Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith speaks of 'rage' with the press

Rage: Zac Goldsmith spoke of his need for privacy

Rage: Zac Goldsmith spoke of his need for privacy

First published in News by

Zac Goldsmith has been criticised for using Auschwitz as an example in his criticism of the practices of tabloid newspapers.

Speaking before a joint committee on privacy and injunctions, the Richmond Park MP argued newspapers should not have the attitude that taking part in dubious practices was an acceptable means to staying afloat.

He said: “No one said Auschwitz should be kept open because it created jobs.”

He later said on Twitter that, although his point was valid, he should not have cited the concentration camp.

Mr Goldsmith was invited to speak at the joint committee yesterday, Monday, December 5, as the national privacy debate continues alongside the current Leveson inquiry into phone hacking.

The parliamentary committee’s role is to review media regulations and establish how to “strike a balance between privacy and freedom of expression".

Mr Goldsmith, former editor of the Ecologist magazine, joined comedian Steve Coogan, actor Hugh Grant and former motor racing president Max Mosley to address the committee and share his own experiences of dealing with the press.

He said: “[I have had] my own experience of the endless tension for need of a free press and need for privacy.

“I discovered, thanks to a tip off, that a great many emails, private emails exchanged by myself, my sister and ex-wife had been leaked to editors around the country with an appetite for the stories.”

He added: “The following day even though I had sought a super injunction very quickly, journalists shouted across the garden wall: 'Is it true you’re divorcing your wife?', while I was playing with my children.

"Now luckily they didn’t hear that but it was the one time in my life I was struck with an uncontrollable physical rage.”

The MP went on to suggest a way to deal with improving privacy law would be to create a new independent organisation to deal with issues and to set out a clear parliamentary framework for how this would run.

He said: “The fact we are having this discussion...tells me at least, the PCC (press complaints commission) has failed in its duty and not done the job they were supposed to have done.

“I think it’s time now to create a properly independent organisation that has the teeth and the stamina to act as a regulator.”

He added: “I personally think we should [have a privacy law] and I think we should set out a framework ourselves in parliament to give it more legitimacy.

“We need to absolutely tread a fine line between the need for privacy and the need for a free press, without which I don’t think we have a free society.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:26pm Tue 6 Dec 11

Gareth Roberts says...

While one wouldn't like to be on the end of press intrusion of this sort, surely there are serious questions to be asked about the judgement of somebody who would draw parallels between Auschwitz and the tabloid press.

On a different note there is also, surely, a question to be asked about the judgement of somebody who must have known they were considering seeking public office in the future to seek a super injunction - an injunction which not only kept the details of the case secret but also kept the fact that the original injunction was sought a secret.
While one wouldn't like to be on the end of press intrusion of this sort, surely there are serious questions to be asked about the judgement of somebody who would draw parallels between Auschwitz and the tabloid press. On a different note there is also, surely, a question to be asked about the judgement of somebody who must have known they were considering seeking public office in the future to seek a super injunction - an injunction which not only kept the details of the case secret but also kept the fact that the original injunction was sought a secret. Gareth Roberts
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Wed 7 Dec 11

Twickenham Bob says...

Freedom of the press is important - for example, it allowed the reporting of his non-dom tax status.

Chris Huhne, had calculated that Goldsmith is likely to have avoided, at a conservative estimate, around £580,000 a year in UK taxes over the past decade as a result of being defined as a non-dom.

Its because of people who like him, who go to extrodinary lengths to avoid paying tax on their wealth & family trusts they have an interest in, that schools, hospitals and police are all being cut.
Freedom of the press is important - for example, it allowed the reporting of his non-dom tax status. Chris Huhne, had calculated that Goldsmith is likely to have avoided, at a conservative estimate, around £580,000 a year in UK taxes over the past decade as a result of being defined as a non-dom. Its because of people who like him, who go to extrodinary lengths to avoid paying tax on their wealth & family trusts they have an interest in, that schools, hospitals and police are all being cut. Twickenham Bob
  • Score: 0

2:49pm Wed 7 Dec 11

R Batson says...

I would have have serious concerns about the Press freedom being limited. Its is that freedom that balances our free Society and which helps maintain low corruption within it. It has though like all things in life proved it is not beyond corruption.

