you'll see in the big t.v. networks that make all the money on it objecting to that having cold teams taken away out of the games i mean it's also a look at what the ramifications are long term i mean if the clean athletes get banned for diving issues that don't have anything to do with them individually i mean what sort of precedent do you think this sets in a sporting sense well you know there's always that question of you know what happens to one group ends up turning around and biting the people who do it so you know we have plenty of doping in the united states there's plenty of doping in france and germany. you know it may not be state sponsored but it's widespread and just look at the bicycle races in france you know it's just everybody is stoked so. it you know to single out one country isn't going to work at some point it's it's turnabout is fair play i think jane and when you do

that dave lindorff investigative journalist thank you thank you very much thanks for having me. well meanwhile some athletes whose participation in the games isn't in question are also now embroiled in controversy but after a documentary published a list of drugs that norway's team doctor has brought. well remarkable amount of asimo medication was noted six thousand doses containing banned substances now that's ten times more assman drugs the neighboring finland has brought to south korea well the quantity of asthma medicine has raised a number of concerns most of these drugs contain substances banned by water the doping watchdog argues they can enhance an athlete's performance by expanding lung capacity the norwegian anti-doping agency has also admitted the country has a problem with the overuse of asthma medication. it is common practice in norway to occasionally use assman medicine in major elements in the respiratory

system even with a diagnosis vastly is not specific well the latest revelation comes after the release of a documentary that alleges the existence of an organized doping system at norway's ski federation one of the journalists behind the film told us there are major doubts over many of the competitors at this year's winter games. roginsky for duration is very angry about this they don't want to talk about this problem and that's very sad in the region it's more strict ration ski federation doping program we can see that forty one percent of the middle east have normal blood it means i don't think this is clean competitions we will see there are skiers doping we don't bring also in this competitions r.t. has all of the international olympic committee whether it will investigate these

don't being allegations and we're still waiting for a reply meanwhile sports lawyer david larkin says it's worrying the i.o.c. hasn't publicly commented on this issue. what's interesting is you heard the outcry in the media about these allegations you haven't seen any action by water as it currently stands i don't see there being an investigation which you know is in the light of everything we've discovered with regards to russian doping allegations is troubling everybody where there is a problem should be investigated we need to understand that doping is in fact a global problem is raised by this documentary we need to understand that doping as happened at occurs across the world and that this is not an incident slated to russia that this is a global problem it's a continuing problem and it's something we need to address seriously right now even be the greatest antidoping experts in the west says a lot of cannot currently detect doping in athletes that's

a problem. syria has called on the un to hold the u.s. led coalition to account for wednesday's all strikes against pro-government forces the number of casualties has not yet been confirmed but some reports claim up to one hundred people could have been killed u.s. central command described the attack as a defensive move that russia's defense ministry says the unit was hit it was carrying out an operation against him i asked so. i'm free just said while carrying out an operation to locate and terminate a sleeper cell form a refinery the units of pro-government forces to suddenly shelled and then hit by as strikes by the u.s. led coalition vis was over kill if the numbers are true i'd say demonstration of she have brute force perhaps you know to send the send a message nevertheless the united states says that if it's in syria and it will defend itself and it has the right to defend itself in this instance syria and

democratic forces acted in self-defense with support from the coalition to defeat. an unprovoked attack by syrian forces in eastern syria if the situation is like how they describe that they were indeed attacks while fighting isis to make up the right to self-defense one of you take them at face value you could think so but the people they just killed were also fighting isis and recently they had been making much better progress against isis then the united states led coalition or their partner forces the the s.d.f. the syrian government has of course called all of this an act of aggression unwarranted and unjust but just for you information all of this happened in that is or near a rich oil field and refinery conical it's called it was liberated last

year by the u.s. led coalition very quickly and in fact. u.s. partner forces seem to have a knack for liberating areas with the oil under them much quicker than they do those areas that don't have oil under them since since all the oil rich areas were taken in that as ordered by the s.d.f. progress against isis seems to have dropped to a snail's pace but you know regardless here america has said that it is in syria only to fight isis the very isis has been all but defeated in syria but you don't see the pentagon packing its bags our military policy in syria has not changed our priority remains to defeat of isis whether it's in iraq or in syria that is our intent to defeat isis and not do anything more than that the united states will maintain a military presence in syria focused on ensuring that isis cannot reemerge total

withdrawal of american personnel at this time would restore assad continue his brutal treatment against his own people the principle of the lack of a. fundamental commitment to our agreement is typical of current u.s. diplomacy including the reasons why the americans stay in syria rex tillerson peter he stated that their only goal in syria was the defeat of ice or now they've got farmland bush's plans would mark the most with the mixed messages here is the pentagon staying on general matters said that the united states will stay in syria we'll fight in syria for as long as the united states wants to fight in syria i mean that's you know pretty direct now you see how this might sound strange to go to syria and invite it and while there you start killing syrians in syria in self-defense. regional experts told us that with islamic state practically gone from syria washington is now targeting the country's government instead. they are

