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!
Boris Johnson: he said he had seen no evidence of Russian interference in UK politics – but it was subsequently revealed that nobody in his government had even bothered to look for it. Here, he is pictured with Russian president Vladimir Putin.
The UK’s Tory government is being taken to the European Court of Human Rights over its failure to seek evidence of Russian influence in the referendum on whether the UK should leave the European Union in 2016.
The only response to have come from the Tories so far is that they think the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights (that this country actually founded, after World War II).
The issue is whether agents of a foreign power (Russia) have been allowed to influence the result of a poll in the UK – and whether it is possible for them to influence the result of what we have hitherto believed to be democratic elections here.
The details are in the following clip by Peter Stefanovic – and you need to brace yourself because they are damning:
Hang on to your seats as UK Government has until 26 April to respond in detail to landmark ruling in Strasbourg over its failure to investigate Russian interference in Brexit pic.twitter.com/8qWLEN7EBL
After concerns were raised about the apparent ‘open door’ policy of the Conservative Party that seems to mean foreign powers could influence who becomes our prime minister if the choice goes to party members, an application for a judicial review has been launched.
As it happens, the current leadership contest may not go to an election by members, so for now the question may be academic.
But that doesn’t mean Tory rules don’t need to be tightened – and the best time is always now.
Here are the details:
As the Conservative party begins the process of electing another leader – and therefore, a de facto election of the Prime Minister – here’s a summation of our application for judicial review on the way it elects its leader. 🧵⬇️
We argued the public has a right to know for the following reasons:
1️⃣It is unrepresentative.
The membership accounts for around 0.2% of the population and includes non-UK citizens and under-age voters. There seems to be minimal checks on new members.
2️⃣It is unsafe. We asked the Conservative Party to provide information about the demographics of the electorate, the efforts taken to validate party members and the process of securing the election from interference. They refused.
In August, they replied to us arguing that the election is "a private matter for its members under our Constitution" and that "it does not carry out any public functions".
So, on 10 October 2022, Tortoise formally submitted an application for judicial review of the Conservative Party’s refusal to disclose information about the way it elects its leaders.
This morning on @BBCr4today Tortoise co-founder and editor James Harding asked: "By 6pm on Monday evening we could find ourselves where we go to another membership contest. How do we know that's secure?"
.@CatNeilan this evening reporting that Conservative party members are 'already seeking to influence the outcome' of the leadership vote. More here: https://t.co/npGnAGXq2V
“We registered Archie, our pet tortoise, as a member; a couple of foreign nationals; then Margaret Roberts, the maiden name of the late Lady Thatcher. The Conservative Party took the £25 membership fee. We got membership numbers and were invited to hustings.”
Damning.
Let’s hope the courts allow the judicial review.
We should look forward to learning the result.
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!
The puppet PM-to-be? Liz Truss appears to be nothing more than a figurehead for shadowy business concerns. Are her strings being pulled by think tanks like Policy Exchange?
Remember the report the Tories pushed into both Houses of Parliament three years ago, attempting to claim that Extinction Rebellion is a terrorist organisation and its protests should be stopped?
A few months later it was revealed that ER had been listed as an “extremist ideology”, to be referred to the Prevent programme – which aims to safeguard vulnerable people from being drawn into terrorism.
But it is widely agreed that the report played a large role in the drafting of Priti Patel’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act which heavily restricts protest, criminalises many peaceful actions, disproportionately targets minority groups including people of colour and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.
The report had been published by Policy Exchange, a right-wing think tank that is part of the Tufton Street Brexit Nexus which
ties together fossil fuel interests, climate denial groups and a whole array of Brexit campaigns, pushing for a deregulated low-tax playing field pushing profit and growth over people and planet. As well as close ties to most of the current Conservative right politicians, they reach deep into the media, influencing the output of the Telegraph and Spectator, as well as the Times, Mail, Express and Sun.
