Influence: Richard Sharp (left) and Boris Johnson.
Here’s an aspect to Richard Sharp’s resignation as BBC Chairman that needs to be more thoroughly examined: his relationship with Boris Johnson and what that former prime minister wanted from the media.
This aspect was explored by James O’Brien on LBC:
The assumption is that Boris Johnson wasn’t happy that the right-wing of politics controls 90 per cent of the media and wanted to put his people in charge of organisations including Ofcom and the BBC, to ensure even more right-wing media dominance.
It suggests that Johnson failed with Ofcom but succeeded with the BBC.
Now take a look at the way the BBC’s Ros Atkins examines the Sharp case:
Again, Johnson is mentioned – but his intention in appointing Sharp is glossed-over. The report comes across as fence-sitting.
Is this an aspect of Sharp’s Tory influence?
If that is even possible, is it right that Sharp remains in post until June, while a new BBC chairperson is interviewed, vetted and appointed?
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!
We all knew this was going to happen; it was just a matter of time.
Richard Sharp has resigned as BBC Chairman after an investigation found he did not mention “potential perceived” conflicts of interest before his appointment to the role.
These include telling then-prime minister Boris Johnson that he wanted to apply for the role before doing so, and arranging a meeting between Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and Simon Blyth, a distant cousin of Johnson’s who wanted to provide financial support to the then-prime minister (the sum of £800,000 has been mentioned in the past). It seems that meeting did not take place.
The investigation did not pass judgement on whether Sharp had any intention to influence the former PM. This would be impossible to gauge unless Sharp actually admitted it.
The report by barrister Adam Heppinstall found “there is a risk of a perception that Mr Sharp was recommended for appointment” because he sought to assist the PM in a private financial matter “and/or that he influenced the former prime minister to recommend him by informing him of his application before he submitted it”.
It is likely that the conclusion is phrased in this way because it is impossible to say for certain whether either act influenced Johnson without Johnson admitting it, and that was never likely to happen.
The report notes that Sharp did not accept the first finding but has apologised for the second. He has called the breach of public appointment rules “inadvertent and not material”.
The problem is, he did not mention either matter to the appointments panel during the scrutiny process that took place before he took up the role as BBC Chairman, so its members did not have an opportunity to consider for themselves whether these matters were inadvertent and immaterial.
And he should have mentioned them, because it is specifically demanded in the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code: “If you have any interests that might be relevant to the work of the BBC, and which could lead to a real or perceived conflict of interest if you were to be appointed, please provide details in your application.”
Instead, the potential conflicts of interest were revealed by The Sunday Times in January, triggering a wave of speculation and condemnation.
No other applicant was able to indicate an interest in the job to Boris Johnson in advance, remember. And it seems a pre-briefing in October 2020 sought to influence other potential candidates not to apply for the role because Johnson had Sharp in mind for it.
Sharp’s claim that he knew nothing of Boris Johnson’s financial affairs when arranging the meeting between Mr Case and Mr Blyth rings false; how would he have known Johnson might want a loan otherwise?
And it seems unrealistic that a man with years of experience in the business world would not realise there would be a perceived conflict of interest because of his having been involved in facilitating a possible loan to the then-prime minister.
Sharp was questioned strongly about the matter by the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee – one of whose members, SNP MP John Nicolson, said afterwards: “It leaves the impression so much of this is deeply ‘Establishment’; it’s pals appointing pals, donating money to pals.
“It rather leaves the impression that it is all a bit… ‘banana republic’ and cosy.”
The committee’s conclusion was that Sharp’s conduct showed serious errors of judgement.
In that case, it is right that he should go. He might commit similar errors as BBC boss.
The question is: what happens next?
The Sharp affair has raised serious questions about cronyism in public appointments.
Until the public can be reassured that no such ‘Establishment’ or ‘banana republic’ behaviour is taking place, it seems unlikely that we will ever trust the terms on which any other such public appointment takes place.
Who’s going to be the next BBC chair – Owen Paterson?
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!
Corruption? Richard Sharp (left) and Boris Johnson.
A Parliamentary committee has reached a damning conclusion about BBC Chairman Richard Sharp, who helped facilitate a very large loan to Boris Johnson while he was applying to Johnson for his current job.
The Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee said Mr Sharp committed serious errors of judgement in his conduct. It clearly seems to have created a serious conflict of interest, if not outright corruption – arranging financial help for the person to whom he was applying for a job.
On the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, the Minister for Development and Africa, Andrew Mitchell, said Mr Sharp’s future as chairman was a matter for the BBC.
This is not true.
His was a government appointment – he was given the job by then-prime minister Boris Johnson (that’s why there was a conflict of interest) and only the government can remove him from office (although he may still resign of his own accord).
