Sugar: He’s probably not feeling too sweet right now.
I appear to have handed Lord Sugar his arse, without really trying.
He was on Twitter this morning (September 25), complaining about rubbish on the streets of Hackney. Here’s what he said and what I jotted off in response:
You supported successive Conservative governments that have cut council grants by 60%, meaning they had to cut back on services or go bankrupt. No, they couldn't have done it more cheaply; if private firms got a contract with a low tender, they'd have gone bust with work not done
As you can see, a few people seem to have enjoyed my reply.
Of course, it does have the virtue of accuracy.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Rivers of Sh*t: partially-cleaned and harmful crap is going directly into our rivers. The former head of bankrupt corporation Carillion, now in charge of the Environment Agency, wants to go easy on the companies doing it. Why is that, do you think?
Read this, and we’ll have a word about it down below:
The Environment Agency should not be issuing penalties of £250 million to water companies who dump sewage, its chairman has said.
Speaking to Parliament’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Alan Lovell said penalties of £10-20 million would be more appropriate, and stressed there was a difference between an EA penalty and a court fine.
Last month, Environment Secretary Therese Coffey was criticised for reportedly backing down on plans to increase penalties to £250 million.
According to Feargal Sharkey (yes, that Feargal Sharkey): “Before becoming chairman of the EA Alan Lovell was a NED [Non-Executive Director] at Carillion, largest ever corporate bankruptcy in British history leaving £7 billion in debts.
Considering that, ask yourself: why would he say what he did about penalties for privatised water companies?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
“Blatantly Backing Conservatives”: the malady seems to have spread from BBC news and is now affecting all its departments. But can the Corporation bow to public demand and restore its tattered claim to impartiality?
Who would have thought that one little tweet would rock the world’s biggest public service broadcaster to its foundations?
That’s what Gary Lineker seems to have done with this message:
He was referring, of course, to the language used by Suella Braverman when she introduced her silly Illegal Migration Bill to Parliament last week – and he was right.
Subsequently, we learned that the measures in the Bill, and the language around it, would be more appropriately compared to the UK’s own treatment of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany in the 1930s – politicians of that time sent more than half a million back to Europe where an unknown number ended up being killed in extermination camps as part of the Holocaust.
Everybody should think very hard about that – and about the way politicians in both the Conservative Party and Labour condemned Mr Lineker and denied that the current Bill, or the way it was described, bore any resemblance to what happened in the 1930s.
The BBC reacted to Tory pressure the way it usually does – it caved in.
Mr Lineker was removed from his position as host of Match of the Day – and the Corporation lied about the circumstances. First we were told he was “stepping back” voluntarily until he could reach an agreement with the BBC over how he conducts himself on a social media account that is nothing to do with his employment and over which his employers should have no influence at all. Then we found out that he had been forced out.
And then the effluent hit the air conditioner.
Mr Lineker’s co-presenters on MOTD walked out in solidarity with him and everyone asked to be a possible stand-in host refused on principle.
Now, we are learning that sports coverage at the Beeb is suffering even more:
Presenters, pundits, commentators, players and another BBC football shows pulled….am sure no-one at BBC had any idea the decision to take Lineker off air would escalate as quickly or dramatically like this. And when crises do blow up like this, climb-downs become even harder…. https://t.co/BfyD9wHkwG
And the backlash has spread into other parts of the BBC.
Question Time, which actually discussed both the Illegal Migration Bill and Mr Lineker’s tweet about it, has come under fire after host Fiona Bruce played down the significance of Stanley Johnson beating his wife, in a discussion of his son Boris’s nomination of that man for a knighthood.
Here’s what she said (with apologies for the strong language used by the person tweeting it):
The charity Refuge, which supports women and children who are victims of domestic abuse – and for whom Ms Bruce is an ambassador, made its position abundantly clear:
“Domestic abuse is never a ‘one off’, it is a pattern of behaviour that can manifest in a number of ways, including physical abuse. Domestic abuse is never acceptable.”
In a parallel with the BBC’s treatment of Mr Lineker, the charity said it had also been in talks with Ms Bruce: “She is appalled that any of her words have been understood as her minimising domestic violence. We know she is deeply upset that this has been triggering for survivors.
“Like the host of any BBC programme, when serious on-air allegations are made about someone, Fiona is obliged to put forward a right of reply from that person or their representatives, and that was what happened last night. These are not in any way Fiona’s own views about the situation.