I note the comment to this article referring to Chris Huhne whom is currently being investigated for 'Perverting the Course of Justice' whilst remaining a serving Minister (No Suspension pending outcome) This would not have become public had the press not published it.

To experience a commercial need for profit by the Press which disregards the innocence of children in this world as Zac Goldsmith has had happen to him, any parent would be outraged at. One can see why the poor use of words were spoken to try and show how much pain this brought upon him and his innocent children. That though does not demonstrate poor judgement.

I believe Press should remain free though, however if it becomes clear that they are abusing that position the penalty should be VERY high, to act as a counter balance to them. They whilst seeking out issues must equally protect the innocent. To create collateral damage/hurt/pain for a commercial gain is not acceptable in a Civilised Society.

Equally to imply and to throw mud as the first two comments here appear to be doing is just as bad as the Press have done on the telephone and email interception the joint committee is looking into.

One wonders what the hidden agenda might be in those comments. One can only speculate they maybe seeking gain (Which is the same as commercial profit) and exploiting this Press article for that purpose.
I would have have serious concerns about the Press freedom being limited. Its is that freedom that balances our free Society and which helps maintain low corruption within it. It has though like all things in life proved it is not beyond corruption. I note the comment to this article referring to Chris Huhne whom is currently being investigated for 'Perverting the Course of Justice' whilst remaining a serving Minister (No Suspension pending outcome) This would not have become public had the press not published it. To experience a commercial need for profit by the Press which disregards the innocence of children in this world as Zac Goldsmith has had happen to him, any parent would be outraged at. One can see why the poor use of words were spoken to try and show how much pain this brought upon him and his innocent children. That though does not demonstrate poor judgement. I believe Press should remain free though, however if it becomes clear that they are abusing that position the penalty should be VERY high, to act as a counter balance to them. They whilst seeking out issues must equally protect the innocent. To create collateral damage/hurt/pain for a commercial gain is not acceptable in a Civilised Society. Equally to imply and to throw mud as the first two comments here appear to be doing is just as bad as the Press have done on the telephone and email interception the joint committee is looking into. One wonders what the hidden agenda might be in those comments. One can only speculate they maybe seeking gain (Which is the same as commercial profit) and exploiting this Press article for that purpose. R Batson
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Wed 7 Dec 11

Gareth Roberts says...

R Batson, you honestly think that the Auschwitz remark wasn't the result of poor judgement? Don't forget that in the context used it was practically a gag - all that was missing was the "BadumTish!".

And to suggest that making comments on these boards is on a par with sanctioning the hacking of the voicemail of dead children (which is what the members of the press have been accused of) is rather an imaginative leap.
R Batson, you honestly think that the Auschwitz remark wasn't the result of poor judgement? Don't forget that in the context used it was practically a gag - all that was missing was the "BadumTish!". And to suggest that making comments on these boards is on a par with sanctioning the hacking of the voicemail of dead children (which is what the members of the press have been accused of) is rather an imaginative leap. Gareth Roberts
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Wed 7 Dec 11

alex twickenham says...

It's always amusing to see the good soldier Roberts leaping into the fray - I wonder how well he would have handled an encounter with the Leveson enquiry. It's all too easy to criticize from the safety of a keyboard - much harder to get it right when you are in the spotlight - isn't it Gareth?
As to "BadumTish" - yet more self-indulgent stuff from this hot-shot LibDem councillor - why not just say that Zac Goldsmith made a pratfall? We would all have understood what you meant and it would have saved a lot of googling. Where was Gareth when Vince Cable made his pratfall over Murdoch? Stunning silence as I recall, interesting to see that Vince is getting the wrong sort of headlines yet again. Apparently top lobbyists think he's "cantankerous" but can still be got at. They also describe him as putting politics and presentation first and substance second - who would have thought that!
Alex
PS: Lest Gareth leaps on me - I've had my time in the spotlight and learnt from my pratfalls - those who consider themselves fault-free often find it harder to do so.
It's always amusing to see the good soldier Roberts leaping into the fray - I wonder how well he would have handled an encounter with the Leveson enquiry. It's all too easy to criticize from the safety of a keyboard - much harder to get it right when you are in the spotlight - isn't it Gareth? As to "BadumTish" - yet more self-indulgent stuff from this hot-shot LibDem councillor - why not just say that Zac Goldsmith made a pratfall? We would all have understood what you meant and it would have saved a lot of googling. Where was Gareth when Vince Cable made his pratfall over Murdoch? Stunning silence as I recall, interesting to see that Vince is getting the wrong sort of headlines yet again. Apparently top lobbyists think he's "cantankerous" but can still be got at. They also describe him as putting politics and presentation first and substance second - who would have thought that! Alex PS: Lest Gareth leaps on me - I've had my time in the spotlight and learnt from my pratfalls - those who consider themselves fault-free often find it harder to do so. alex twickenham
  • Score: 0