Watch Mitchell dump himself in the mire and try to talk himself out of it – and then enjoy the reactions of panellists on the show, including John Nicholson, the SNP MP who grilled Mr Sharp hotly at the DCMS committee session.
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!
Corruption? Richard Sharp (left) and Boris Johnson.
I can’t say I do.
Richard Sharp appeared before the Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee to explain his involvement in the arrangement of an alleged £800,000 loan for then-prime minister Boris Johnson, right before Johnson appointed him Chairman of the BBC.
According to the BBC News report,
BBC chairman Richard Sharp has denied that he helped arrange a loan for Boris Johnson when he was prime minister.
But the same report states that
Mr Sharp confirmed he had introduced his friend Sam Blyth to Cabinet Secretary Simon Case in late 2020, which was shortly before his appointment at the BBC.
Mr Sharp has previously said Mr Blyth had told him he wanted to provide financial assistance to Mr Johnson after reading about the then-PM’s money troubles in the media.
On Tuesday, Mr Sharp agreed with acting committee chairman Damian Green that he had “acted as a sort of introduction agency” between Mr Blyth and Mr Case.
It’s all a bit murky as to why this was necessary. Sam Blyth is said to be Boris Johnson’s cousin and well-known to him; the claim seems to be that Mr Sharp stepped in to provide a buffer between the two family members in order to bring Mr Blyth to the attention of civil servants.
Mr Sharp also said
“I did not provide and have not provided the former prime minister personal financial advice. I know nothing about his [financial] affairs, I never have done. I didn’t facilitate a loan.”
Really?
1mins in and Richard Sharp, Chairperson of the BBC, has already lied 🤥🤥🤥
Sharp said “I have never given/been asked any financial advice to #BloJo”…BUT internal memos w/in No10 show that advisors said to BJ “to stop asking Sharp for personal financial advice all the time!”😡 https://t.co/fDDQXGv9Bt
If he knew nothing about Johnson’s financial affairs, how did he know Johnson needed a loan?
Boris Johnson was "ding dang sure" that BBC chair Richard Sharp knows nothing about his personal finances.
Here's Richard Sharp admitting he's known since September 2020 about Sam Blyth's intention to help Boris Johnson financially. pic.twitter.com/1ZjjjExrO8
"I did not arrange a loan" for Boris Johnson, says BBC Chairman Richard Sharp, who helped to arrange a loan for Boris Johnson. pic.twitter.com/LscCMHAj3l
Richard Sharp knew Boris Johnson had financial issues-so of course he knew about the PM's financial affairs-hence the introduction-why did we have a Prime Minister who needed to secure credit via a loan of £800,000 pounds-whether or not he used it something stinks here.
Richard Sharp (BBC Chair) introduced Sam Blyth (Boris Johnson's cousin) to Simon Case (senior civil servant) after Sam Blyth offered financial support to the Prime Minister-sounds like a broker to me?
And then there is the fact that this happened while Mr Sharp was applying for the job of BBC Chairman. This has also attracted round criticism:
How can a man with years of experience in the business world like Richard Sharp not realise that there would be a perceived conflict of interest when he applied to be chair of the BBC having been involved in facilitating that huge loan to Johnson. It simply isn‘t credible.
His evidence suggested that he did realise there would be a perceived conflict of interest; that’s why he said he told both Simon Case and Mr Blyth that he had to step back, after introducing them. But still…
Richard Sharp reveals he went to see Boris Johnson in No10 to discuss the BBC chairmanship before applying.
An opportunity not afforded to others during “open and fair” contest — and another detail not disclosed alongside involvement in talks about Johnson’s finances.
John Nicolson, the SNP MP who hotly grilled Mr Sharp at the committee meeting, had this to say:
After an hour Richard Sharp still doesn’t seem to understand why it was wrong for him to withhold the crucial information that he facilitated a huge loan for Boris Johnson – the man appointing him as BBC Chair. He just doesn’t seem to get it. And yet it’s so basic. @CommonsDCMS
“It leaves the impression so much of this is deeply ‘Establishment’; it’s pals appointing pals, donating money to pals.
“It rather leaves the impression that it is all a bit… ‘banana republic’ and cosy.”
Yes it does.
Here’s a video clip of the full confrontation between Mr Nicolson and Mr Sharp:
BBC staff are said to be furious about the shame Mr Sharp has brought down on the organisation.
So here’s the question:
Should he remain as BBC Chair or should he quit?
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!
This is probably the least interesting political story of the weekend because we all knew it was coming.
Even though Rishi Sunak is a weak prime minister – he has to maintain support from all the different factions of the Conservative Party and that means he has to appease them – Nadhim Zahawi had put himself in an untenable position.
That’s what the ethics advisor, Sir Laurie Magnus, found anyway:
The PM said Sir Laurie Magnus’s inquiry made clear there had been a “serious breach of the ministerial code”.