not just in syria to fight they're in. have been in syria for a long time because they want to through our side as the spate of feeds as it becomes clear that it is the syrian forces themselves and largely defeated dying the priority of overthrowing assad begins to reassert itself in the pentagon and in the white house so i think that's true the answer the question the overthrow of assad was always the product of prominent reason why the americans were in syria the army in treating these groups intervening with the airstrikes in saudi they were diverted from that by no with the possibility of a defeat of diet inside syria that policy that reasserts itself this is coming at the end of a long war the united states has taken about twenty eight percent syrian territory and over fifty percent of its oil this is led british in order to roll back you

want and get rid of. assad just like if he wants their oil for himself there was a racial. a few months ago to get those deals and he's probing undoubtedly under the pretext of fighting isis the united states didn't think it was so the united states is trying to lay down the law here and not let anybody throw at it as we know the turks threatened and mended to take on the americans over there so the united states i think is very anxious that both syria and turkey will begin to push america out to try to push america out of northern syria but he likes. you cheney has no evidence that russia are interested in the u.k. referendum that's according to the company's global head of public policy who's testified in front of the u.k. house of commons committee. we looked at all advertisements with any connection to russia and we found no evidence of our services being used to interfere in the

process referendum but we don't look in the survey for the pay for advertising the election but actually the operation of channels will go to the films which show which can be linked back to russia nations has and have a political purpose a message through the referendum would you be able to do that for us we are happy to cooperate with that investigation so it says yes yes despite these and endless attempts to accuse russia of brecht's that meddling in this pressure on online platforms to expose any shady business that russia might have been up to yet another revelation this time from you tube that nothing of sort had happened this indeed at yet another session of the u.k. parliamentary committee inquiring into feek news who this time travel to washington to ask their questions but it has to be said that despite all of their hard work this inquiry has produced no results of substance so far if you remember previously this committee seems to have been sort of left hanging by twitter we found that one

percent of the accounts in the data set were registered in russia could you confirm how many other accounts were being controlled from agencies in russia even if they were not registered there we do not have sufficiently strong evidence to enable us to conclusively linked them with russia the failure to obtain straight answers is simply increasing concerns about these issues rather than reassuring people well this as google also said they found no evidence of russian meddling in the brics that referendum as well as of course facebook following their investigation having said that they found that russia spent seventy three p. on any kind of post related to brock's that. well meanwhile a u.k. campaign to reverse the breaks it voted has received a hefty financial boost from american billionaire george soros the best for britain group has confirmed he donated almost half a million pounds through his foundation. george soros foundation staff along with

a number of other major donors also made significant contributions to our work indeed through his foundation he has contributed four hundred thousand pounds he's funding is one among many sources. best for britain is a pro e.u. lobby group pushing for second that referendum one of their key principles is lead not leave the e.u. the campaign hopes to influence the opinion of the public and politicians on the issue what downing street was quick to react to resume a spokesperson insisted there would be no second referendum as the country has already voted to leave the e.u. human and labor rights lawyer dan kadlec says the u.k. is now experiencing the kind of foreign meddling that happens in other countries. we know that george soros him self has played a role in interfering in many country in some of the color revolutions so-called color revolutions in eastern europe for example and of course we know that the us

government itself has and continues to meddle quite seriously in other people's elections with in other people's political processes for example secretary of state television just were recently on a trip to latin america he called for the military in venezuela to overthrow their democratically elected president i think for countries like the u.s. the u.k. i think their view is they can read on anyone else's political processes that will but other people can't participate in there so i mean it is a double standard clearly a double standard and i think again the u.s. will protect that double standard. to the hilt and we see that time and time again . republican lawmakers in the u.s. are threatening to cut funding to the world health organizations cancer research program that's after the international agency for research on cancer said america's

most widely used weed killer made by monsanto is probably consonant genic. i arched unsubstantiated claims i ordered your response. why i arc should receive any government funding in the future they are disputing the organizations findings regarding its leading herbicide called round up and back in twenty fifteen the international agency for research on cancer concluded that roundups active ingredient of life estate could be carcinogenic to humans now roundup is made by months santo and it's the world's most widely used weed killer since the seventy's it's been sprayed on corn soybeans cotton and other crops and now republicans believe that the study was flawed and relied on cherry pick science accusing the agency of lack of transparency an anti industry bias they say that it's quite a sadist designated as carcinogenic it will require manufacturers and retailers to warn workers and consumers and plus it'll increase costs and instill fear in the public some have disagreed with republicans it is important that we review the

