hate.

The haters are annoying, but just keep in mind they're already sadder than you could ever make them. They need to do this, be happy that you don't!

Anonymous said...

Of course she can mention it in her tax computation and she should, if she is alright and I don't think it's about reducing her taxes, but to use her fame and social status for good causes.
Seems to me some people are principally just about hating her and no matter what argument you give the haters try to turn it against her. There are lots of pages on the internet where you are in good company and can hate Emma as much as you want, but please try to stop to live out your insanity wherever you can and pull yourselves together. Must be a sad life that you live if it basically consists of hating on other people.

Anonymous said...

^Agree.

What's more, it's absolutely reprehensible that these haters (assuming there's more than one) have successfully been able to brand the purely logical, even-handed withholding of judgment without sufficient evidence as "refusing to be critical of Emma". Despicable.

And if it does come out that she had premeditated wrongdoing in this, you better bet they'll be celebrating and rejoicing, smug in their witness of Emma's demise, and shouting "I told you so!" No. No they didn't. They made an inane, baseless, hair-brained assumption. I've read all their arguments, none of the haters ever had anything of substance beyond the sick desire to see Emma fall.

Anonymous said...

"The only reason for you to be so eager to throw her under the bus with insufficient information, as far as I can tell, is that inside you want Emma to be wrong and shady. Read that back to yourself, and and see how that sounds."

I have read it and seems perfectly plausible to me. A BVI Business Company is exempt from the BVI income tax, the same exemption applies to all dividends, interest, rents, royalties, compensations and other amounts paid by a company, and all capital gains realised with respect to any shares, debt obligations or other securities of the company. No estate, inheritance, succession or gift tax is payable with respect to any shares, debt obligations or other securities of a BVI BC. All transactions and instruments relating to transfers of any type of property of assets, shares, debt obligations or securities to or by a BVI BC are exempt from the stamp duty, with a sole exception for land-ownership transactions in the British Virgin Islands, in which case stamp duty remains payable.

If Emma bought a house through a BVI Company, Falling Leaves Ltd. , the fact is, she would at least be exempted from a stamp duty of $250K in addition to receiving privacy. So, there's more to it than what her PR spokesperson stated earlier and quite frankly, I don't believe in taking everything that any celebrity or his/her PR Team say at face value. I'm not alone in my opinion that Emma received tax benefits, many have questioned her integrity as well as defended her. The point is, why can't you just accept my views differ from yours and move on? I didn't 'throw her under the bus' as you so kindly put it, but when someone talks about equality and then, you see the said person's name appear under controversial circumstances implicating derivation of tax benefits/privacy that are privileges not accessible to all, suspicions are bound to rise! If I have to give benefit of doubt to Emma, then same goes for other high profile celebrities (who, by the way, also claim privacy/safety reasons) listed in Panama papers which I don't believe in. You will have your views and I will have mine and neither of us are right or wrong as long as Emma remains silent. As Eden rightly said, one cannot convince others to believe one's own opinion. So, good day and goodbye!

Eden said...

My apologies to the last anon. I see you've sent your message several times but apparently blogger thought you were spam so I only saw your messages now.

Anonymous said...

Why should she pay more taxes than necessary and even if she paid already any taxes in BVI she could let it be reduced from her taxes in the United Kingdom, because she already paid taxes one time. Everyone would do so, why to pay taxes twice. It's about paying the taxes in the United Kingdom and nobody knows if she did or did not. She can't evade taxes as long as she doesn't hide the ownership of the property in her tax return.

Anonymous said...

No need to apologize, Eden! Thought my phone was going crazy again (happened before) lol! Thank you for making this blog about sharing different opinions.

Anonymous said...

"The point is, why can't you just accept my views differ from yours and move on? I didn't 'throw her under the bus' as you so kindly put it, but when someone talks about equality and then, you see the said person's name appear under controversial circumstances implicating derivation of tax benefits/privacy that are privileges not accessible to all, suspicions are bound to rise!"

This is not a difference of opinion, we are dealing with verifiable information. "The sky is blue" is not an opinion. You're free to assume what you want about Emma, but you seem to have trouble understanding what constitutes a rational, empirical position, and what is just speculation. You're certainly allowed to speculate, and I'm allowed to completely reject such speculation.

However, I will say that's not too big of a deal. This back-and-forth started due to your claim that Emma needs to release further private information, just to satiate the people judging and disparaging her despite complete lack of evidence; and what's more, that if she doesn't kowtow to such aggressors, it in fact *proves* her guilt. It's that awful, bully-like, mob-mentality that made me respond.

I will acknowledge I was too harsh in my comments, and I'm sorry for that. It's easy to mix up Anonymouses with each other and carry over your thoughts about one onto the next.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Johnny Andy Sheen has hidden himself away and gone 'Anon' mode.

Emma is entitled to not pay tax but please don't lecture us on equality. Thanks.

Anonymous said...







Are the poor and middle-classed entitled to not pay taxes?








are the

Anonymous said...

The UN Woman must withdraw the title of ambassador to Emma, she has committed an alleged tax offense, although is "alleged", she can not continue with her position as ambassador, she is not a person to be trusted
Emma is a farce, she defends women's rights when she is the first that makes differences between rich and poor

Anonymous said...

Anon above:

Yeah, let's see how that works out for you. Good luck.

MsShootingstars said...

Thank gawd im not famous that's all I have to say..