“Fiona is deeply sorry that last night’s programme has distressed survivors of domestic abuse. Refuge stands by her and all survivors today.”
Sadly, the BBC did not see fit to support the charity’s assertion that Ms Bruce was “appalled” and “deeply sorry” for “triggering” and having “distressed” survivors.
Instead, it merely defended what happened on the programme: “When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing last night. She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation.”
Not good enough.
A BBC decision not to broadcast an episode of Sir David Attenborough’s new series Wild Isles for fear that its its themes of the destruction of nature would risk a backlash from Tory politicians and the right wing press has provoked a huge backlash – not just from environmental groups but, again, from within the Corporation itself.
The sixth episode will appear only on BBC iPlayer. All six episodes were narrated by Attenborough, and made by the production company Silverback Films, which was responsible for previous series including Our Planet.
Chris Packham, presenter of Springwatch, told The Guardian: “At this time, in our fight to save the world’s biodiversity, it is irresponsible not to put that at the forefront of wildlife broadcasting.”
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said: “For the BBC to censor of one of the nation’s most informed and trusted voices on the nature and climate emergencies is nothing short of an unforgivable dereliction of its duty to public service broadcasting. This government has taken a wrecking ball to our environment – putting over 1,700 pieces of environmental legislation at risk, setting an air pollution target which is a decade too late, and neglecting the scandal of our sewage-filled waterways – which cannot go unexamined and unchallenged by the public.”
The Guardian added that “senior sources at the BBC [said] that the decision not to show the sixth episode was made to fend off potential critique from the political right.
Again, the BBC’s response was cowardly. The broadcaster claimed the six-part series was only ever intended to have five episodes: “Wild Isles is – and always was – a five part series and does not shy away from environmental content. We have acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB and WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles.”
If this sixth film is part of a package of such films – a series, if you will – all made by the same organisations and narrated by the same person, and all to be available together on iPlayer, then it seems clear that it is an episode of that series and the BBC is again being economical with the truth.
This behaviour – and the decision over Mr Lineker – drew the following comment from economist Richard Murphy;
So, this afternoon the BBC gives in to fascists over Gary Lineker’s support for asylum seekers and on David Attenborough’s desire to highlight the impact of climate change. Fascism isn’t a threat. It is happening here and now, with the BBC enabling it.
Finally (for now), the BBC has faced a backlash against its continued employment of Lord Sugar on The Apprentice, whose own political tweets – particularly attacking former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – have gone unquestioned by the Corporation.
Mr Corbyn found an unlikely defender – on a BBC news programme – in Alastair Campbell. And the former New Labour press secretary didn’t pull his punches when referring to any of the scandals mentioned above:
Finally some honesty about the disgusting treatment Jeremy Corbyn received from figures at the BBC. And it’s coming from…Alistair Campbell. pic.twitter.com/sBhNOMFrIL
I’m aware that Campbell himself is a controversial figure but he’s absolutely right here.
The BBC is in serious trouble over these politically-motivated decisions. Its claim of political impartiality lies in tatters.
The only way out is to apologise and reform.
But, as Beth Rigby stated above, when crises blow up like this, climbdowns become very hard to do.
What next?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Empty chairs: is this how Match of the Day will look tomorrow?
The BBC has dug a hole for itself after dropping Gary Lineker from its flagship football show, Match of the Day, over his tweet linking government rhetoric on Channel migrants with that of Germany in the 1930s.
Mr Lineker will not be presenting Match of the Day this week – but the reason is not clear. The BBC is saying he’s “stepping back” until an agreement is reached on how he should use the social media – but Sky News reckons he has been forced off the programme for refusing to apologise.
Now, fellow presenters are lining up to refuse to take part. So far, Alan Shearer and Ian Wright have said they will not appear, in “solidarity” with Mr Lineker.
Jermaine Jenas has said if he were asked, he would say no.
Is Saturday’s edition of the show going to be a shot of empty chairs around a desk, with some football clips interspersed intermittently?
Elsewhere in the BBC, Good Morning Britain host Richard Madeley made himself both a hero and a villain in the eyes of the public when he talked about the row surrounding Mr Lineker’s Twitter comments on the BBC’s Question Time.
First, he stood by Mr Lineker’s right to say anything he wants on his personal Twitter account – to applause from the audience.
Then he said what had actually been declared on Twitter was “preposterous” – and received a less enthusiastic reaction.