9:26am Thu 8 Dec 11

Gareth Roberts says...

Alex, I would have thought that most people know what 'BadumTish!' represented however I'm pleased to have been instrumental in broadening your horizons.

Any chance of a comment on the story, by the way, or are you limiting yourself to breezy comments about Vince and me from 'the safety of a keyboard'?
Alex, I would have thought that most people know what 'BadumTish!' represented however I'm pleased to have been instrumental in broadening your horizons. Any chance of a comment on the story, by the way, or are you limiting yourself to breezy comments about Vince and me from 'the safety of a keyboard'? Gareth Roberts
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Thu 8 Dec 11

alex twickenham says...

Councillor Gareth Roberts requests a comment from me on the story. Since he is now a hot-shot elder of our community, I guess I must try to comply. Setting aside the fact that I agreed that Zac Goldsmith's Auschwitz remark was a "pratfall", as did he, I'm not sure that the rest of the story has enough legs to run - I see that it no longer features on this page. Is it socially unacceptable to have the good fortune to inherit loads of money? Is it wrong to confess to fury at press intrusion into your private life and the breaking of bad news to your children? Is it wrong to stand by your principles even if it brings you into conflict with your party? Is it wrong to have a private life which brings you under intrusive and oppressive press scrutiny? Is it wrong to have the good fortune to be a charismatic politician? - something woefully lacking in his predecessor. I bet loads of politicians both local and national are breathing a collective sigh of relief that they weren't deemed interesting or important enough to be targeted by the press! The good soldier Roberts, ever faithful to the party line and the ALDC, can't help but take every opportunity to pounce on a Tory politician whilst airbrushing any indiscretion by a LibDem - some coalition! Given their pusillanimous performance "in power", I rather hope that the LibDems are hammered at the next general election. The boundary commission changes may well give Vince a real fight for a change - I and many others in his constituency certainly hope so.
Alex
Councillor Gareth Roberts requests a comment from me on the story. Since he is now a hot-shot elder of our community, I guess I must try to comply. Setting aside the fact that I agreed that Zac Goldsmith's Auschwitz remark was a "pratfall", as did he, I'm not sure that the rest of the story has enough legs to run - I see that it no longer features on this page. Is it socially unacceptable to have the good fortune to inherit loads of money? Is it wrong to confess to fury at press intrusion into your private life and the breaking of bad news to your children? Is it wrong to stand by your principles even if it brings you into conflict with your party? Is it wrong to have a private life which brings you under intrusive and oppressive press scrutiny? Is it wrong to have the good fortune to be a charismatic politician? - something woefully lacking in his predecessor. I bet loads of politicians both local and national are breathing a collective sigh of relief that they weren't deemed interesting or important enough to be targeted by the press! The good soldier Roberts, ever faithful to the party line and the ALDC, can't help but take every opportunity to pounce on a Tory politician whilst airbrushing any indiscretion by a LibDem - some coalition! Given their pusillanimous performance "in power", I rather hope that the LibDems are hammered at the next general election. The boundary commission changes may well give Vince a real fight for a change - I and many others in his constituency certainly hope so. Alex alex twickenham
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Thu 8 Dec 11

alex twickenham says...