We don’t know the names of everybody who funds this organisation, but information that is available shows that its work – and therefore Conservative Party policy – is being driven by private business interests:
As well as receiving around £3million per year from undisclosed donors, it has received ‘sponsorship’ money from many UK energy companies for arranging meetings with government ministers, and these included Drax, E.On, Centrica, and lobbyist Energy UK. It also receives money from ‘American Friends of Policy Exchange’, a US non-profit organisation supporting Policy Exchange UK and backed by mainly anonymous donors. They were listed in a 2017 ExxonMobil worldwide-giving report as receiving a $30,000 donation from the giant fossil fuel corporation. ExxonMobil has spent vast sums over decades on promoting climate denial.
And think about this:
Policy Exchange also funds something called the Judicial Power Project which seeks to limit the rights of our justice system to rein in the power of government ministers or question unfair or draconian legislation. Under the guise of concern over “how and by whom public power is exercised”, it’s basically pushing for more power for heavily-lobbied ministers along with less accountability to a judicial system that may be more resistant to corporate influence.
Other changes suggested by Policy Exchange include calls for amendments to the Overseas Operations Bill, giving soldiers impunity for war crimes, and for government control over appointments of judges; and it has published a major study on “judicial interference” over the government’s Rwanda deal and other anti-asylum proposals. The project strongly influenced the tabling of the Judicial Review Act, which limits citizens’ ability to challenge government decisions in court.
And now, as RealMedia points out,
we are about to face a leader elected by a tiny unrepresentative club, advised by secretly-funded policy units, and cheered on by a media owned by its rich friends and donors.
This will get messy and you will probably be badly harmed by what these people will do. The big question is: how long are you going to let them do it?
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!
Bosom buddies: Boris Johnson with Russian industrialist Alexander Temerko, who allegedly has very close links with the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
According to BBC News, the next big scandal to sweep Boris Johnson’s sleaze-ridden Parliament is likely to be one of hostile states buying access to MPs and Lords.
But we already know that Russia has had access to Johnson himself since long before he became prime minister!
The BBC report says All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are vulnerable to “improper lobbying” by foreign actors, quoting the case of Christine Lee, of the Chinese Communist Party, who helped set up the Chinese in Britain APPG.
It also says she made donations to Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs. Let’s have a bit of balance:
Political influence: Christine Lee has been donating money to the Conservatives for many years, and has been seen with David Cameron (pictured), Theresa May and Boris Johnson.
This Writer considers the report to be a sign of bias against those parties by the BBC, as the report makes no mention of the massive influence exerted over the Conservative Party – through its leader – by Russia.
And the Russians have never needed APPGs to wield this power – they just went straight to Tory MPs.
Let’s remind ourselves of the UK government’s Russian connections. Consider this:
The so-called ‘Russia Report’, released in July 2020 after being delayed by Johnson for more than nine months so it would not harm his chances in the 2019 general election, defined Russian influence over UK politics as “the new normal” – at least while Tories like Johnson are in charge.
It said successive Conservative governments have welcomed Russian oligarchs “with open arms”, giving them access to political figures “at the highest levels” – and made absolutely no attempt to investigate Russian interference in referendums and elections; in fact, the Tories “actively avoided” doing so.
This has led, the report states, to the growth of an industry of “enablers” who are “de facto agents of the Russian state”. The report does not explicitly state that these enablers include Conservative government politicians, but its assertion that Russia had access to “the highest levels” of political figures certainly suggests that this is the case.
Johnson himself was considered a security risk by the UK’s national security services while he was Foreign Secretary – and with good reason.
Remember the time he went to a party to meet a former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev, days after attending a Nato summit on Russia?
Who knows what secrets may have emerged from this tactless and indiscreet fool’s flapping gums?
That’s just one incident that is known to us. How many more have there been?
Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party has definitely taken donations from people linked to Russia’s President Putin – and provided private meetings with the last three UK prime ministers in return.
The money totalling £1.7 million came from Vladimir Chernukhin via his wife Lubov, according to the so-called FinCEN files – leaked “suspicious activity reports” by banks.
And a lot of information came out when Johnson’s government dragged its heels about imposing sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine war:
Public opinion is that the Tories have been slow to act because they have taken a fortune in donations from Russians – and they want to know what these UK politicians were asked to do in return for that – as they understand it – dirty money.