See for yourself:
What do you think? Should Gary Lineker have his right to free speech curtailed, simply because he presents a programme that is not remotely related to the subject he was discussing?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Accused and accuser: Prince Andrew (left) is said to have sexually abused the woman now known as Virginia Giuffre (right) while she was still a child – and is doing everything he can to avoid facing trial for it. This in itself casts suspicion on his claims of innocence. And it may be bringing the UK Monarchy into disrepute for protecting him.
Let’s start this article with the important question: is anybody tracking down the perverts who had sex with underage girls provided by Ghislaine Maxwell?
It’s all very well saying that the procurer has been convicted so the route via which these vile creatures gratify their disgusting desires has been cut off – but it only means they will find other ways.
Police – in America – are going through the now-infamous black book kept by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, but they are treating the associates listed within merely as possible witnesses, rather than as possible suspects (until and unless evidence is found to justify criminal proceedings).
That may come as a relief to people like Keir Starmer’s recently-appointed henchman Peter Mandelson, who has 10 entries in the book (suggesting that he wanted the paedophile pair to be able to get hold of him wherever he may have been), and newly-to-be-knighted Tony Blair, who has an entry in the book himself.
It may not be so much of a comfort to Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, who appears in the book 16 times and is accused of child sex offences.
And the repercussions may undermine the foundations of the UK Monarchy – an institution that has survived for almost a thousand years. That’s plenty of time to fall into filth and corruption – and to hide it by abusing the privileges that come with the highest position in the land.
It’s being reported that Andrew has just begun to show concern that his alleged crimes may bring down the Monarchy. It seems he had not previously spared a thought for the fact that being involved with people in a paedophile ring (whether he was a part of it or not) might bring that ancient institution into disrepute.
In This Writer’s opinion, the acts that have really put the future of the Monarchy in question are his attempts at evasion – his refusal to travel to America to face charges is not the behaviour we would expect of an innocent man; I understand he has claimed that his accuser should not be permitted to continue with her case because she now lives in Australia, not the USA (but that should have nothing to do with it; this is an international sex crime case and it seems logical to base the prosecution in the country where the offence was allegedly committed); and it seems he has also put forward a claim to have been in a UK branch of Pizza Express with one of his daughters at the time of the alleged offence – although nobody has come forward to corroborate the claim (and members of the public would certainly remember, even from 21 years ago, if a Royal walked into their local fast food joint).
His continued attempts to avoid justice are hugely harmful to the UK Monarchy because it makes the Queen complicit in the alleged crimes; Andrew is seen as having committed them (whether he really did or not is immaterial to this part of it) and then gone running behind his mother’s skirt tails for protection from the consequences.
Bear in mind that both Epstein and Maxwell, along with another sex offender – the US film producer Harvey Weinstein, were photographed at the 18th birthday celebrations of Andrew’s daughter, Princess Beatrice. It seems that Royalty and sex crime are well-entwined.
In his evasion attempts, Andrew is hugely aided by the UK’s mass media organisations – particularly the BBC. Maxwell was the daughter of a newspaper magnate (who was himself disgraced after he fell off his yacht and died, when it was found that he had been stealing from the Mirror Group’s pension fund). This means she is well-known to many of the journalists who have been writing about her – and their work has reflected their own sympathy for this child abuser.
The hypocrisy enough to send you reeling: the same people who took glee in claiming that former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn should take responsibility for his brother Piers advocating criminal damage of Covid-19 vaccine-supporting MPs’ offices have conspicuously failed to suggest that Boris Johnson should take similar responsibility for his sister Rachel’s article, It’s hard not to pity Ghislaine Maxwell.
This Writer has absolutely no pity for anybody who uses children to gratify their (or other people’s) perverse sexual desires.
The BBC’s editorial position has also been characterised as calling for us to bless this poor lost soul – with manipulative choices of verbiage. So when referring to the girls or children who were abused in Maxwell’s paedo ring, the BBC describes them as “underage women”.
That’s sickening.
And there is worse. Coverage refers to Maxwell by her first name, as though she’s our friend; her victims are described as “accusers”; after previous reports of similar crimes referred to “grooming gangs”, there is no such attempt to whip up outrage here (quite the opposite); and there are no calls to interrogate participants in the abuse (going back to the black book).
The BBC went too far when it booked people who are known to be sympathetic to Maxwell, to comment on the case in its news programmes.