A rider to my previous post:
I really should have clarified my reference to Councillor Roberts being a member of the Association of Liberal Democratic Councillors (ALDC). He is one of four currently listed, the others being Cllr's Burford, Elloy and Thornton. Nothing wrong with that - the Tories have their own pressure groups, 1922, Monday club etc, however they were never responsible for creating anything like the now infamous "Effective Opposition" pamphlet published by the ALDC which urged supporters to "Be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly." Gareth Roberts, before he was elected, tried to distance himself from their somewhat questionable tactics but, once elected to a seat in the second safest ward in the borough (his words), seems to have reverted to form and remains a member of the ALDC.
Please take note residents of Hampton.
Alex
A rider to my previous post: I really should have clarified my reference to Councillor Roberts being a member of the Association of Liberal Democratic Councillors (ALDC). He is one of four currently listed, the others being Cllr's Burford, Elloy and Thornton. Nothing wrong with that - the Tories have their own pressure groups, 1922, Monday club etc, however they were never responsible for creating anything like the now infamous "Effective Opposition" pamphlet published by the ALDC which urged supporters to "Be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly." Gareth Roberts, before he was elected, tried to distance himself from their somewhat questionable tactics but, once elected to a seat in the second safest ward in the borough (his words), seems to have reverted to form and remains a member of the ALDC. Please take note residents of Hampton. Alex alex twickenham
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Thu 8 Dec 11

Gareth Roberts says...

Good Lord, Effective Opposition. Strange how Talismanic this discredited document is for those lacking any real arguments. Over a decade old, repudiated by the party leadership and certainly not the way in which any serious local Councillor would behave.

I certainly do hope the residents of Hampton are taking note of these rather obvious attempts by the Tories and their cheerleaders, such as Alex, to smear Lib Dem councillors and reflect on, as I do, how very desperate and tawdry it all looks; they must be very scared about May 2014!
Good Lord, Effective Opposition. Strange how Talismanic this discredited document is for those lacking any real arguments. Over a decade old, repudiated by the party leadership and certainly not the way in which any serious local Councillor would behave. I certainly do hope the residents of Hampton are taking note of these rather obvious attempts by the Tories and their cheerleaders, such as Alex, to smear Lib Dem councillors and reflect on, as I do, how very desperate and tawdry it all looks; they must be very scared about May 2014! Gareth Roberts
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Thu 8 Dec 11

R Batson says...

Ah the hidden Agenda of GAIN, in this case (Political Party Power) reveals itself.
Shame the principle and issue about privacy and its effect upon people was not the real reason for comment. A constructive well made point negative or positive would have helped people reason which way they felt was the right way to go on this article.

Here's what was actually said:

"If the only way a business can stay afloat is by engaging in immoral or unethical behaviour, then that business should change its model, or go out of business." And here's where he got really controversial. "No one said that Auschwitz should have been kept open because it created jobs.

So to answer the first point Liberal Democrat Cllr Gareth Roberts asks of me & you SERVE ME not I serve You, which means you are accountable to me not I to you. "NO I do not think it was poor judgement just poor use of words, have you never thought you could have said something better than you did, I know I have and the second point, Well one should be open and transparent and you clearly were not being so it would appear. Whatever happened to truth and honesty? Particularly from a Publicly Elected Representative of people. I will certainly consider your actions here and those of the Liberal Democratic Party when I next vote or talk to people about the integrity of a Party and/or its Representatives.
Thank you for enlightening me about the Liberal Democratic Parties practices, most interesting.
Ah the hidden Agenda of GAIN, in this case (Political Party Power) reveals itself. Shame the principle and issue about privacy and its effect upon people was not the real reason for comment. A constructive well made point negative or positive would have helped people reason which way they felt was the right way to go on this article. Here's what was actually said: "If the only way a business can stay afloat is by engaging in immoral or unethical behaviour, then that business should change its model, or go out of business." And here's where he got really controversial. "No one said that Auschwitz should have been kept open because it created jobs. So to answer the first point Liberal Democrat Cllr Gareth Roberts asks of me & you SERVE ME not I serve You, which means you are accountable to me not I to you. "NO I do not think it was poor judgement just poor use of words, have you never thought you could have said something better than you did, I know I have and the second point, Well one should be open and transparent and you clearly were not being so it would appear. Whatever happened to truth and honesty? Particularly from a Publicly Elected Representative of people. I will certainly consider your actions here and those of the Liberal Democratic Party when I next vote or talk to people about the integrity of a Party and/or its Representatives. Thank you for enlightening me about the Liberal Democratic Parties practices, most interesting. R Batson
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Thu 8 Dec 11

TrevorC says...

