Ok so they can talk about Putin's childhood friend, but not about Cameron's father?

The implication was that Putin's childhood friend is running a scheme that Putin is taking part in.

But Cameron directly benefited from his father's tax avoidance. He received several hundred thousand pounds as an inheritance from his father's estate. I'm sure he would have received less if his father had not saved money by avoiding taxes. He wasn't running the scheme, but he did directly benefit from it.

A child has no control over their parent's financial affairs when they were a minor. If they are involved after they reach majority that's very different.

I have no control or knowledge where my parents keep their money or if they cheat on their taxes or not.

No, I thought that was kind of dumb too, but I've got used to western media constantly dumping on Putin regardless of the merits of the case so I just ignore it now. Like, I just skip any part of the Economist that talks about Russia because their coverage of the topic is so hilariously unbalanced.

A father is certainly a closer connection than childhood friend or "close associate" whatever that means.

> Maybe, but "father of a PM" is not even close to the same thing as "PM". If Cameron's father has done something wrong, that doesn't (shouldn't) affect perceptions of his son. The days of punishing children for the crimes of their parents are long in the past.

That's still in the public's interest to know about this kind of thing, assuming it is actually illegal.

Yeah Margaret Thatcher had no idea whatsoever about her son involvment in the Saudi arms deal.

>The days of punishing children for the crimes of their parents are long in the past.

Except if the victims are white. Then so many people like to play the game of attempting to justify contemporary offence/injustice X, with historical event Y.