The backlash, after Epstein’s former lawyer Alan Dershowitz – himself now accused of child sex crimes – appeared on BBC bulletins, giving a sympathetic view of Maxwell and insisting on both his own and Andrew’s innocence, was huge.
The corporation’s bosses had to issue a statement admitting that Dershowitz’s appearance had not met BBC editorial standards, and that the matter would be investigated to find out “how it happened”.
The statement led to what some have described as “the Twitter burn of the year” – from the Sunday Sport‘s Twitter feed: “That’s putting it mildly. It didn’t even meet OUR editorial standards.”
Of course we all know how it happened. Dershowitz was booked by a BBC booking agent who – knowing that he is himself a suspect – contacted him or his agent/manager and asked to interview him. They then falsely presented him as an independent legal expert. It was deliberate – and deliberately misleading.
And now the BBC has lost any right to claim that its news coverage is impartial in any way, as people across the UK are accurately accusing it of deliberately protecting the rich and privileged at the expense of the poor and vulnerable.
I say accurately because, having admitted its fault over Dershowitz, the BBC compounded the mistake by booking Maxwell’s brother Ian, who was interviewed about his sister the very next day.
Of course he made a big fuss about claiming she was innocent – on a news platform that is watched and believed by 70 per cent of the UK’s population. Think about that.
A former BBC political news editor, Rob Burley, has claimed that failures like the Dershowitz booking are results of budget cuts at the corporation – to which critics responded by pointing out that such errors exclusively benefit the UK’s rich and powerful elite. They quoted a current saying: “It’s not a bug; it’s a feature” of the BBC.
Even former BBC reporters like Adil Ray have railed against the corporation’s biased coverage. In a tweet, he stated: “When I filmed a doc on the sexual exploitation of young girls by some Pakistani men it would not have been acceptable to hear a defence from their brothers. Why is it ok now?”
The answer is obvious: families of abusers who travel on buses, instead of luxury cars or yachts, simply don’t get that platform. And the question isn’t why the former don’t – it’s why the latter do.
And let’s face it – the BBC doesn’t have a good record of identifying, accusing and denouncing child sex offenders. Look at the way Jimmy Savile was protected for decades. He was a close friend of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, of course.
Sadly, this deference to the rich and powerful isn’t limited to the BBC and Rachel Johnson – whose bias towards Maxwell is likely to be due to the fact that the child sex procurer was at Balliol College, Oxford, with her own brother: UK prime minister Boris Johnson.
See how the people in this group link up and protect each other?
Returning to Andrew, it’s one reason we should be grateful that proceedings against him are taking place in the United States; it is unlikely that the UK’s compromised legal system would ever have even accused him. It didn’t accuse Savile during his lifetime, after all.
And let’s remember that Metropolitan police commissioner Cressida Dick is another alumnus of Balliol College, Oxford, who may well have known Maxwell there at some point – either as a student or as a former student.
I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how accusations against this fellow Balliol alumnus may have been taken by a Dick police administration, because we have the evidence of the Christmas 2020 parties that allegedly involved fellow Balliol alumnus Boris Johnson to help us.
That’s right: if Ghislaine Maxwell had been accused in the UK, the police would probably have responded by saying they don’t investigate incidents from more than a year ago.
Below please find material from Twitter that may provide valuable further information:
Ghislaine Maxwell deserves to go to prison, but where the fuck are all the men who actually had sex with these girls???
Now that Ghislaine Maxwell has been found guilty of selling children for sexual abuse, don’t you think we should investigate whom she sold the children to?
I don’t want to hear another word about how tragic her life is, only want to hear about the devastation caused to victims
Julian Assange faces 175 years in a Supermax prison for exposing the crimes of the powerful, but Ghislaine Maxwell only faces "up to" 65 years in prison for running an international child-sex trafficking ring for the global elite?
Three sex offenders, including two paedophiles, attending the 18th birthday party of some Princess at Windsor Castle. We’ve really no idea how big this cess-pit is. https://t.co/oTI1HPNFy4
Interesting how people were screaming at Jeremy Corbyn for the actions of his brother Piers, are now silent on that fact that Boris Johnson’s sister literally wrote an article “It's Hard Not to Pity Ghislaine Maxwell"
For anyone in any doubt about whom the @BBC serve the #Maxwell case exposes its role in defending the establishment. It’s not independent it’s not neutral it’s a tool of the powerful to influence how we think.
