What’s going on at the Sunday Times?
The Sunday Times has run an amazing article on its front page today, titled: “Tories covered up donations from Zac Goldsmith” and then “Conservatives in cash cover-up”.
The paper has created a damaging headline, and then uses its lengthy article to explain why the headline is totally unjustified, and why the story is a non-story. The Times already knows very well that there has been no cover up, no attempt at a cover up, and no possible reason for a cover up.
The article says that donations were made to the Conservative Party by a company called Unicorn Administration on behalf of some of its clients. That’s true. It says that the cheques had the names of the people for whom the donations were being written clearly on the top. It even states that “There is no suggestion that any of the donors or Unicorn acted improperly.”
So the paper accepts that there was no attempt made by me or any other donor to ‘hide behind’ a company.
Where then is the story that justifies this screaming front-page headline? The only issue is that the Conservative Party failed to register the donations under the name of Unicorn’s clients. But given that all of the clients in question are known Conservative Party donors, what possible reason would the Party have for wanting to ‘cover-up’ their identity?
At worst, it can only have been a minor administrative error by the Conservative Party compliance department. Perhaps the Times and its friends in the Lib Dem Attack Unit can come up with a motive? I can’t.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Zac: No Cover Up & No Attempt at a Cover Up
Those on the left who are trying to equate the Zac Goldsmith donations with those of David Abraham and his acolytes would do well to read this statement from Zac, which he has given to ConservativeHome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Significantly, the Times gives its readers no opportunity to respond to this outrageous misuse of the English language - there is no "Your Comments" section.
This is usual when they know they're on very thin ice.
Cover up or no cover up its rather simple. Anything that puts Cash and a politician in the same sentence is going to sell newspapers and make them a little money?
As for the Tories, it is just too easy to dig and find a "Cash" question, most of them are so rich they don't know what a cardboard box is, never mind how to pick one one.
Strange thing for the Times to publish really, but hey, what you going to do bash Gordo? Again?
He still has the PLP meeting to looking forward to on Monday, I would love to be a fly on the wall for that.
Having read the Times article this morning this really is a non story.
Even in the article they state that donors names were on the cheques and that some of the payments were for auctions at fundraising events.
Cash for peerages it is not.
Look - this Goldsmith guy has committed the unpardonable sin of being rich.
Rich is only OK if you are Tony Blair or a Russian oligarch or an Arab Sheikh, a pop star, Simon Cowell, a footballer or an Indian magnate. Or perhaps American.
Other than that if you are rich you are bad person.
Generally acting like a prat does not mitigate the offence.
Post a Comment