The Scott Trust since 1936

[SydneyRover]

Some of the younger members of the forum may not be acquainted with the history.

''The Manchester Guardian was founded by cotton merchant John Edward Taylor in the wake of the Peterloo massacre of 1819. The first edition appeared on 5 May 1821. Taylor’s nephew CP Scott went on to become editor in 1872 and bought the paper in 1907. His 57 year editorship cemented the paper’s liberal values and gave it an international reputation. In 1919 it began publishing a special edition for readers abroad in the form of the Guardian Weekly.

CP Scott’s son John Russell Scott was determined to protect this legacy when, after the deaths of his father and brother, he became the paper’s owner. He established the Scott Trust in 1936 to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity. The newspaper continued to flourish under the Trust and, in 1959, changed its masthead to simply The Guardian, to reflect the breadth of its readership and coverage. The editor’s office and major editorial departments then moved to London in 1964.

The Guardian’s London years have seen fast-paced change in the world of the UK press. In 1993 the Guardian Media Group acquired the Observer, the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper, as a sister paper for the Guardian. Two years later the Guardian introduced its first website and in 1999 the series of sites that followed were pulled together to form Guardian Unlimited, predecessor to today’s theguardian.com''

https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

[tyke1962]

Would you like to tell us about the £300m tax they avoided when the group sold Autotrader ?

[drfchound]

Oooppssss.

[Ldr]

Some people may still be under the impression it doesn't have an agenda too

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke.

Why don't YOU explain what was wrong with that? The principle as well as your numbers.

[tyke1962]

Tyke.

Why don't YOU explain what was wrong with that? The principle as well as your numbers.

Well I suppose it's campaign with the Panama Papers that exposed tax evasion seems a bit rich considering it's evaded tax too .

If your going to proclaim to be the credible face of journalism it's perhaps half an idea to be credible yourself .

[BillyStubbsTears]

It didn't evade tax. There was simply no tax to pay.

Why are you doing this?

[tyke1962]

It didn't evade tax. There was simply no tax to pay.

Why are you doing this?

Well I have it The Guardian Media Group used an offshore account in the Cayman Islands to shelter paying capital gains tax on the profit they made when the group sold Auto Trader .

[drfchound]

From The Spectator:

Something odd happened at the Guardian on Monday as the paper’s editorial staff were basking in the glow of their just-published splash about the Panama papers. They were understandably excited, having sat on the revelations for months, and were about to put flesh on the bones of the stories that had broken on Sunday evening about the elaborate tax-avoidance schemes of assorted Tory bigwigs. The Guardian was one of 107 media organisations that had been secretly going through the cache of 11.5 million documents stolen from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca last August and these were the golden nuggets: disclosures guaranteed to cause the government maximum embarrassment and — an added bonus — give a much-needed boost to Jeremy Corbyn. With a bit of luck, the paper’s associate editor Seumas Milne, who is widely disliked on the editorial floor, would remain on secondment to the Labour leader’s office for some time to come.

But even allowing for all that, what happened next was still perplexing. They gave themselves a round of applause. That’s right, the Guardian’s editorial staff put down their cups of fair-trade coffee and started clapping. In their eyes, these revelations about the use of offshore tax shelters by various grandees were a cause for self-congratulation.

Now, I can think of three possible explanations. First, they either didn’t know or had forgotten about the Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying corporation tax when it sold its 50 per cent holding in Auto Trader to Apax Partners in 2008 (hat tip to Guido Fawkes). Further, they were similarly ignorant about the hundreds of millions GMG has invested in offshore hedge funds over the years. But that seems unlikely. After all, right-wing hacks like me lose no opportunity to draw attention to the paper’s creative tax affairs, particularly when confronted with self-righteous columnists like Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee wagging their fingers at Vodafone and Starbucks for avoiding paying their ‘fair share.

A second possibility — and, admittedly, this is farfetched — is that the paper’s hacks have actually read and been convinced by the former editor Alan Rusbridger’s long, rambling explanation of why the directors of GMG aren’t tax-dodgers after all. In his 2,000-word essay on the subject, published three years after the allegations were first put to him (so much for transparency!), he claims it was perfectly right and proper that GMG didn’t pay a single penny in corporation tax on its £302 million profit from that sale. Insofar as I understand it (and I’ve read it three times) the gist of Rusbridger’s argument is that GMG’s tax affairs are all fine and dandy because they’re perfectly legal. Hmm. Couldn’t exactly the same defence be made of the Tory bigwigs?


No, the correct explanation, I believe, is that the paper’s hacks were applauding the sheer brazenness of their hypocrisy. This wasn’t common-or-garden two-facedness, like attacking the government’s decision to give council-flat tenants the opportunity to own their homes while owning two or three yourself. Or pouring scorn on free-school founders desperately seeking an alternative to sink comprehensives while sending your own kids to a top public school. No, this was hypocrisy on an audacious scale.

