Reporting some of the news; yes the BBC, who else?

The BBC report under the headline

"Lord Ashcroft admits 'non-dom' status" that: "Conservative donor and deputy party chairman Lord Ashcroft has admitted he is "non-domiciled" in the UK for tax.

He said he agreed with David Cameron that anyone sitting in the Lords must be "resident and domiciled" in the UK.

He said he expected "to be sitting in the House of Lords for many years to come", suggesting his status would change if the Tories win the election.

Mr Cameron said, in another statement, he was "pleased" that Lord Ashcroft had decided to clarify his position.

A "non-dom" is someone who is resident in the UK but not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes - although they will pay some UK tax they will not be fully taxed in the UK on their interests overseas. "

The BBC repeat the charge that:

"He, and senior Conservative Party spokesmen, have refused to say what his tax status was over recent years, saying it was a private matter."

Oddly (well not really) the BBC don't report Lord Ashcroft's comment that

"My precise tax status therefore is that of a “non-dom". Two of Labour's biggest donors - Lord Paul (recently made a privy councillor by the Prime Minister) and Sir Ronald Cohen, both long-term residents of the UK, are also "non-doms"."

The BBC are very keen to attack Lord Ashcroft's tax status but less keen to mention the tax status of Labour donors; can anyone think why this might be the case? Also I note that Lord Ashcroft has not mentionned another Labour donor of questionnable tax status - Lakshmi Mittal. That's three 'dodgy' Labour donors to one Conservative so far...