methods and tactics that industry has used to influence this administration and attack independent scientific organizations like the world health organization's international agency for research on cancer or i would like to say that fundamentally this hearing is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen even if that carcinogen makes a huge amount of money for powerful corporations according to the center for responsive politics monsanto lobbied more than four point three million dollars in twenty seventeen the environmental protection agency which is not an international organization concluded that the same ingredient does not cause cancer and i are says that they've been under attack ever since they published their conclusions against life a seat at the same time monsanto has been pushing against these findings through several different means and the company is seen as quite controversial not only in the u.s. but all over the world president micron promised in november that life of say would

be banned within three years inevitably modified crops have been banned in. over thirty five different countries but not banned in the us international organizations have concluded that life as they could be cancerous so these lawmakers intentions are quite unclear. for to discuss this issue further let's now cross live to amazon to theall president of the your voice and there is a web site and thank you so much indeed for joining us w h o scientists say this week in a round up probably causes cancer republicans say this claim is unfounded and should do is trust. well it is unfounded when you look at the data collection where they were injecting mass quantities into lab animals any type of mass quantity into anything is going to cause cancer or some adverse effect so you can't really rely on data particularly when this product has been around since the one nine hundred seventy s. and successfully produced crops not only here for the united states but exploiting

food for around the world. well the republicans are threatening to cut u.s. funding for the world health organization i mean how do you expect the w.h.o. to respond. well i expected him to respond the way it is responding and it's just it's it's obviously not happy with that but again the republicans are looking out for the americas americans first that is our agenda today and monsanto has been producing chemicals to enhance crop productivity for many many years now since the early seventy's and this is what has basically fed not only our country economically but it said that countries around the world when you consider that there's droughts in argentina and brazil you're going to see crop productivity go down when you consider also that majority of our farmers today are fifty eight years of age and older and we are facing a million man shortage with millennial not wanting to backfill those jobs productivity and increasing that crop productivity is tantamount to feeding not

only here the united states but also around the world so i really don't put it. stock into what they're saying currently are look clearly at the e.p.a. which is not looking to change the labeling of the monsanto products but it's also looking at a wider perspective and i mean is there a danger that aggressive actions like this could actually undermine global trust in u.s. products i mean france has already said it will ban the monsanto we. well i don't think so because again the good the global the global countries are reliant on us export of of crops and when you consider that entities like n.r.d.c. which take a lot of offshore money because they are trying to redirect crop production productivity out of europe and other countries that's where the actual intentions are lying it's not so much that they are concerned with the you know the how that is the facts of the chemicals and as much as they're concerned with demand and crop pricing coming from their countries respectively people don't want to lose

competition to the united states of america which as we've stated earlier is the largest producer for proper next morning around the world it is and we'll leave it there and i'm still president of your voice america thank you very much indeed. well republican seeking to cut funding to the w.h.o. are on the u.s. house science committee but the views expressed by current and former members of the panel often raised eyebrows. we don't know what those other cycles were caused by in the past could be dinosaur flatulence. what happened when the c o two was greater since then and now there's been many cycles of up and down warming dinosaur flagyl.

all the stuff. all the lines from. your ice cube melt your glass it doesn't overflow it was displacement i mean this is the thing some of the things that they're talking about mathematically scientifically don't make sense. well the moral the story is going to r.t. don't come at the top of the hour my colleague rory satiate will be here with the latest news but for me it's by. far.

one of welcome to worlds apart the publication of panama papers produced a lot of moral arguments but very few legal ones that's because as a much as the authorities may be compelled to deride offshore financing in reality they do little to stop by how much has the discussion about tax avoidance become a distraction from mismanaging money on shore well to discuss that i'm now joined by anthony travers senior partner at an offshore law firm based in the cayman islands one of the world's most popular offshore destinations mr travers it's good to talk to you thank you very much for your time morning now you made the point in one of your articles that the reason why the governments especially in europe dislike offshore financing so much is pure jealousy and resentment as you put it it reveals they fear and loathing which resides within the e.u. off any jurisdiction which can demonstrate its successes with valid the imposition of unreasonably high taxation but isn't that high taxation in france in germany the

very thing that allows the. amun islands to do so well no not not really that is a popularly held misconception what the cayman islands dollars is structure international capital flows through vehicles which are formed under its very specific lords into jurisdictions where the markets exist for example the united states united kingdom even europe. china or wherever but it does it in a tax efficient way on the understanding that the investments that are made in those jurisdictions will pay tax in accordance with the laws of those jurisdictions it's efficient structuring that is the basis of the cayman island success story well but i'm not suggesting that this became a law islands or any other destination for example in the caribbean i doing anything illegal i'm just asking whether you think they're essentially capitalizing on the inefficiency of others is it just