Rather than respond to that question, the government seems to have chosen to leave it hanging in the air – trying to divert attention to what it is doing now:
Apparently a minister (was it Hinds?) said that Unexplained Wealth Orders were introduced years ago to allow the government to confiscate assets from people suspected of wrongdoing – and it is widely believed that much of the Russian cash flowing around the UK – and British politics – is ill-gotten. But this just provoked another hard question – and embarrassing answer:
So, Unexplained Wealth Orders have been an unqualified failure – were they mentioned merely to provide an appearance of activity when none has taken place?
Meanwhile:
It was Boris Johnson’s old friend Lubov Chernukhin. She donated £13,750 in October and £66,500 in December, just months before Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine. In total she has handed £2 million to the Tories.
And what do you think of this?
The analysis – which includes many legitimate companies – suggests that thousands of firms listed on the UK’s business register are controlled by Russian nationals who live in the country, with some linked to Putin’s allies.
The final example of Russian influence in the UK, that I’ll include in this article, is something I heard on Radio 4’s Today programme on March 3:
The presenter – I think it was Evan Davis – said it had been suggested that properties like Sutton Place could be seized and used to house displaced Ukrainians. He expressed deep scepticism that the Tory government would ever have the courage to make such a move.
The Tories have only just announced that they’re postponing publication of any revelations of how Evgeny Lebedev – son of the former Russian spy Alexander who Boris Johnson was reported to have met (above) – was made a UK Lord despite deep reservations by the security services. Because the revelations will be damning and they don’t want to mess up their chances in the local elections?
And yet those Tory stooges at BBC News want you to think APPGs, Labour and the Liberal Democrats are the security risk.
Bunga bunga? Boris Johnson – at a party – with a Russian oligarch (this one is industrialist Alexander Temerko). At the time, Johnson didn’t think there was any reason to investigate Russian influence in UK politics. Now, he simply won’t answer questions about these associations.
Here’s a welcome humorous interlude before we all try to get to grips with Rishi Sunak’s rubbish spring statement.
After Labour’s Matt Western scored a hit last week, asking what attracted Boris Johnson to billionaire Russian oligarchs, he returned to ask why MI6 considers Johnson such a security risk.
The prime ministers response was… well, see for yourself. It wasn’t an answer!
Reality check: the super-rich never pay money for nothing.
So Grant Shapps’s claim on the Thursday morning (August 5) media round that Tory donors have “no influence” on Tory government policy already looks dodgy, before we even go into it in any depth.
Now consider the fact that the people he was discussing have been giving at least £50,000 to join a so-called ‘Leader’s Group’ and have access to the Tory leader/prime minister – and more than five times as much (a quarter of a million pounds per year – to be in the so-called ‘Advisory Board’ (unless they were friends of Ben Elliot, allegedly).
Leader’s Group. Advisory Board. Those are not the names of clubs whose members have ” no influence”. Quite the opposite.
It is true that political parties rely on funding for their existence – from party members and from donors. They don’t manufacture anything that is sellable, after all.
But they do provide a particular service – or at least they say they do – which is to run the affairs of the United Kingdom according to a clearly-defined policy platform.
Most of us – including rank and file party members – get very little say in how those policies are shaped.
But now we come back to that issue of very rich people paying astronomical sums of money purely to be told the policies they are supporting at occasional events – as Shapps wants us to believe.
It simply isn’t plausible.
There needs to be an investigation into these schemes. How are donors enticed into contributing, what are they told they get in return, and what do they actually get?
If Shapps says his party adheres to Electoral Commission rules, then he should not object to an investigation.
In fact, the Electoral Commission should be empowered to run undercover investigations.
It seems to This Writer that the best way to make sure the sleazy Tories stick to the straight-and-narrow is to make them fear prosecution and punishment if they don’t.
Shapps himself was once called “Britain’s most perennially caught-out serial liar” and a glance at his career makes the reason clear.
At least we haven’t heard anything about his aliases Sebastian Fox and Michael Green for a while.
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!
One law for them: five Tory MPs are being disciplined by a Parliamentary watchdog after they tried to influence the trial of a colleague. That is a crime. Why aren’t they in jail?
We know the reason but I’ll get to it shortly.
