Sometimes, I can’t help but shake my head in bemusement at the antics of the media. One such occasion was last week when the Swiss Leaks story burst upon us. It’s not so much the local media that caused my handsome face to twist itself into a wry smile, because, for a change, not much “shock, horror” was exhibited, though, when I’m writing this, it’s early days yet, I suppose.

What I did notice was a comment from the government’s head taxman, one Marvin Gaerty, who made what I think was a very pertinent point, about how “governments” (he was referring to many governments throughout the EU, not being parochial) had very often turned a blind eye towards HSBC Switzerland’s antics, and I imagine not only towards HSBC’s antics, either.

I would go as far as to say, though, of course, Gaerty, being a public servant, could not, that many governments positively encouraged the sort of thing that HSBC’s scurrying little gnomes were doing.

Follow my logic, here.

Jurisdictions like ours, for instance, prosper by establishing tax and company regimens that allow for creative adaptation of investment and fund-management policies in a manner that permits the people who wish to park their dosh here, and in places like here, to be as tax-efficient as possible.

One man’s tax efficiency, it might not surprise you to learn, is another man’s tax evasion (or avoidance, I can never tell which is the legal one and which not).

Very often, the point from which one is looking at the thing is the one which determines whether the ‘man’ concerned feels a warm glow of satisfaction at the oodles of revenue that comes from this sort of thing being done in his jurisdiction or the warm feeling that comes from a rush of blood to the head at the thought of all that tax revenue not accruing to, say, Her Majesty’s coffers.

Consequently, when David Cameron, Her aforesaid Majesty’s First Lord of the Treasury and Prime amongst Equals, gets all hot and bothered because some of Her Maj’s loyal (or perhaps, not so loyal) subjects have parked their loot outside the clutches of HMRC (that is to say, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs), I really have to take this with a few pinches of salt.

After all, had the City of London (not the venerable institution near Neptunes but the financial capital, they say, of the world) got its act together and attracted, rather than repelled, capital that needed sheltering from the rapacious grasp of the assorted taxmen that hoover up the stuff for their countries, I doubt Dave would have been so sniffy about HSBC’s little schemes.

And another thing: if HMRC, and its counterparts all over the world, hadn’t been so preoccupied with trying to come up with evermore complex mechanisms for relieving the citizenry of their dosh, then people like HSBC wouldn’t have had to come up with evermore complex schemes to defeat the taxman.

It’s all a bit chicken and egg, really, but that’s never stopped the media fromhaving fun with a story without referring to the context.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any particular axe to grind, except for a healthy aversion to paying tax that I share with most people who can’t afford smart accountants to minimise the burden.

Nor do I much like the idea of Big Beasts, whether they are corporate or individuals, getting away with not paying as much tax as you and I do (relatively speaking, of course) but all this posturing is really irritating.

One man’s tax efficiency is another man’s tax evasion

Which doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to know who these Big Beasts with a Malta connection are, of course. I have as healthy a curiosity as the next man.

As amusing, if it weren’t for the fact that it is a matter that does not lend itself to amusement, as the howls of faux horror at the fact that people try to minimise their tax liability by whatever means, were the howls that greeted a comment by an English barrister about how alleged rapists might, actually, have a defence if their alleged victim was drunk at the time.

Let’s be clear, OK? Rape is a nasty, vicious crime resorted to by nasty, vicious men who take violent advantage of vulnerable individuals and who deserve contempt and locking up with the key thrown away.

Is that clear?

But the world, I’m afraid, is not always bathed in a stark black-and-white light that allows a clear definition of the realities of a situation.

How, pray tell, is a man supposed to twig that the woman who has been flirting with him all evening, with her attributes nicely exhibited, and a certain laxity brought on by drink, is not actually consenting to the obvious outcome of events, especially if he’s not exactly been abstemious on the booze himself?

There will be those who will say - howl at me - scream at me - pillory me - that I am subscribing to the ‘she was asking for it, then she deserved it’ argument.

I am not, I am merely pointing out that in the real world, not the neatly-ordered one inhabited by people who have a point of view and will stick to it come what may, the line between rape and a drunken knee-trembler in a foetid alley behind a sordid night club, shameful and regrettable as it may be, is not immediately apparent.

It’s possible for a woman to seduce a drunken youth into letting him have his way with her in the same way. It’s unlikely anyone would call this rape: some mentalities would classify this within the ‘lucky guy, where was she when I was around’ but, in a certain way, it’s as much a rape as my first example.

I am obviously not condoning rape, by a long shot, and nor am I condoning the abuse of the young and impressionable: I am merely pointing out that the world isn’t one that can be understood only through the tabloids’ headlines.

Did you really think I was going to close this week without reminding you that it is your duty to stand up and be counted against the Federated League of Bird-Killers and Anti-Conservationists?

One of their latest forays into the fray (they still haven’t come up with a single lawyer to contradict our position that not a single other pastime will be threatened if the referendum is carried by the good guys) is that they are considering, how kind of them, not ordering a boycott in order not to irk the political parties.

I despair of these people: have they not noticed that, no thanks to the Prime Minister but all thanks to the leader of the Opposition, the spring hunting issue is no longer a party political one?

Neither party has an official position on the question, meaning that every single member, supporter, activist or sympathiser of each of them is free to vote as he or she wishes, secure in the knowledge that neither their party nor the leader of the party is going to be embarrassed by the outcome.

Take me as an example: if Joseph Muscat had said (can you imagine it?) that he was going to vote against spring hunting, I would have happily voted along with him, even if Simon Busuttil had said he was going to vote in favour of keeping the derogation in place.

As it is, I will be voting differently to both of them, clearly not on party lines but because I have a brain.

You have one too, or you wouldn’t be reading this, so you know what you should be doing.

imbocca@gmail.com

www.timesofmalta.com/blogs