It seems to me that the words of Zac Goldsmith have been misrepresented because he used the emotive and sensitive word of Auschwitz to make a point. If it is argued that the name should never be used unless in a factual historical context, then it raises the issue of the extent to which free speech should be constrained. And are we going too far in political correctness?

It is not uncommon to use dramatic effect to draw attention to a message.

The point he was making about there never being a justification for a business operating immorally and unethically is actually a good and valid one, which I would have thought that most people would support. Sadly that has been lost in the furore and debate about the use of one word, which is not illegal, an expletive, racist or sexist.
It seems to me that the words of Zac Goldsmith have been misrepresented because he used the emotive and sensitive word of Auschwitz to make a point. If it is argued that the name should never be used unless in a factual historical context, then it raises the issue of the extent to which free speech should be constrained. And are we going too far in political correctness? It is not uncommon to use dramatic effect to draw attention to a message. The point he was making about there never being a justification for a business operating immorally and unethically is actually a good and valid one, which I would have thought that most people would support. Sadly that has been lost in the furore and debate about the use of one word, which is not illegal, an expletive, racist or sexist. TrevorC
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Thu 8 Dec 11

metis says...

R Batson 2 - G Roberts 0
R Batson 2 - G Roberts 0 metis
  • Score: 0

11:38am Fri 9 Dec 11

alex twickenham says...

It's always good to provoke Councillor Gareth Roberts into a bit of bluster - It brings out the real party warrior rather than the cuddly Councillor who has just had a eureka moment about the arrival of a bus at a stop in Hampton - that's the side he would prefer you to see. In two short paragraphs he manages to destroy that image and crams in the following epithets: Tory cheerleader, smear, desperate, tawdry, scared!
Seriously though, I must correct his assumption - of which he makes many. I am not a cheerleader for the Tories although I applaud them for sticking to their manifesto pledges, something the LibDems might like to reflect on, although I doubt they will under their current leadership. It's simple really - there are only two viable parties in our borough so, I guess in Cll'r Roberts somewhat simplistic assessment, I must be a Tory cheerleader if I'm opposed to the LibDems - which I am.
I used to vote for them until I took a keener interest in the way they conduct their business, now I would prefer to poke my eye out with the proverbial sharp stick rather than do so again.
Alex
PS: Well said R Batson
It's always good to provoke Councillor Gareth Roberts into a bit of bluster - It brings out the real party warrior rather than the cuddly Councillor who has just had a eureka moment about the arrival of a bus at a stop in Hampton - that's the side he would prefer you to see. In two short paragraphs he manages to destroy that image and crams in the following epithets: Tory cheerleader, smear, desperate, tawdry, scared! Seriously though, I must correct his assumption - of which he makes many. I am not a cheerleader for the Tories although I applaud them for sticking to their manifesto pledges, something the LibDems might like to reflect on, although I doubt they will under their current leadership. It's simple really - there are only two viable parties in our borough so, I guess in Cll'r Roberts somewhat simplistic assessment, I must be a Tory cheerleader if I'm opposed to the LibDems - which I am. I used to vote for them until I took a keener interest in the way they conduct their business, now I would prefer to poke my eye out with the proverbial sharp stick rather than do so again. Alex PS: Well said R Batson alex twickenham
  • Score: 0

2:35am Sat 10 Dec 11

Montrose says...

I am astonished some posters have missed that Zac Goldsmith apologised for the ‘Auschwitz’ remark. As others have said it was made in the proverbial heat of the moment, and concerned a situation with his children where people obviously get more defensive. I can see that there is a case to be made to stop saturation press intrusion where people are ‘doorstepped’ 24/7 – but it’s a fine balance as a free press is the sign of a free society.

R Batson’s surprise that Cllr Roberts is an elected local councillor proves the point I made with Cllr Roberts – during one of our previous exchanges – that people who post here are not necessarily aware of this fact.