When those Guardian journalists thought about the Panama stories, they must have experienced the thrill felt by the televangelist Jimmy Swaggart as he railed against adultery from his pulpit having just slept with a New Orleans prostitute.


Even more deliciously, the charge they level at the Prime Minister — financially benefiting from a tax arrangement he had nothing to do with — is one they were all guilty of themselves. After all, the Guardian would have long gone out of business without the financial fleet-footedness of GMG’s directors. And on top of that, the icing on the cake, they were holding a leading politician responsible for the alleged sins of his father, something many of them condemned in a fit of high dudgeon when the Daily Mail ran its story about Ralph Miliband in 2013. What larks! This was the hypocritical equivalent of a triple word score. In for a penny, in for a pound, and no tax payable on the winnings thanks to GMG’s fiendishly clever offshore tax arrangements.

On reflection, I’m amazed the Guardian hacks don’t give themselves a round of applause every morning.

[scawsby steve]

From The Spectator:

Something odd happened at the Guardian on Monday as the paper’s editorial staff were basking in the glow of their just-published splash about the Panama papers. They were understandably excited, having sat on the revelations for months, and were about to put flesh on the bones of the stories that had broken on Sunday evening about the elaborate tax-avoidance schemes of assorted Tory bigwigs. The Guardian was one of 107 media organisations that had been secretly going through the cache of 11.5 million documents stolen from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca last August and these were the golden nuggets: disclosures guaranteed to cause the government maximum embarrassment and — an added bonus — give a much-needed boost to Jeremy Corbyn. With a bit of luck, the paper’s associate editor Seumas Milne, who is widely disliked on the editorial floor, would remain on secondment to the Labour leader’s office for some time to come.

But even allowing for all that, what happened next was still perplexing. They gave themselves a round of applause. That’s right, the Guardian’s editorial staff put down their cups of fair-trade coffee and started clapping. In their eyes, these revelations about the use of offshore tax shelters by various grandees were a cause for self-congratulation.

Now, I can think of three possible explanations. First, they either didn’t know or had forgotten about the Guardian Media Group’s use of a tax-exempt shell company in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying corporation tax when it sold its 50 per cent holding in Auto Trader to Apax Partners in 2008 (hat tip to Guido Fawkes). Further, they were similarly ignorant about the hundreds of millions GMG has invested in offshore hedge funds over the years. But that seems unlikely. After all, right-wing hacks like me lose no opportunity to draw attention to the paper’s creative tax affairs, particularly when confronted with self-righteous columnists like Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee wagging their fingers at Vodafone and Starbucks for avoiding paying their ‘fair share.

A second possibility — and, admittedly, this is farfetched — is that the paper’s hacks have actually read and been convinced by the former editor Alan Rusbridger’s long, rambling explanation of why the directors of GMG aren’t tax-dodgers after all. In his 2,000-word essay on the subject, published three years after the allegations were first put to him (so much for transparency!), he claims it was perfectly right and proper that GMG didn’t pay a single penny in corporation tax on its £302 million profit from that sale. Insofar as I understand it (and I’ve read it three times) the gist of Rusbridger’s argument is that GMG’s tax affairs are all fine and dandy because they’re perfectly legal. Hmm. Couldn’t exactly the same defence be made of the Tory bigwigs?


No, the correct explanation, I believe, is that the paper’s hacks were applauding the sheer brazenness of their hypocrisy. This wasn’t common-or-garden two-facedness, like attacking the government’s decision to give council-flat tenants the opportunity to own their homes while owning two or three yourself. Or pouring scorn on free-school founders desperately seeking an alternative to sink comprehensives while sending your own kids to a top public school. No, this was hypocrisy on an audacious scale.

When those Guardian journalists thought about the Panama stories, they must have experienced the thrill felt by the televangelist Jimmy Swaggart as he railed against adultery from his pulpit having just slept with a New Orleans prostitute.


Even more deliciously, the charge they level at the Prime Minister — financially benefiting from a tax arrangement he had nothing to do with — is one they were all guilty of themselves. After all, the Guardian would have long gone out of business without the financial fleet-footedness of GMG’s directors. And on top of that, the icing on the cake, they were holding a leading politician responsible for the alleged sins of his father, something many of them condemned in a fit of high dudgeon when the Daily Mail ran its story about Ralph Miliband in 2013. What larks! This was the hypocritical equivalent of a triple word score. In for a penny, in for a pound, and no tax payable on the winnings thanks to GMG’s fiendishly clever offshore tax arrangements.

On reflection, I’m amazed the Guardian hacks don’t give themselves a round of applause every morning.

Well, well, well.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Scott Trust paid no tax on the sale of Autotrader, because it didn't have any tax to pay. f**k all to do with the shit throwing speculation in the Spectator. The trust was legally exempt from any tax liability, due to the Substantial Shareholder Exemption.