The framing of this case & the language used @BBC is a reminder of how the narrative is being controlled. First names of the guilty; accusers not victims; no "grooming gang" outrage; no drive to interrogate those who participated; sympathetic spokespeople. https://t.co/vpc9vXsjde
If only the TV and radio stations showing compassion to convicted child trafficker #Maxwell would direct that care and understanding to the survivors we would live in a better world.
As well as being one of the accused, this is the guy @BBCNews went to for first reaction to Ghislane Maxwell’s guilty verdict. pic.twitter.com/trpa7RP4KJ
Not satisfied with giving Alan Derschowitz a platform to attack Desmond Tutu as an "anti-Semite" and a "bigot" the BBC two days later give him a platform to defend Ghislaine Maxwell… POST CONVICTION!!!! Horrendous from the beeb
Even longstanding critics of the BBC were shocked by its decision to interview Alan Dershowitz following the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict. What does this tell us about the state of the organisation? (Thread) pic.twitter.com/gvfBWikhsY
Ian Maxwell is on r4Today defending convicted sex trafficker #ghislanemaxwell just now. Can you imagine the #bbc giving the family of a convicted Pakistani grooming gang leader a similar platform to defend a relative?!
Why is @BBC giving airtime to the Maxwell family on their main news bulletin? Ghislaine was found guilty of sex trafficking. The Maxwell family cannot accept the verdict. Families of abusers who travel on buses, not luxury cars or yachts, do not get this platform.
Why is the BBC now running an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother, pleading her innocence, on its main bulletin on R4? Would they do that for any other child sex offender found guilty in a court of law?
So yesterday the BBC was forced to issue an apology for inviting Alan Dershowitz to “analyse” Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction as he clearly wasn’t an independent voice.
Yet today they’ve literally handed a primetime platform to *her own brother* to back her up!
BBC & others running interview by brother of convicted #ghislanemaxwell, claiming her innocence. In 2011, when I filmed a doc on the sexual exploitation of young girls by some Pakistani men it would not have been acceptable to hear a defence from their brothers. Why is it ok now?
Does anyone remember the relatives of the Rochdale child abusers being given prime BBC slots after a guilty verdict to protest their innocence and undermine the testimonies of the victims? https://t.co/WiRqDLxbJD
Confess I'm genuinely surprised by the ongoing tone of the BBC's coverage of Maxwell's conviction. Mostly because it's hard to see who benefits. My best reading, it's not conspiratorial, it's a reflection of the deeply embedded deference to power & wealth across the organisation.
Interesting how quiet royal correspondents are. Or could it be, they are waiting for instructions from their publication owners, who in turn are waiting for the Palace to instruct their next move?
Of course the BBC News framing of Ghislaine Maxwell is appalling, they've been doing it for decades to protect the establishment, they lied about Scottish Independence, they lied about Jeremy Corbyn, etc Analyse any BBC News story and it's twisted to protect the powers that be.
Memo to @BBCNews : You can be rich, expensively educated and a criminal. It seems that you find that hard to believe, but trust me, just open your eyes and you will find the evidence all around you. And some are even convicted, however unlikely you think that to be.
It is surely now time for all those politicians and other public figures that have visited one of Epstein’s or Maxwells homes to be investigated for possible involvement in child sexual abuse. Can we now start to put together a list of U.K. residents known to be associated.
I fear that were Maxwell truly looking for a deal by giving evidence against Epstein's rich and powerful friends, she would suddenly discover she too had committed suicide.https://t.co/7zqyMTm326
The conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell is welcomed. I will state I believe after 3 years work on this case, I believe she was the chief and the former taxi driver Epstein the functionary. I now call on the Met Police to reopen their 1994 investigation into her activities in London.
I don't say this lightly, but I have grave doubts about whether the UK law enforcement and justice systems would have brought down two powerful figures like Epstein and Maxwell.
— Dorset Eye (Independent Citizen Community Media) (@dorset_eye) December 31, 2021
It’s amazing and shocking to think that after the disastrous impact of the Jimmy Saville cover up on the BBC, they’re still going with the “let’s be soft on famous paedos” strategy. pic.twitter.com/VltDlePCMP
We need to know who is paying Prince Andrew’s legal fees
I suspect it is the British people
It is hard to think of a more despicable use of our money than to help a very rich man in his attempt to escape justice from credible allegations of child rape
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Betrayed again: it seems early inquiries into the Hillsborough tragedy were organised in order to deflect criticism of the police while having no legal weight at all.