Rishi Sunak asked for the probe after Mr Zahawi admitted paying a settlement to HMRC, including a penalty.
Sir Laurie said the MP had missed many chances to be open about his tax.
In his report for Mr Sunak, he wrote: “Mr Zahawi’s conduct as a minister has fallen below the high standards that, as prime minister, you rightly expect from those who serve in your government.”
Sir Laurie cited Mr Zahawi’s failures to update his register of interests until more than a year after HMRC started looking into his taxes.
When Mr Zahawi reached a settlement with the taxman in August 2022, this too should have been declared, Sir Laurie wrote.
After receiving the findings, Mr Sunak wrote to Mr Zahawi to say he had decided to remove him from government.
Mr Zahawi thanked the prime minister and said he took pride in his role in the vaccine rollout and the Queen’s funeral – but did not offer an apology or mention his tax affairs.
In fact, Zahawi took the opportunity to attack the media, in his letter to Sunak.
Here’s a TV report on this story:
Commentators are saying it is impossible to envision a circumstance in which Zahawi will return to frontline politics.
Good riddance.
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!
Corruption? Richard Sharp (left) and Boris Johnson.
Apparently Boris Johnson appointed Tory donor Richard Sharp to the position of BBC Chairman a few weeks after Sharp arranged an £800,000 loan guarantee for Johnson, to cover his lavish lifestyle that the prime ministerial salary couldn’t.
This is yet another corruption scandal involving Johnson. Here’s analysis from A Different Bias:
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!
Mike Chaffin, chair of UKIP’s Newport branch (left), and Donald Grewar, the party’s Newport East Parliamentary candidate (right).
Following on from Beastrabban\’s two reposts earlier today, it seems he’s not the only one with something to say about the activities of UKIP – here’s the South Wales Argus:
Newport’s branch of UKIP appeared in turmoil at the weekend as their chairman appealed for help to “rid this branch of EDL sympathisers”.
Mike Chaffin [branch chairman] posted on the branch’s Facebook page: “Not in my name, not in my party and not in my town!”
He pointed readers to comments made by the [party’s] Newport East parliamentary candidate Donald Grewar on the EDL Facebook page and BNP website.
Mr Grewar responded to an EDL post warning of ‘no surrender to militant Islam or political correctness’ with the comment: “Thus sais it all… the mood of the nation… well done EDL” [sic].
And he said in response to an article on the BNP website about gay marriage: “Well said Richtofen…. sadly this will all come to fruition in the very near future. We need to resist and stand our ground.”
Mr Chaffin asked party members: “Do you consider someone who both praises the English Defence League and posts on the British National Party’s own website to be a suitable candidate?”
He revealed he had been asked to stand down as Chairman and allow two others to take over the branch.
If his claims are true, Mr Chaffin is to be congratulated for trying to rid his party of extremist sympathisers – but it will also prove Hope Not Hate correct in its assertion that UKIP is run by “amateurs”.
How are extremists allowed into UKIP in the first place?
If you have enjoyed 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!
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:
UKIP’s latest loss: Phil Bottomley stood down as Walsall branch chairman after claiming Britain is going through a form of ‘ethnic cleansing’ because of immigration [Image: Express and Star].
Is there an ‘apology generator’ app that Nigel Farage can get for his phone or tablet? He’d certainly get enough use out of it.
The latest UKIP member to be unseated by his own foul comments is Phil Bottomley, formerly chairman of the party’s Walsall branch, who faced calls for his dismissal from the party over comments about the Labour Party on his personal blog.
He had written: “Labour’s deliberate plan of uncontrolled immigration policy was a classic case of ethnocide… Put simply it is the cleansing or diminishing of an indigenous population by methods other than mass extermination. It is a fact that by 2070 the immigrant population will be ahead of the indigenous peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
Whenever they write, “It’s a fact” without showing where they found it, you know it isn’t a fact at all.
Labour Cllr Sean Coughlan, leader of Walsall Council, said the comments were “abhorrent”.
He said: “I am calling on Mr Farage to disown his comments and choose a new branch chairman.”
Let’s see what Nigel has to say about all this. If he can’t find a new and original way of saying it (and he must be running out by now) then perhaps it’s time to invest in that app.
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:
UKIP’s party chairman in Thanet, Kent – the constituency where leader Nigel Farage hopes to become an MP – has said he “deeply regretted” his past membership of the National Front, according to the BBC.
Yet another UKIP member – and in a high position, at that – has admitted an extremist past. Many will see this as further proof that the right-wing party attracts – shall we say – undesirables, and many more will say they expect him to hold the same views as he had in the NF (the “a leopard can’t change its spots” argument).
Evidence is mounting that shows UKIP isn’t the ‘People’s Army’ that Nigel Farage says it is.
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:
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.