[drfchound]

Also,

Tax Justice campaigners had a small demonstration outside the Guardian’s offices today to protest at the hypocrisy of the Guardian campaigning for FTSE 100 companies to pay more corporation tax when, despite GMG making £300 million in profits last year, it paid none itself. GMG took advantage of a perfectly legal loophole to avoid paying taxes on the capital gains made on the sale of Auto Trader. Without exploiting the law they would have had to pay more than £50 million in tax!


The campaigners also highlighted that as well as being adept tax avoiders nowadays, the Guardian’s heritage is one of tax evasion. The Trust that owns the paper, the C P Scott Trust, was set up for the sole purpose of avoiding death duties following the 1932 death of C P Scott. By depriving the revenue of its due, the Scott family succeeded in avoiding the heavy taxes which would have otherwise meant them selling their interest in the paper. Neat dodge, eh? What did the Guardian say about Osborne’s plan to raise inheritance tax thresholds?

It is ridiculous hypocrisy for the GMG fatcats to lecture the CEO’s of British industry on paying more corporation tax when they don’t pay a penny themselves. At the very least they should voluntarily pay the £600,000 that would have been payable as a result of the Auto Trader transaction on the transfer of GMG Hazel Acquisition 1 Limited (a Caymans incorporated Special Purpose Vehicle) if it had been incorporated in the UK rather than the Caymans. If they won’t pay the £600,000 to the Revenue, why do they expect other corporations to behave differently? Hypocrites.

[scawsby steve]

Also,

Tax Justice campaigners had a small demonstration outside the Guardian’s offices today to protest at the hypocrisy of the Guardian campaigning for FTSE 100 companies to pay more corporation tax when, despite GMG making £300 million in profits last year, it paid none itself. GMG took advantage of a perfectly legal loophole to avoid paying taxes on the capital gains made on the sale of Auto Trader. Without exploiting the law they would have had to pay more than £50 million in tax!


The campaigners also highlighted that as well as being adept tax avoiders nowadays, the Guardian’s heritage is one of tax evasion. The Trust that owns the paper, the C P Scott Trust, was set up for the sole purpose of avoiding death duties following the 1932 death of C P Scott. By depriving the revenue of its due, the Scott family succeeded in avoiding the heavy taxes which would have otherwise meant them selling their interest in the paper. Neat dodge, eh? What did the Guardian say about Osborne’s plan to raise inheritance tax thresholds?

It is ridiculous hypocrisy for the GMG fatcats to lecture the CEO’s of British industry on paying more corporation tax when they don’t pay a penny themselves. At the very least they should voluntarily pay the £600,000 that would have been payable as a result of the Auto Trader transaction on the transfer of GMG Hazel Acquisition 1 Limited (a Caymans incorporated Special Purpose Vehicle) if it had been incorporated in the UK rather than the Caymans. If they won’t pay the £600,000 to the Revenue, why do they expect other corporations to behave differently? Hypocrites.

Well, well, well.

[drfchound]

Yes SS, I suppose it would depend on your politics as to whether there was an element of tax avoidance.
 #Bleeding outraged.

[tyke1962]

Yes SS, I suppose it would depend on your politics as to whether there was an element of tax avoidance.
 #Bleeding outraged.

You'd imagine that if these allegations which were put in to the public domain by The Spectator were false and lies then The Guardian Group would have had a very good case of libel .

I don't think they defended the allegations made against them by The Spectator and I'd have expected a publication such as The Guardian to have done that if that was the case .

The fact they didn't is the judge and jury in my opinion .

[SydneyRover]

You'd expect people to know that the Panama papers were released in a large part by the Guardian.

Can someone please post details of the investigation by the UK tax office into tax avoidance by the Guardian as it would help clear up the matter.

That is what the tax office do isn't it, collect revenue and investigate matters of non-payment.

[tyke1962]

You'd expect people to know that the Panama papers were released in a large part by the Guardian.

Can someone please post details of the investigation by the UK tax office into tax avoidance by the Guardian as it would help clear up the matter.

That is what the tax office do isn't it, collect revenue and investigate matters of non-payment.

Unfortunately you are looking at it totally the wrong way Sydney .

Most of the findings in the Panama Papers and reported by The Guardian were perfectly legal .

It was always a morality issue .

Name and shame if you will .

Except the bit about their own tax decisions .

If your going to throw stones it's normally wise not to live in a Glass House but there you are .

[SydneyRover]

Have you replied to the bst post about there being nothing to pay? or maybe put some trousers on.

All this because you were dead wrong about who owns the Guardian, maybe you shouldn't post when you're tired and emotional.

[drfchound]

Tyke, he still doesn’t get it does he.

[tyke1962]

Have you replied to the bst post about there being nothing to pay? or maybe put some trousers on.

