Fascinating!
(I do find some irony in the fact that a majority of Guardian readers these days would abhor attempts by rich businessmen to dodge taxes.)
Charitable trusts, depending on the type, often/usually provide shielding from various types of taxes. That's not intended to be a cynical statement--the end result may well still be positive for society--but nonetheless it's one mechanism by which at least relatively affluent people can keep profits out of the hands of the government. It happens at much smaller scale than in this case as well.
As a Guardian reader, the idea of a wealthy person placing their money in a charitable trust - that actually does valuable work, rather than handing it to their children seems entirely reasonable
> ... a wealthy person placing their money in a charitable trust - that actually does valuable work, rather than handing it to their children
Isn’t it money that should have gone to the State here, rather than the children? They didn’t do the trust not to give money to their children, but rather to avoid taxes.
Some portion of Guardian readers might see the state as the main provider of benefits to society, but I very much doubt most would. Guardian is a (in the European sense) liberal paper, with a readership ranging from the centre and toward the left, with a large proportion along that entire range being totally fine with non-state organisations structured for the public benefit. You'll also find plenty who look on the state with suspicion to outright hostility and would actively prefer if more businesses had ownership structured this way, whether or not the handover of wealth that creates them "avoids taxes".