Edward Snowden’s David Cameron Tweet Tells Public To Rise Up And Force PM’s Resignation

[Capt. Obvious]

Edward Snowden has seemingly called on the British public to help oust David Cameron following the prime minister’s admission that he profited from his late father’s offshore trust.

Cameron on Thursday finally conceded he and his wife, Samantha, owned shares in Ian Cameron’s Blairmore Holdings, before selling them for around £30,000 in 2010.

Snowden, who this time last week ridiculed Cameron for sidestepping questions on his taxes, entered the debate on the PM’s future after AFP journalist Marc Burleigh shared a tweet he had sent saying, “the next 24 hours could change Britain”.

In response, Burleigh, wrote: “Probably overreach. Cameron: embarrassed, sure. Maybe even still not being full truthful. But implying resignation?”

Snowden, infamous for being a National Security Agency whistleblower, then replied saying the decision on Cameron’s future was “up to the British public, not us”.

He then went on cite the outcome of the Panama Papers revelations in Iceland which resulted in Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson stepping down as prime minister. The public had protested for several days calling for him to quit.

....

Huffpo

And because DU doesn't have the ability to embed tweets, here's a screen shot of one:

[brush]

1. So Cameron sold some inherited shares 6 years ago . . .

and he should resign?

I'm not getting that? It's not like he siphoned off money from the British treasury.

What am I missing about this?

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. I don't think Snowden is right that it was 'less' for the Icelandic PM

Cameron and his wife had money invested in his dad's offshore fund, before he was elected PM, and they sold it before he became PM, in a normal way. He has since then criticised funds like that (it used 'bearer shares', which means there's no central list of fund-holders, which makes it a good way to hide money from the taxman), and his attempts to not talk about it show he thinks it reflects badly on him. But it hasn't directly had a bearing on his office.

The Icelandic PM, on the other hand, owned half of a company that had millions of dollars in assets, didn't declare it on the MPs' register of interests, sold his half to his wife for $1, and then:

Court records show that Wintris had significant investments in the bonds of three major Icelandic banks that collapsed during the financial crisis which began in 2008.

Some of Icelanders' anger is believed to stem from the perceived conflict of interest.

The prime minister was involved in negotiations about the banks' future and had characterised foreign creditors who wanted their money back as "vultures", while Wintris itself was a creditor.

Mr Gunnlaugsson had kept his wife's interest in the outcome a secret.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35966412

I really don't think Snowden has read much about this, if he could think that Gunnlaugsson's conflicts of interest were "less".