It was my turn to be surprised when I read Cllr Roberts comments about: “these rather obvious attempts by the Tories and their cheerleaders, such as Alex, to smear Lib Dem councillors”. If this is the case, then various national newspapers come into the same category as they wrote about “Effective Opposition” during the 2010 election campaigns. Check out these articles:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/politics/blog/
2009/feb/03/lib-dems
-elections

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/debate/articl
e-1267912/General-El
ection-2010-Liberal-
Democrats-dirty-tric
ks-real-nasty-party.
html

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/election
-2010/7617709/Genera
l-Election-2010-Nick
-Clegg-uncovered.htm
l

Cllr Roberts accuses political opponents of ‘smears’ which he denounces as “desperate and tawdry”. I wonder what Cllr Roberts’ thoughts are about Lib Dem MP Stephen Lloyd whose election literature against the then-incumbent Conservative MP was found to be “defamatory” by the High Court on Thursday. The former Conservative MP said: "The world and the people of Eastbourne now know that the Liberal Democrats campaign misled voters.”
Here: http://www.guardian.
co.uk/politics/2011/
dec/08/expenses-scan
dal-election-leaflet
-defamatory?newsfeed
=true

And Cllr Roberts’ Lib Dem colleagues Vincent Cable and Susan Kramer sent out election literature referring to Zac Goldsmith’s former non-dom status. The relevant part of a letter sent by Twickenham’s Lib Dem MP Vincent Cable to Richmond Park’s electorate said: “…the ‘non-dom’ tax status that her Conservative opponent benefited from for so long” – here: http://www.electionl
eaflets.org/leaflets
/3074/

For the benefit of Zac Goldsmith’s political opponents who keep mentioning his former non-dom status, they only need to check this newspaper for an article where Zac Goldsmith clarifies: “Virtually everything I do is in the UK, and therefore the vast majority of my income comes to the UK, where I pay the full rate of tax on it. I do not derive any benefits as far as either capital gains tax or inheritance is concerned since I am registered for the latter in the UK.”
Here: http://www.richmonda
ndtwickenhamtimes.co
.uk/news/4768465.Tor
y_candidate_denies_a
voiding_tax/

And thank you Metis for your humour.
I am astonished some posters have missed that Zac Goldsmith apologised for the ‘Auschwitz’ remark. As others have said it was made in the proverbial heat of the moment, and concerned a situation with his children where people obviously get more defensive. I can see that there is a case to be made to stop saturation press intrusion where people are ‘doorstepped’ 24/7 – but it’s a fine balance as a free press is the sign of a free society. R Batson’s surprise that Cllr Roberts is an elected local councillor proves the point I made with Cllr Roberts – during one of our previous exchanges – that people who post here are not necessarily aware of this fact. It was my turn to be surprised when I read Cllr Roberts comments about: “these rather obvious attempts by the Tories and their cheerleaders, such as Alex, to smear Lib Dem councillors”. If this is the case, then various national newspapers come into the same category as they wrote about “Effective Opposition” during the 2010 election campaigns. Check out these articles: http://www.guardian. co.uk/politics/blog/ 2009/feb/03/lib-dems -elections http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-1267912/General-El ection-2010-Liberal- Democrats-dirty-tric ks-real-nasty-party. html http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/election -2010/7617709/Genera l-Election-2010-Nick -Clegg-uncovered.htm l Cllr Roberts accuses political opponents of ‘smears’ which he denounces as “desperate and tawdry”. I wonder what Cllr Roberts’ thoughts are about Lib Dem MP Stephen Lloyd whose election literature against the then-incumbent Conservative MP was found to be “defamatory” by the High Court on Thursday. The former Conservative MP said: "The world and the people of Eastbourne now know that the Liberal Democrats campaign misled voters.” Here: http://www.guardian. co.uk/politics/2011/ dec/08/expenses-scan dal-election-leaflet -defamatory?newsfeed =true And Cllr Roberts’ Lib Dem colleagues Vincent Cable and Susan Kramer sent out election literature referring to Zac Goldsmith’s former non-dom status. The relevant part of a letter sent by Twickenham’s Lib Dem MP Vincent Cable to Richmond Park’s electorate said: “…the ‘non-dom’ tax status that her Conservative opponent benefited from for so long” – here: http://www.electionl eaflets.org/leaflets /3074/ For the benefit of Zac Goldsmith’s political opponents who keep mentioning his former non-dom status, they only need to check this newspaper for an article where Zac Goldsmith clarifies: “Virtually everything I do is in the UK, and therefore the vast majority of my income comes to the UK, where I pay the full rate of tax on it. […] I do not derive any benefits as far as either capital gains tax or inheritance is concerned since I am registered for the latter in the UK.” Here: http://www.richmonda ndtwickenhamtimes.co .uk/news/4768465.Tor y_candidate_denies_a voiding_tax/ And thank you Metis for your humour. Montrose
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Mon 12 Dec 11

Twickenham Bob says...