The Commons Standards Committee has found that five Conservative MPs breached Parliament’s code of conduct by trying to influence legal proceedings against a colleague:
Theresa Villiers, Natalie Elphicke, Sir Roger Gale, Adam Holloway and Bob Stewart wrote letters regarding ex-MP Charlie Elphicke, who was convicted of sex offences.
The letters on Commons notepaper were addressed to senior judges.
Three of the MPs could be suspended from Parliament for one day.
Ms Villiers, Mrs Elphicke and Sir Roger face suspension, while Mr Holloway and Col Stewart have been told to apologise by the Commons Standards Committee.
Attempting to influence legal proceedings is a crime. These MPs should be facing criminal trial and imprisonment, not suspension from Parliament for a single day.
The way they are being treated is an insult to British justice.
Ah, but the police force that would handle any complaint is the Metropolitan Police, which is run by Cressida Dick. There’s no way any Tory MP will face justice on her watch!
In any case, police are discouraged from prosecuting any member of Parliament at all, under any circumstances. Charlie Elphicke was an exception in which – as I understand it – it was impossible not to take action.
He was the exception that proves the rule that they really are above the law.
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!
Boris Johnson’s Conservative government put its man Robbie Gibb on the board of the BBC as a non-executive director and he has tried to block the appointment of a news boss on political grounds.
The irony is that non-executive directors are responsible for “upholding and protecting” the BBC’s independence – not to make demands on the behalf of their political leaders.
Gibb used to be Theresa May’s communications director when she was prime minister. Before that, he was a BBC journalist and he started his career as a Tory aide – so it seems likely that his politics has coloured much of his work.
The BBC has often been criticised as the propaganda wing of the Tory Party and this intervention will only strengthen that impression among members of the public. It proves that attempts to rig decisions of organisations like the BBC by stuffing their ruling bodies with Tories can only backfire.
What did he do?
He sent a message to the Corporation’s director of news and current affairs, Fran Unsworth, warning her not to appoint Jess Brammar to a new post of BBC executive news editor, saying it would shatter the relationship between the BBC and the Tory government.
It is clearly a political intervention. Brammar’s career is now being trashed by other Tory propaganda mouthpieces:
In case you were wondering how long it would take the Government explicitly to attack independent media outlets… pic.twitter.com/zldv6Eg5Av
What could this “borderline fake news lefty clickbait website” be? It seems an odd way to describe HuffPost UK, and This Writer looks forward to seeing that organisation’s reaction to the smear.
Previously, Brammar had been deputy editor of Newsnight.
According to the Financial Times, Gibb’s message to Unsworth said she “cannot make this appointment” and the government’s “fragile trust in the BBC will be shattered” if she went ahead. One of his cronies has apparently denied the claim.
The recruitment process has now stalled. Gibb’s message was allegedly sent on June 22 and the post has yet to be filled.
Apparently the Corporation is going through Brammar’s past statements, in public and on the social media. To see if it can find some dirt on her that would invalidate her application?
It’s alleged that Gibb would want her defence of HuffPost journalist Nadine White to count against her – but if so, natural justice would demand that he be disappointed.
White was attacked by Tory minister Kemi Badenoch, who claimed she was “creepy and bizarre” in asking questions about a Covid-19 vaccines video that Badenoch branded unnecessary.
In response, Brammar filed a former complaint to the Cabinet Office, stating that “this characterisation of a journalist asking questions as somehow undermining a public health message or fostering misinformation should alarm anyone working in journalism or anyone who believes its job is to hold power to account.”
Realistically, the vetting process is unlikely to provide any reason to reject Brammar because Gibb’s intervention has forced the BBC’s hand.
Turning her away would indicate that the Corporation is vulnerable to political pressure – the kiss of death for an organisation that has long had to defend itself against such accusations.
And there is another possible reason for Gibb to have intervened now.
Awkward
The BBC is currently negotiating a five-year financial settlement with Boris Johnson’s Tory government.
Still-newly-appointed director general Tim Davie – himself a dyed-in-the-wool Tory – has spent a lot of time, and used up a considerable amount of his own credibility, steadying relations with the government in the midst of aggressive (some would say unreasonable) criticism.