All this because you were dead wrong about who owns the Guardian, maybe you shouldn't post when you're tired and emotional.

Apologies for not being a tribal Labour supporter and adopting The Guardian as my bible Sydney .

[SydneyRover]

This is tyke, to true form, can't have a debate without resorting to cheap insults. It's no wonder people misunderstand brexiters and think they are red faced xenophobes, as soon as their argument runs dry they resort to the trusty old 'where do you live?'

[drfchound]

Where, just where, did he mention where you live.

[SydneyRover]

''Richard Murphy (born 21 March 1958) is a British chartered accountant and political economist who campaigns on issues of tax avoidance and tax evasion.[1] He advises the Trades Union Congress on economics and taxation, and is a long-standing member of the Tax Justice Network. He is a Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University London''

''"Now let's be clear: what this shows is that on trading, the effective rate of tax was 46%. If goodwill were added back to profit the rate would be about 21%, a rate that is low largely because much of the profit came from the disposal of assets. If that were adjusted for then [year ended 30 March 2008], the rate would be above the statutory rate. There is nothing abnormal to comment on as a result.

The low charge is on the exceptional part sale of the Auto Trader group. No complicated planning was needed to produce a low tax-charge: the government allows for tax to be deferred in this case if funds are reinvested.

The Guardian did reinvest the funds. That's not artificial, offshore, or complex. Indeed, it is tax compliant: the company is doing what the government wants, and for which it provides a relief. So let's stop the nonsense about low tax rates now: it's just wrong."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Murphy_(tax_campaigner)

https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/blogpost

The Guardian is a non-profit entity, operating for the sole purpose of free media, not financed by billionaires nor big business.

[tyke1962]

''Richard Murphy (born 21 March 1958) is a British chartered accountant and political economist who campaigns on issues of tax avoidance and tax evasion.[1] He advises the Trades Union Congress on economics and taxation, and is a long-standing member of the Tax Justice Network. He is a Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University London''

''"Now let's be clear: what this shows is that on trading, the effective rate of tax was 46%. If goodwill were added back to profit the rate would be about 21%, a rate that is low largely because much of the profit came from the disposal of assets. If that were adjusted for then [year ended 30 March 2008], the rate would be above the statutory rate. There is nothing abnormal to comment on as a result.

The low charge is on the exceptional part sale of the Auto Trader group. No complicated planning was needed to produce a low tax-charge: the government allows for tax to be deferred in this case if funds are reinvested.

The Guardian did reinvest the funds. That's not artificial, offshore, or complex. Indeed, it is tax compliant: the company is doing what the government wants, and for which it provides a relief. So let's stop the nonsense about low tax rates now: it's just wrong."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Murphy_(tax_campaigner)

https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/blogpost

The Guardian is a non-profit entity, operating for the sole purpose of free media, not financed by billionaires nor big business.

For goodness sake please don't tell me it's independent of Political bias because clearly it isn't .

[SydneyRover]

All this could have been nipped in the bud hours ago tyke if you'd had said something along the lines of yep sorry I got that wrong and even though I've lived in the UK all my 60 plus years and I'm a full on activist fighting for the rights of the downtrodden but I didn't even know that the Guardian that came into being following a massacre of people championing their rights and put into trust management by a very generous family that wanted nothing more than a free press.

Here, try these on, there a bit baggy but better than nothing.

[drfchound]

Deflection attempt. 

[SydneyRover]

Moderators, any chance we can have a lower age limit of three for the forum please?

[tyke1962]

All this could have been nipped in the bud hours ago tyke if you'd had said something along the lines of yep sorry I got that wrong and even though I've lived in the UK all my 60 plus years and I'm a full on activist fighting for the rights of the downtrodden but I didn't even know that the Guardian that came into being following a massacre of people championing their rights and put into trust management by a very generous family that wanted nothing more than a free press.

Here, try these on, there a bit baggy but better than nothing.

Where you follow I challenge Sydney its nothing more than that .

Its a shame you get so worked up about it .

I'm not right all of the time and neither are you .

A month ago I wouldn't have a bet a round coin that the Tories could be buried for some considerable time if not forever .

I'd suggest you look at the opportunity that they've handed to the opposition more or less on a plate .

If you pass this up by not doing the very thing you ask me  to do and hold my nose then what can I say .

The game is ripe for burying the Tories for ever and making them the third party .

But you need the Dems and I suspect you aren't willing to see that .

[SydneyRover]

Tyke, thanks but I'm unlikely to be taking advice from someone that retired from doing nothing about politics over twenty years ago and now by default allows the very government that takes up so much forum time to be in power.

Thanks all the same.

I hope they are comfortable.

[tyke1962]

Moderators, any chance we can have a lower age limit of three for the forum please?

Now your sounding like some kind of authoritarian government Sydney .