It seems to me that somebody has been dancing around the law in a very clever way.
Three people accused of perverting the course of justice, with regard to the Hillsborough disaster that killed 96, have been acquitted.
The reason? The statements they prepared – which have been called into question – were provided to a public inquiry chaired by Lord Taylor in 1990 – but it was not a statutory inquiry, therefore not “a court of law”, so there was no “course of public justice” which could be perverted.
In that case, what was the point of having such an inquiry?
Nothing it found can be considered safe.
We have no information on whether the statements by retired Ch Supt Donald Denton, retired Det Ch Insp Alan Foster and former solicitor Peter Metcalf were slanted to minimise blame on South Yorkshire Police.
Without knowing that, we cannot know whether the conclusion of the inquiry – the inquiry, mark you – was accurate or not.
The question therefore arises: why was this not a statutory inquiry? Was a political decision made to run it as it was, in order to avoid possible legal repercussions in the future – like the accusation of perverting justice now?
Some might be hoping that this judgement will close the book on Hillsborough – but it has only given us more reason to demand justice for the 96.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Patel: if Alan Duncan’s claims are true, it’s no wonder she had that filthy smirk all over her face when she was told to resign from Theresa May’s cabinet.
“Compromised,” “deceitful,” “morally corrupt,” “contemptible” and “quite despicable” are the ways Priti Patel has been characterised – by her Tory colleague Alan Duncan in his new book.
Duncan takes Patel to task in the pages of In The Thick Of It, over her relationship with Israel – and her attempts to hide her ties to that country.
The former Foreign Office minister has suffered a radically different relationship with representatives of that country, as This Site (and TV news channel Al Jazeera) has recorded in the past.
He was targeted for removal from his post in a conspiracy run by former Israel Embassy official Shai Masot that was filmed by the Middle East news channel and broadcast in a series called The Lobby. Masot was later ordered to return to Israel in disgrace.
Indeed, it seems the Conservative Friends of Israel had tried to block his appointment to the Foreign Office post. How much influence did the Israeli government have in that?
Patel was subsequently involved in a scandal when she visited Israel under the pretence of taking a holiday there, when in fact she was trying to carry out her own foreign policy, independent of that of the government (run by Theresa May at the time).
She did not declare the meetings she held there in advance, so the discussions were not recorded, meaning we do not know whether she made any promises to a foreign government or what such promises could be.
Questioned, Patel tried to claim she had informed the Foreign Office about the meetings – by telling the then-Foreign Secretary. That would be Boris Johnson.
And she said there were only “a couple” of meetings.
Duncan wrote: “It is now clear that she lied. She had not told Boris, and in fact had a whole series of meetings.” They included one with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.
He also wrote that she “spent a week there … without telling the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] or even her own department.”
As part of the meetings in Israel, Patel discussed handing UK aid money to the Israeli army to support operations in the Golan Heights – a part of Syria that has been occupied by Israel since 1967.
Or, as Duncan wrote, she “engaged offline with a foreign government over issues of policy. It is contemptible. She is quite despicable.”
When the scandal broke, Duncan wrote, Patel was “such a brassy monster” that she threatened to publicly challenge the prime minister’s version of events if she was not allowed to resign, rather than be sacked.
“It reeks; it stinks; it festers; it molders – all rotten to the core,” he wrote, calling it “exceptional pro-Israel infiltration into the very center of our public life” and “wickedness.”
And the woman of whom he wrote all of this is currently Home Secretary. Who knows what discussions she’s having now – and with whom?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Sugar: He’s not feeling too sweet right now (I went with the cartoonised image because he’s acting like a cartoon character, of course).
What do you say to a guy who received a peerage thanks to a Labour prime minister, and then vowed to leave the country if another Labour leader gets to become PM?
Lord Sugar found out over the last few days – and wasn’t very happy about it.
This Writer’s first instinct, on watching the clip, was that Sugar had bought into all the nonsense about Mr Corbyn, the Labour Party under him, and anti-Semitism (for the record, anti-Semitism in Labour was low when Mr Corbyn became leader and has diminished since; it is far more prevalent in right-wing parties like the Conservatives). But it seems I need not have worried as his words imply he was suggesting the economy would fall off a cliff.
And that’s odd – hasn’t he noticed what’s happening anyway, due to eight years of Tory failure – and Theresa May’s Brexit?
