Zac Goldsmith speaks of 'rage' with the press (From Surrey Comet)
Contact us: Got a photo? Text 'SLPICS' to 80360. Got a story? Call the newsdesk: 020 8744 4244
Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith speaks of 'rage' with the press
4:58pm Tuesday 6th December 2011 in News By Christine Fleming
Rage: Zac Goldsmith spoke of his need for privacy
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)
Twickenham Bob
says...
1:36pm Wed 7 Dec 11
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.
R Batson
says...
2:49pm Wed 7 Dec 11
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.
Gareth Roberts
says...
4:11pm Wed 7 Dec 11
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.
alex twickenham
says...
7:38pm Wed 7 Dec 11
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.
Gareth Roberts
says...
9:26am Thu 8 Dec 11
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 twickenham
says...
1:22pm Thu 8 Dec 11
Alex
alex twickenham
says...
4:48pm Thu 8 Dec 11
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
Gareth Roberts
says...
7:25pm Thu 8 Dec 11
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!
R Batson
says...
8:00pm Thu 8 Dec 11
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.
TrevorC
says...
8:36pm Thu 8 Dec 11
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.
metis
says...
10:58pm Thu 8 Dec 11
alex twickenham
says...
11:38am Fri 9 Dec 11
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
Montrose
says...
2:35am Sat 10 Dec 11
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.
Twickenham Bob
says...
5:12pm Mon 12 Dec 11
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
says...
5:14pm Mon 12 Dec 11
He claims he had a very modest benfit, is any from his tax affairs, so why not put his money where his mouth is?
Montrose
says...
11:29pm Tue 13 Dec 11
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’.
Gareth Roberts says...
11:26pm Tue 6 Dec 11
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.