David Cameron’s dodgy money

Right-Wing Watch

David Cameron was asked during PMQs today whether or not he would continue hosting dinners at Downing Street with a man named Ian Taylor. He was also urged to return the money Mr Taylor has donated to the Conservative Party.

David Cameron was asked during PMQs today whether or not he would continue hosting dinners at Downing Street with a man named Ian Taylor. He was also asked whether he would be giving back money the same Mr Taylor had donated to the Tory Party.

Mr Cameron gave a curt response, accusing the MP who asked the question – Angus Robertson of the SNP – of playing a “cheap political card”.

So just who is Ian Taylor?

Well first off he is the president and chief executive of the world’s largest oil trader, Vitol, and he has been involved in the oil business for more than 30 years. Since June 2006 he has donated £555,100 to the Tory party. He also dined with David Cameron at Downing Street on 2 November 2011.

In 2001, The Observer revealed that Vitol paid £1 million to Serbian war criminal Željko Ražnatović (better known as Arkan) to arrange an oil deal with the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. For its part Vitol said no illegal conduct was involved in this transaction. According to the the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Arkan was responsible for at least 24 crimes against humanity, including the murder of civilians, rape and ethnic cleansing.

According to Herald Scotland, Vitol, the company which Ian Taylor head, has also in the past used Employee Benefit Trusts to avoid tax on the incomes of its UK staff and has been in discussion with HMRC about a deal to pay this off.

Is it really acceptable for Mr Cameron to dismiss concerns about donations from someone whose company had a relationship with one of Serbia’s most notorious war criminals in so blase a manner?

No related posts.

64 Responses to “David Cameron’s dodgy money”

  1. Richas

    Ian Taylor is not accused of war atrocities. Here is the link to the story

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jul/01/balkans.warcrimes2
    The accusation is that the business he now heads back in 1995 did business with someone later accused of war atrocities. Bob Finch is the director named in the Observer piece not Ian Taylor.

    The deal itself to supply oil after sanctions were lifted was with a firm, not Milosevic and not Arkan. The deal was made before the atrocities Arkan is accused of happened and long before the International Criminal Tribunal named him as a suspect.

    Ian Taylor is a not very nice Tory but the allegation that he is a war criminal is clearly false, it is not even clear that he personally had any dealings with a war criminal or that the firm he now heads knew he was a war criminal when they had dealings with him to resolve a legal dispute with another firm.

    In my book the Homophobe is worse than this Tory.

  2. Iain S

    The ‘war atrocities’ was a reference to Arkan. I should have made that clearer but I didn’t for one second think anyone would get the idea that Ian Taylor had begun a sideline in ethnic cleansing and mass rape.

    I knew at the time Arkan was a war criminal. It was widely reported in the press around the world. To suggest Vitol didn’t know is clearly not the case.

    You’re allowed to write your own book. I’m allowed to write mine. That’s the point of discussing things – to try and find a common story.

  3. Alec

    As you say, Taylor made an ‘investment’ in Harris Tweed which he enjoys a
    financial return from. If that is to be equated with his donation to
    Better Together can you advise what profit he hopes to make?

    Why the need for equivocation around investment? Has he or has he not?

    And you’re forgetting the most important distinction between the two! Harris is spelt H-A-R-R-I-S and BT isn’t!

    In response to this piece of tortuous literalism, I equally could argue that BT’s hope for a return of national security/comfort outranks Taylor’s own desire for personal financial gain.

    I didn’t realise that you were working for the blog police.

    And you’re an honest, dispassioned commentator who most certainly is not trying to shoehorn in stuff about A into a discussion about B! Yer, right.

    Has Bloodknot dismissed concern about other of Taylor’s donations? That, until you blundered in here, was the topic.

    I responded to someone who sought to downplay the seriousness of taking
    money from Ian Taylor and sought deflection by equating it to taking
    money from a mouthy homophobe. They’re not remotely similar.

    Now, if you’d left-off the second sentence you could have argued plausible deniability. Instead you still come across as someone who thinks gays should be remember their position and put-up with non-violent gay-baiting (except when it acts as the mood music for social ostracizement or violent assault).

    Another option is that you’re expecting others to ascribe the best possible motives to your comments whilst attaching impossible levels of verification to theirs, which aint good argument (and telling gays facing gay-baiting that worse things happen at sea).

    It’s the difference between willfully disingenuous and actively misleading.

    Thank you for trying to tell me what my political pursuits are.

    Nah. A perusal of your comment history – which seems entirely devoted to pieces on the SNP and independence – shows a pattern of arguing for independence and dismissing anything by those in disagreement.

    What? The SNP doesn’t represent your views? Well given Salmond’s establishment of himself as a Pater familias for the Nation has turned the debate into Salmond = the SNP = Independence, it’s frankly a bit too late to extricate yourself wholly from any dankness which comes as he slips below into the pelagic zone.

    Let me guess yours. I’m guessing that, by being so ‘on message’ with
    the Harris Tweed excuse, and the speed with which you jumped on any
    mention of the Tory funded Better Together campaign,

    Nope. Try harder. The “Harris Tweed excuse” (so, I take it the SNP are happy with Taylor backing jobs/industry in SNP constituencies?) came some way down the line, and it was your and others’ mention of BT which promoted my interjection.

    And “Tory funded”?… you’re loosing, it mate. Why dýou dislike the Tories? It can’t be because they’re mouthy homophobes, as you’re desperate to detract attention from Souter.

    that you’re a
    Labour sell out who has trouble telling her Left from her right.

    BT. Tory funded. Labour sellout. Right-wing. You’re all over the place.

    Plus, someone who uses “Left” and “Right” to mean “whatever I like / don’t like”… you are soooooo 20th Century!

    ~alec

  4. Iain S

    Wow! Rant much?

    Not only are you deciding what my political leanings are, but you’re now deciding that I would support ‘gay-baiting’. If you’d checked my comment history properly you would have found, you know, the comments where I rip into homophobes. You don’t even know my sexuality, but don’t let that stop your denunciations.

    Ian Taylor funds the Tories. It’s fair to assume that he’s a Tory. He funds Better Together. It’s fair to assume that Better Together is Tory funded.

  5. Iain S

    Wow! Rant much?

    Not only are you deciding what my political leanings are, but you’re now deciding that I would support ‘gay-baiting’. If you’d checked my comment history properly you would have found, you know, the comments where I rip into homophobes. You don’t even know my sexuality, but don’t let that stop your denunciations.

    Ian Taylor funds the Tories. It’s fair to assume that he’s a Tory. He funds Better Together. It’s fair to assume that Better Together is Tory funded.

Comments are closed.