Montrose,

People who benefit from off-sure trusts can say bold as brass that dont avoid tax - as the trust is legally seperate from them.

Zac's swiss lifestyle is funded from assets are based in a tax haven and his farm and house in Richmond were purchased though a Caymans Islands company.

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/politics
/6684782/Zac-Goldsmi
th-admits-non-dom-ta
x-status.html
Montrose, People who benefit from off-sure trusts can say bold as brass that dont avoid tax - as the trust is legally seperate from them. Zac's swiss lifestyle is funded from assets are based in a tax haven and his farm and house in Richmond were purchased though a Caymans Islands company. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/politics /6684782/Zac-Goldsmi th-admits-non-dom-ta x-status.html Twickenham Bob
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Mon 12 Dec 11

Twickenham Bob says...

I beleive a sensible way forward for Zac is to have an independent panel work out the tax-savings he has received from his family's tax-haven trust & then write out a cheque to the tax-man.

He claims he had a very modest benfit, is any from his tax affairs, so why not put his money where his mouth is?
I beleive a sensible way forward for Zac is to have an independent panel work out the tax-savings he has received from his family's tax-haven trust & then write out a cheque to the tax-man. He claims he had a very modest benfit, is any from his tax affairs, so why not put his money where his mouth is? Twickenham Bob
  • Score: 0

11:29pm Tue 13 Dec 11

Montrose says...

Twickenham Bob is wrong because Zac Goldsmith does “put his money where his mouth is” – to use Twickenham Bob’s expression – as the RTT article I flagged up also has this statement: “If there have been any savings at all, they are massively exceeded by the fact that a very large proportion of my post-tax income goes towards supporting environmental and charitable causes that I believe in.”
Here: http://www.richmonda
ndtwickenhamtimes.co
.uk/news/4768465.Tor
y_candidate_denies_a
voiding_tax/

And Twickenham Bob is quoting Lib Dem Lord Oakshott from that Telegraph article. If Twickenham Bob had read on he would have seen Zac Goldsmith’s response which is: "His suggestion that I keep money offshore 'free of income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax' is also entirely wrong. Despite having been non-domiciled because of my father's status, I have always chosen to be tax resident in the UK. Virtually everything I do is in the UK and therefore virtually all my income comes to the UK where I pay full tax on it.”
Here:
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/politics
/6684782/Zac-Goldsmi
th-admits-non-dom-ta
x-status.html

Note to Twickenham Bob – read the whole newspaper article in order to get the full picture, and to ensure that pertinent information isn’t omitted before jumping in with what Cllr “for the second safest ward in the borough” Roberts would call a ‘knee jerk reaction’.
Twickenham Bob is wrong because Zac Goldsmith does “put his money where his mouth is” – to use Twickenham Bob’s expression – as the RTT article I flagged up also has this statement: “If there have been any savings at all, they are massively exceeded by the fact that a very large proportion of my post-tax income goes towards supporting environmental and charitable causes that I believe in.” Here: http://www.richmonda ndtwickenhamtimes.co .uk/news/4768465.Tor y_candidate_denies_a voiding_tax/ And Twickenham Bob is quoting Lib Dem Lord Oakshott from that Telegraph article. If Twickenham Bob had read on he would have seen Zac Goldsmith’s response which is: "His suggestion that I keep money offshore 'free of income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax' is also entirely wrong. Despite having been non-domiciled because of my father's status, I have always chosen to be tax resident in the UK. Virtually everything I do is in the UK and therefore virtually all my income comes to the UK where I pay full tax on it.” Here: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/politics /6684782/Zac-Goldsmi th-admits-non-dom-ta x-status.html Note to Twickenham Bob – read the whole newspaper article in order to get the full picture, and to ensure that pertinent information isn’t omitted before jumping in with what Cllr “for the second safest ward in the borough” Roberts would call a ‘knee jerk reaction’. Montrose
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree