There is no doubt that indulging with prostitutes and avoiding your taxes is considerably less heinous than the alleged antics of Sir Jimmy on last week’s front page. However, whatever Savile may or may not have done in this personal life, there is no connection between that and the money he gave to our University. Not so with Lord Laidlaw. He chooses to give money to charities, political parties and us. He chooses not to give money to exchequer and goes to great lengths to minimise his UK tax.

Isn’t it true to say then that accepting his ‘charitable donation’ is a good as condoning his actions? The posturing of philanthropy is one of the key reasons tax avoidance is so often overlooked. Laidlaw gets to hand pick his causes – why should he have this luxury, when the rest of tax-paying Britain has no say in the way the money they contribute is spent? Were he to pay his taxes, that money would get distributed in the way those elected see fit – to the NHS, to Higher Education, to primary schools. Instead, Laidlaw decides which organisations ‘deserve’ his kind donations, and is publically praised in the process. Our own VC is “tremendously grateful” to Laidlaw for his kindness.

With £50 million, how many students could have gone to University this year paying £3k rather than 9? With £50 million, how many students could have gone for free?

Of course he needn’t give anybody any money. And his donations, both in Leeds and elsewhere, undoubtedly help people – those individuals who benefit are not tainted by the money they receive, but rather enriched. However, the student body must ask, if Savile and Laidlaw are acceptable donors, where is the line drawn?

Whatever your opinion on dubious donors, Leeds Student believes it’s important to shine a light on where the University gets its money from. Join the debate on leedsstudent.org and take part in our poll.