Doesn’t it seem likely that Gibb’s claim about Brammar may be just the excuse Johnson needs to cut BBC funding further than previous Tory governments already have?
Whatever happens, the public response has been a PR disaster for the Tories:
— leftworks #WeAreCorbyn #IStandWithJeremyCorbyn (@leftworks1) July 11, 2021
Appalling. Brammar is a studiously objective journalist who has stood up for her reporters against ministerial pressure. There could be few better recommendations for the job. Gibb is trying to turn the BBC into a government press office. https://t.co/a1ewnp0UhG
If this story as reported is true then Robbie Gibb should resign. It is a cardinal rule that when you join the BBC,whether as a junior reporter or a board member, you leave your politics at the door.// BBC director sought to block senior editorial https://t.co/Xc5WDhefy2
For the BBC to protect its 'alleged' political impartiality Gibb has to go. https://t.co/OTZui7AqDb
— bigrobbutnocape @bigrobnocape (@bigrobbutnocape) July 10, 2021
This is explosive. Very influential Tory and prominent Brexiteer Robbie Gibb trying to stop a senior BBC news appointment that Downing St doesn't like. Huge test of BBC ability to resist political interference. pic.twitter.com/lNfNfMZmMn
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!
This can’t be the first time an organisation harmed its own reputation with wild claims.
But Cambridge Analytica seems to have engineered its own destruction with its claim to be able to influence people using data it had accrued about them.
These referred to Americans but it seems they raised questions about the organisation’s role in the UK’s referendum on membership of the European Union in 2016.
As a result, the (UK’s) Information Commissioner launched an investigation into the company in 2017 – and it collapsed in 2018.
Were the two events related? If so, it could be argued that Cambridge Analytica’s own boasts destroyed it.
Cambridge Analytica had repeatedly claimed in its marketing material to have “5,000+ data points per individual on 230 million adult Americans”, suggesting it had incredible power to micro-target individuals with suggestive political messaging using a giant psychographic database.
However, the investigation concluded that “based on what we found it appears that this may have been an exaggeration” and much of the company’s activities followed “well recognised processes using commonly available technology”.
So did it attract the unwanted attention of the information regulator needlessly?
Well, it seems the firm wasn’t involved in the EU referendum campaign at all:
[Elizabeth Denham, the Information Commissioner] said she found no evidence that Cambridge Analytica were actively involved in the EU referendum campaign, beyond an early proposal to work with UKIP which was not put into action.
It turns out the Information Commissioner found no evidence of collusion with Russia to influence the referendum either:
[Denham] said her team also found no evidence Cambridge Analytica aided Russian intervention in the UK political process.
Particularly interesting to This Writer, though, was the revelation that
the company’s data protection practices were lax “with little thought for effective security measures”.
Couple this with the following –
Cambridge Analytica founder Alexander Nix was disqualified from acting as a company director for seven years for “offering potentially unethical services to prospective clients” including bribery or honey trap stings, voter disengagement campaigns, obtaining information to discredit political opponents, and spreading information anonymously in political campaigns.
– and we see that the firm (or at least its founder) was quite happy to break the Data Protection Act left, right and centre by obtaining information and then distributing it to the public in breach of the law.
This links with my recent court case against the Labour Party, in which I gave evidence that employees had put together false information about me and passed it to newspapers who then published it to thousands of people.
Labour’s representative tried to claim that, even though the party (as represented by its general secretary) was the data manager responsible for the way the information was used, it was not responsible for the acts of any employees because (as I understand it) there is no evidence that it ordered them to commit those acts.
But then, they wouldn’t have had access to this – false, in my case – information if Labour had not ordered them to compile it.
Put the two cases together and it seems the Data Protection Act is a dead letter – unless a person whose information has been misused can prove exactly who misused it and why they did it. That’s going to be impossible in most cases, isn’t it?
I was therefore hoping to read that the Information Commissioner was bringing recommendations to the government that would strengthen the law.
And I was keen to see what they would be.
I was disappointed. It seems all the information that we are obliged to provide to organisations, just to get on in modern life, is vulnerable to abuse every way you can imagine. Not a happy thought!
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!
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.