a matter of tax competition for you that they certainly do capitalize on the inefficiency with regard to the ability to create efficient legal structures for onward investment that's the key point came a lot of has a common law system which is very very well respected and is very attractive to international investors who wish to find a jurisdiction in which they can pool their money for on what investment well let's explore the attractiveness of those investments a little bit because i have a few rich friends in france who let's say explore the offshore financing and the argument essentially comes down to why should they give away our ports of fifty or even seventy percent of my hard earned money to the government which doesn't sweat equally as much to manage my taxes essentially they make the point that governments in europe tags to cover their own inefficiency is that something that strikes

a chord to be you know not a tool the what you have to understand is that that is a. popularly held misconception anyone in france or any other jurisdiction in the world investing through a cayman island structure will pay tax firstly in the jurisdiction where the investment is made in accordance with the laws over that jurisdiction and secondly they will pay tax in from when the net profit to distribute it to them the purpose of the cayman islands is to provide a a highly functional efficient conduit for the structuring of those pooled investments but am i mistaken in thinking that the cayman islands for example would not would also not tax. either he's income or he's possession of that income and that by itself for certain benefits but it doesn't offer any tax benefit or tall other than the profits of the investment made in the united states united kingdom

china wherever are not tax free times they're certainly taxed once where the profit is made in the market in question and there certainly taxed a second time when the net profit to distribute it to the investor the point about the cayman islands is it doesn't add a third and unnecessary layer of taxation now at the heart of this whole offshore controversy lies the question of whether one should keep money or pay taxes in the country where that money is earned and obviously believe in a globalized economy but the also still even our home countries at home cities that need to be taken care off how do you see the balance between the two well i don't think the cayman islands have any bearing on that question at all. in no way doesn't it best to coming into a cayman island structure avoid tax in his own jurisdiction. what you're talking about is the old school notion of tax evasion but the cayman islands has four packs

transparency with most. jurisdictions united states united kingdom european jurisdictions and so there is no tax advantage to investing in the cayman islands and no one is reducing the tax that would otherwise be paid in the jurisdiction of the investor by using a cayman islands but mr travers i think one of the advantages would be the interact taxation model that the cayman islands has been relying on for two hundred years as you often point out that many of your speeches and that's a section sensually taxing goods and services rob them taxing people's incomes which obviously gives you. a sudden competitive agile over the majority of countries that tax income and property but i think over the last couple of years and even decades we have been seeing some shift from direct to direct taxation

a lower their world that's feel partially by globalization is that something that may in the long term or perhaps even medium term undermine the modell that you have benefited from for so much. well i think you have to understand that the indirect taxation model is of no relevance at all to an overseas investor it's only relevant to someone who is resident in the cayman islands and so a resident of the cayman islands pays tax to the cayman islands government by way of indirect taxation that is to say particular stent duties import u.t.s. fees of that sort rather than having income or other sorts of tax but that's not a system that oversees invest the benefits from at all however whether it is a more efficient model for other jurisdictions to adopt is a very interesting philosophical question personally i think it is because our indirect system of taxation is highly efficient in terms of revenue collection if you want to get your new b.m.w.

into the cayman islands you have to pay forty percent stat import u.-t. to the collector or you don't get your b.m.w. so there's no question of avoiding tax under an indirect system such as the cayman islands applies well i think he came out and also has a rob they're well protected if not for tax in this labor market and it's actually you know has a lot of regulation that tries to shield your people from the i would call it exploited if excesses of globalisation do you think odd that countries should do more of dogs and if they indeed do more of that don't you think that your people will suffer as a result let's break that into two firstly it is absolutely the case you're correct that the cayman islands have a very straight immigration rules and very strict work permit laws which are protectionist in that they are designed to provide the first opportunity for

employment within the cayman islands to cayman islands citizens and residents. so that is absolutely right and indeed that was the model is. in for example europe before the european union arrived now you know it's a very interesting question as to whether that is desirable or not but that is very much a question of protecting the local people from undue competition from non cayman island persons i don't think that's going to change in the foreseeable future well interesting speaking about protecting your people from non-citizens the u.s. congress has just scrapped the previous tax system for corporations which allowed companies like apple and microsoft to defer a year's income taxes on foreign earnings and i know that the cayman islands certainly benefited from that deferred taxation regime i use story to seed goal i think we can break this into two again the first point is that the tax avoidance of

that the apples and the googles of the starbucks. applied to reduce their taxes occurred in europe because you need double tax treaty jurisdictions and there's all the european jurisdictions ireland the netherlands luxembourg the involvement of jurisdictions like the cayman islands which is not a double tax treaty jurisdiction and therefore not involved in that form of tax avoidance is simply that there are maybe one hundred or two hundred subsidiaries of the major u.s. corporates which are located in cayman which way use that as the ultimate holding vehicles for the net trading profits of those global u.s. corporations now to the extent that the tax regime has just changed.