Most people don't understand and that is a huge part of the problem.

What we don't understand, we cannot be sure we're being told the truth about.  But it's not about the legality or otherwise of these financial arrangements but the deception and two-facedness of it all.

We are now told by "mea culpa" dave that he is to blame for not handling it properly because he was angry about how his dad was criticised. 

Really?

I just don't believe it because the "truth" we are now expected to believe was such as simple matter to come out with at the very beginning.  Now he's using his dead father's memory to ramp up the emotion to turn it into "poor dave"

BUT - there are still unanswered questions about the activities of his father's financial activities and the answers that have been given about dave's situation have been very carefully worded, which just fuels suspicion that there is more to this that is kept hidden.

So, is this man stupid that he cannot work out how to give a clear and concise and honest answer from the beginning or at least with his second shot and within 24 hours? If so, he's not fit to be PM.  If he isn't stupid, then there is something still not right about the revelations.

Given his previous very personal attacks on others in the public eye who had the same or similar legitimate arrangements, it is also extremely hypocritical.  If his affairs are private, then so are everyone elses!

At least one of his close supporters have said that "of course" it would have been very difficult for him to upset/offend his father by selling the shares whilst he was still alive.

Really?  He sold them fast enough 8 months before his father died when there was a chance he might make PM, but why not shift them sooner if he truly felt it was wrong to make money that way?

How long was he benefitting from his father's company avoiding paying UK tax before he found it prudent to ditch the shares which could be traced?

He may have paid tax in the uk when he sold those shares, but for how long was he receiving an income and did he pay full tax on that, and did that income arise from a scheme set up to avoid paying tax anyway from which he benefitted in terms of earnings?

But what about his statement about the properties he owns - not just that he couldn't rememer (really?) but that he manages to pick and choose what he owns versus what he chooses to say the family benefits from. And how much money came from those overseas investments to help fund the house purchases?

It is not that there is necessarily anything wrong, it's that the more one finds out, the more things just don't add up.

Why did he intervene to block the EU bid to require the beneficiaries of trusts to be named?

Whilst these offshore funds and arrangements may be legal (and many individual people are caught up in this mess of a 'revelation' because they've taken advice from respectable - or otherwise - professionals) when it comes to people who make their money from tax avoidance and build up huge wealth as a result, it is quite clear that they have a huge immoral advantage over the vast majority of 'ordinary' people who have no choice but to pay their full taxes.

Are we "all in this together"?  Well, we all knew we never were, but now we are understanding more of just how much most of us were very much on our own and left struggling.

But the questions still remain and the answers do not cover them.

Back in 2012 dave said he would publish his tax returns - they remain unpublised, not of course that this would reveal anything that was squirreled away or was waiing in the wings for him to inherit from his mother who may still be benefitting from the tax avoiding arrangements set up by his father.

That is her business to which she is entitled to keep private, but it's not good enough for dave to hide behind that if he stands to benefit (or has already in the past benefitted by the shifting of funds), attack others who have benefitted from the same legitimate schemes, block bids for total transparency and then complain when he fuels the fires that give him a headache!

Other MPs and former MPs have published not just their tax returns, but other financial dealings, gifts received etc so that everyone knows where they stand.

He's a public servant, the interest on his mortgage of his Oxfordshire home is paid for by the public purse as well as his salary and it's long overdue that the only thing which is blocked is the ability of public servants to hide their financial affairs.

And all of this has come at a time when people have been totally misled over the issue of the rise in earnings from the new National Living wage, which has left many worse off than before when Lord alone knows they were struggling enough to cope with daily living before, never mind finding any extra to put into UK savings.

It's his "don't do as I do, do as I say and make sure you do or esle" attitude which he is being attacked for, his arrogance, his assumption that he can attack anyone to serve his own pompous ends, his insistance that he is above scrutiny and doesn't have to answer to anyone that has caused him his headache.

So that is what is so 'wrong' with it all.  Not whether it is or was legitimate, but how much tax was avoided, which includes Inheritance tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, and again, all at a time when we are learning just how many loopholes big businesses can 'legitimately' exploit to avoid paying full taxes which affects all of us, but not all of us equally.

There is nothing 'wrong' with being weathy by legitimate means or hard work and having choices for one's lifestyle;  there is everything wrong with living a life of struggle no matter how hard one works and pays taxes with no choices but to keep struggling.