Well, it gets worse

More revelations - more seeping out in ways to try and get under the radar.

independent

There's so much that is wrong in that article but here's one bit

Mr Cameron also told ITV News it was a “fundamental misconception” that Blairmore Holdings was established to avoid tax.  The fund was created – entirely legally – in 1982.

What misconception would that be then?  There is no issue with it being legal but he's twisted that bit in to divert attention from the issue of: ".... Mr Cameron was directly asked to “clarify for the record that you and your family have not derived any benefit in the past and will not in the future from the offshore Blairmore Holdings fund."

And now suddenly there are more shares in the equation:  "I sold those shares. In fact, I sold all the shares that I owned, on becoming Prime Minister.”

More shares?

Again, nothing wrong with owning shares or selling them at all, but everything wrong with the information coming out in dribs and drabs, when he's under pressure and isn't in control of what he's saying - it's called seepage and continues to ramp up the speculation that there is yet more which is being kept hidden.

Now we're being promised the publication of the tax returns - soon - as they were promised in 2012 - but now presented as if he's a knight in shining armour, a king of prime ministers.  Why not publish them tomorrow, or do they need a bit of cleaning up after they've been hidden for so long?

And now there is apparently a gift of £200k from his mother as well as the £300k from his father's will.  Again, nothing wrong with being left an inheritance but morally very wrong IF that inheritance is funded from holdings set up in other countries where they cannot be scrutinised for tax avoidance, and even more so, when the beneficiary has been so hypocritical and scathing about others making use of the same 'legitimate' financial arrangements.

What I'm wondering is when the focus will shift to the shenanigans of George's financial arrangements and what he profits from, and even better given his statement that people who profit from tax evasion should be treated as criminals - yep - with Dave standing right next to him.

And we are asked to respect just how much the rich and high earners have been required to pay out on 'our' behalf to help the economy which doesn't even cause them to break sweat, doesn't require them to go without luxuries, never mind bare essentials.

An absolute arrogant shower, the lot of them.

I relistened to the Today programme and was reminded by this comment from Kitty Ussher when she said that he was trying to draw a line under it by giving something but it doesn't solve his problem because his financial situation doesn't pass the smell test - something wrong with the whole situation and goes on to explain one reason he may have got rid of the shares was because he didn't want to declare them under the Ministerial Declaration of Financial Interest which is far tougher than the MPs' register.

She also raises the issue of if it was all above board, why didn't he say it in the first place or why get rid of the shares in the first place - the political smell test.

"He sought to put his own financial situation ahead of what he thinks is right.as Prime Minister"

Today

Starts at around 01:54 almost at the end of the programme.