Tag Archives: sharp

James Cleverly on Boris Johnson and Nadhim Zahawi – shifty, unrevealing and untrustworthy

James Cleverly: He was once described as “the Tories’ go-to eejit when they need someone to tweet absolute nonsense or defend the indefensible”.

Foreign Secretary James Cleverly did the Sunday morning interview round on January 23, 2023 – meaning he had to field questions about whether Boris Johnson corruptly appointed Richard Sharp as BBC Chairman, and about Nadhim Zahawi’s taxes.

He didn’t have answers about either of them, and instead came across as shifty, unrevealing and untrustworthy.

His responses displayed many characteristics of what police (for example) might describe as untruthfulness, or at least deception.

In this video clip, I have tried to identify at least a few of the tell-tale signs:

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.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

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!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Boris Johnson’s fact-free outburst about Richard Sharp corruption allegations. Is he deceiving us?

This is hilarious – but not for any reason that Boris Johnson would like.

Confronted with the allegations that BBC Chairman Richard Sharp was corruptly appointed to the role – by Johnson – after he arranged an £800,000 loan for the then-prime minister, he responded as follows:

It’s amusing that he’s saying the BBC is disappearing up its own “fundament”, when you remember that he’s discussing somebody he appointed to that corporation.

But also: look at his eyes and listen to what he’s actually saying.

Instead of discussing the facts of the matter, Johnson instead gives what’s known as a “resume statement” or “convincing statement” about Richard Sharp. Apparently the BBC chairman is “a good and a wise man” but knows “absolutely nothing” about Johnson’s personal finances.

So, instead of answering the question, Johnson takes the opportunity to tell a story about Sharp’s character, to make us think someone like this would never be involved in any dodginess.

He’s on the news! He should be talking about what’s important – whether he corruptly installed Sharp at the BBC after the other man arranged a loan for him – and instead he’s avoiding the issue completely.

Secondly, look at his blink rate – the number of times he blinks while talking about Sharp. Normal blink rate is around 16 times per minute but Johnson blinks nine times in 10 seconds.

When we’re really interested in something, that blink rate slows down; we’re trying to take more information in. But when we’re stressed or anxious, which is usually what happens when we’re being deceptive, the blink rate goes up. Nine times in 10 seconds is a phenomenal rate.

Thirdly, ask yourself: did Johnson answer the question? If he did, did he answer the entire question? No, he didn’t.

He said nothing about what may or may not have happened. He said nothing about whether he welcomed the inquiry into it. He just gave Sharp a character reference and insulted the BBC.

Singly, these elements may not add up to much.

But together, they would indicate to those who know about such things that Johnson was trying to deceive the reporters – and the public.

It’s a new Boris Johnson corruption scandal! Are you keeping count of them?

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.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

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!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Stop collecting death stats if you like, DWP – it’s what you’ve got already that we want to see!

Public interest, not party interest: Thanks to Jim Moore for this cartoon. I've been waiting for a good moment to release it.

Public interest, not party interest: Thanks to Jim Moore for this cartoon. I’ve been waiting for a good moment to release it. Notice Iain Duncan Smith’s face looks like it’s behind bars – which is where many people believe he ought to be!

“The DWP has quietly decided to ditch statistics it used to collect on the number of deaths of recipients of incapacity benefits (now ESA) and its predecessors Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA),” according to Liberal Conspiracy.

The story, by Sunny Hundal, claims: “It is thought the numbers of deaths has sharply increased since the Coalition government’s severe cuts to social security benefits.

“But to ensure that deaths aren’t cited as evidence of failure of the changes, the DWP won’t be collecting and updating its statistics.”

No supporting information is provided and nobody from the Department for Work and Pensions is quoted. Does this change the chances of success for my Freedom of Information request, in which I asked for statistics in ESA/IB claimants who have died?

No. Not at all.

I requested statistics for 2012, which we all know already that the DWP has collected. They are there; they should be available.

The fact that they aren’t open for inspection is already incriminating, if you ask me!

My FoI request will be granted in the near future – even if the DWP finds another reason for refusal, the Information Commissioner’s office will overrule it. I’ve been through the rules. In this instance, it is Iain Duncan Smith who doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

If the DWP then claims that it has destroyed the figures – as seems to be claimed by the Liberal Conspiracy story – then we’ll be looking at a criminal investigation, I think.

There can only be one reason for hiding the figures – they must have risen and have not dropped. For the DWP to actually delete them, rather than allow them to be released, they must have risen sharply.

This would not only indicate the failure of Iain Duncan Smith’s policy – after everything he and his ministers have said, time and time again, about the fairness of the assessment regime, and how it is carried out in a humane way, this would prove that it is neither fair nor humane – and that, given the opportunity to stop the deaths from accelerating, these Conservative politicians allowed them to continue.

If a person knows that their actions are causing people to die, and does nothing about it, then an observer may rightly conclude that this person wants those deaths to take place. There’s a word for people who cause others to die – with the intention of causing them to die.

That word is “murderer”.

Or in this case, mass murderer”.

The net is closing, Iain Duncan Smith.

Nobody will think it is a coincidence, if the DWP really has binned its statistics on claimant deaths at a time when public interest is focused on the issue.

And to any DWP interlopers, reading this site because it is on a ‘watch list’: This is a very dangerous time to be working for that organisation. People who help others to commit murder are accessories to the crime and may also be convicted for the offence.

Tick tock, Tory boys…