Lord Sugar spotted the Red Labour tweet and responded – and this is where the story really starts:
Sour grapes you bunch of jealous anti enterprise anarchist losers. You have not achieved anything in life but like to criticize those who have. I paid a personal tax bill last year of over £50m enough to build a hospital. You find the taxes in future I'm off #corbynouthttps://t.co/yHBeXat0BI
As for his tax bill – yes, very large, but does he not understand that many, many other citizens of the UK have been held back from reaching the higher pay grades that would make a higher tax bill possible, because of the repressive political philosophy championed by the Conservatives, which is about making the poor poorer and keeping all the privilege for those who already have it?
Is it any wonder the Twittersphere yelled at him? Check out these responses:
Alan Sugar enjoys labelling people who aren't rich as "losers" & "failures" however its those "losers" (whether cleaners, bus drivers, nurses etc…) who keep the country running and lets face it, they're far more valuable to society than Corporate-Oligarchs like Sugar
Bye. It's not sour grapes, btw. I've achieved a lot that I'm proud of in my life. A lot of which you can't count out in pounds. Who are you to judge other people's lives? You can't even practice basic courtesy, manners and a little good will.
Don't you dare claim that teachers and nurses and road builders and factory workers and farm labourers haven't achieved anything in life just because they haven't made skip loads of money. You wouldn't have made jack shit if it weren't for them, you selfish, shallow charlatan. https://t.co/slE1vfjYJC
If anyone complains about the spelling in the next one, you need to get a sense of perspective:
I am not a looser I am a woman who worked as a carer and spent many hours holding peoples hands as the passed away. I am a woman who became very ill and disabled and find myself in a horrific situation and my country doesn’t care. We need a country that cares and protects 😞
Well I had a personal tax bill of £4.5k. I'm staying and I'll pay my share because the UK is my home no matter who is in Government.
— Sue Barnish Save Lives – Wear a mask 😷 (@SueBarnish) December 14, 2018
Work out the 50M as a proportion of your income, then do the same for the tax/income of your lowest paid employees and the penny might start to drop. Also, your money ain't built any hospitals, has it? So enough with that patter. In summary, ta ta.
"Money doth not maketh the man"……no jealousy here, just a grafter, not an anarchist either and most Def NOT a loser, and have achieved a lot in life, happiness fulfillment marriage children freinds love and a cycling proficiency badge (1977). Have you not left yet? #yourfired
All good points, I’m sure you’ll agree. And only a few (there are many, many more such tweets) descend to Lord Sugar’s level.
The chances are he won’t leave, of course.
The guys who make such threats are always determined that we’ll do worse without them – and they’d never follow through on those threats in case we don’t.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Lord Sugar is a microcosm of what’s wrong with Tory Britain – a wealthy businessman who thinks he can say anything he wants without censure.
Only a few days ago, he deleted a disgusting tweet showing a photoshopped image of Jeremy Corbyn with Adolf Hitler – an appalling lapse of taste at a time when Mr Corbyn was facing false accusations of anti-Semitism.
Now Lord Sugar has compounded his crime by tweeting a perverse poem, again attacking Mr Corbyn.
Here’s the tweet. I’ve taken a screenshot rather than linking to the tweet itself, in case he deletes it:
Reactions have – of course – been overwhelmingly negative:
I don't remember anyone voting for you, Alan, let alone twice, and landslides at that, despite all attempts to stop his voters from being able to do just that. Do you ever stop to actually hear yourself? Any relation of yours by any chance? pic.twitter.com/UzZDxy8UkR
— TracieWaylingArtASMR (@traciewayling) April 5, 2018
Here’s one extremely serious point which Lord Sugar should have considered before he released his ill-judged verses:
I am so fucking sick of the sexist abuse levelled at Diane Abbott – an unconscious bias that is so strong it slips in without even a second thought https://t.co/jKQ60Sdxmf
Round the general election there were porn gifs with her and JC's superimposed face on being passed round people who should know a lot better. It's schoolboy.
It’s true that Lord Sugar’s tweet is yet another example of abuse against Diane Abbott – and of sexism against women in general.
This is not behaviour befitting a Lord of the Realm.
But it seems he is determined to continue these inappropriate rants.
Clearly he thinks he is above retribution. Somebody should prove him wrong. It seems clear his ennoblement was premature. Time he was stripped of it.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
