Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (2024)

Latest News Forums Discussion Forum Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019

  • This topic has 517 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (1)Kim Sanders-Fisher.

Viewing 25 posts - 351 through 375 (of 518 total)

123141516192021

  • Author

    Posts

  • October 14, 2020 at 11:37#61583Reply

    Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (2)Kim Sanders-Fisher

      In the Canary Article entitled, “The government is legalising and extending this infamous spycop’s criminal actions; and you could be a victim,” they elaborate on a law about to be casually waved through our dysfunctional Parliament with scarcely a whiff of opposition. They, “Note: for almost 12 months during the Persons Unknown prosecution, the author’s home was placed under electronic surveillance by Special Branch. The author subsequently played a part in the closure of the 70-year-old blacklisting and espionage agency, the Economic League.” They say that, “The Tory government is progressing a bill to legalise the criminal activities of Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) who work with the police, MI5, and other state agencies. It passed its second reading on the 5 October, with Labour, under Starmer, mostly abstaining.”

      The Canary describe this bill as, “possibly one of the most dangerous bills to be put before the country in decades, legalising highly discredited practices.” This article gives extensive background to some of these practices and shows why “this legislation needs ditching, not amending.” So what exactly is this controversial legislation? “The bill provides for: an express power to authorise CHIS to participate in conduct which would otherwise constitute a criminal offence. This is not a new capability; the Bill provides a clear legal basis for a longstanding tactic which is vital for national security and the prevention and detection of crime. Bodies that can authorise agents to infiltrate or act as informants will include police forces from all four UK countries; police from MoD, Royal Military, Royal Navy, RAF, and British Transport; HMRC, the Home Office, and the National Crime Agency.”

      The Canary say that, “According to the College of Policing, CHIS can include: ‘victims, witnesses, suspects, colleagues such as local and field intelligence officers, community sources including community and race advisers, local councillors, religious leaders and members of the community’” The Canary note that questions are being raised, “Reprieve, the Pat Finucane Centre, Privacy International, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and Rights and Security International have jointly criticised the bill. In particular, they point out: There is no express prohibition on authorising crimes that would constitute human rights violations, including murder, torture (e.g. punishment shootings), kidnap, or sexual offences, or on conduct that would interfere with the course of justice. The Bill relies on the Human Rights Act as a safeguard, despite the Government making clear that it does not believe that the Human Rights Act applies to abuses committed by its agents, even torture.”

      The Canary say Reprieve added: “the Bill provides for the unprecedented ‘legalisation’ of even serious crimes by covert agents. Authorised criminal offences committed by CHIS would be rendered ‘lawful for all purposes’. They also said: The Bill also bars survivors of abuses, such as the victims of the ‘Spy Cops’ scandal, from seeking redress through the courts, by protecting those who commit authorised crimes from civil liability forever. Licence to kill? But in a debate in the Commons, the solicitor general was keen to respond to the claim that the bill provides a licence to kill: covert human intelligence sources will never be provided with unlimited authority to commit all or any crime. They will never be provided with an authorisation that is contrary to our obligations under the Human Rights Act. The Bill makes that specifically clear. This is not a ‘licence to kill’ Bill.” These horrific laws will all be voted into place before the crash-out Brexit chaos tipping point where the Tory Government solidifies their Dictatorship.

      The Canary report that, “Home Office minister James Brokenshire explained how criminal conduct authorisation to a source: may be granted only where it is necessary for one of three statutory purposes: national security, the prevention or detection of crime, or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. He also said: We do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to draw up a list of specific crimes that may be authorised or prohibited.” They note that, “Labour’s Zarah Sultana disagreed and was forthright in her condemnation of the bill: This Bill must be opposed. It places no limits on the crimes that state agents can be authorised to commit. It does not prohibit torture. It does not prohibit murder. It does not prohibit sexual violence.”

      The Canary say that, “With regard to the last point, it’s known that some undercover officers (UCOs) formed long-term sexual relationships with women activists to provide cover. More than thirty women are believed to have been exploited in this way. For example, UCO Robert Lambert (cover name Bob Robinson) had relationships with four women and used those relationships to spy on animal rights and environmental activists. Within the article there are several revealing videos: one tells the story of Lambert’s son, fathered with ‘Jacqui’,” interviewed after he discovered the truth, that his father had been a spycop. These are truly shocking instances of “sexual and relationship abuse” that devastate people’s lives through a callous act of betrayal. Another video pertains to a number of women who were deceived and entered into relationships with undercover cops.

      The Canary report that, “Mark Kennedy (cover name Mark Stone) also exploited women to provide cover: with ‘Lisa Jones’ over six years; with Kate (‘Lily’) over two years; with ‘Naomi’; and with Sarah Hampton.” Both “‘Lisa Jones’ and Kate (Wilson) explain what happened in the video. The Met was forced to issue an apology to the women and a spokesperson added: it has become apparent that some officers, acting undercover whilst seeking to infiltrate protest groups, entered into long-term intimate sexual relationships with women which were abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong. However, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) ruled that no UCO would be prosecuted for ‘having non-consensual sexual relations with any member of the public’.” Once this latest Bill goes into UK Law this practice would become an acceptable undercover assignment with the women and children involved abandoned once they were no longer of use to an investigation.

      The Canary highlight that happens, “When infiltration goes wrong” Many spycops were identified by the Undercover Research Group and other researchers. Some were members of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a Special Branch unit that infiltrated political groups between 1968 and 2008. Around 100 covert identities used by the SDS to infiltrate organisations have been identified. HM’s Inspectorate of Constabulary revealed that 3,466 undercover operations took place in England and Wales between October 2009 and September 2013 alone. These operations were carried out by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) – the successor to the SDS. It also found that by 2014 a reported 1,229 officers in England and Wales were trained as UCOs. Here is a searchable list of political groups and the known UCOs who spied on them.” It is important to note that this tactic was used to spy on progressive, primarily non-violent organizations who although disruptive, did not pose a threat to life.

      According to the Canary, “Kennedy was part of the NPOIU) – the successor to the SDS. He infiltrated and participated in the activities of numerous protest groups in the UK and across Europe (such as Scotland, north of Ireland, Irish Republic, Germany, Denmark, France and Iceland among other places). They included ‘Dissent!, Rising Tide, Saving Iceland, Workers’ Solidarity Movements, Rossport Solidarity, Climate Camp, Climate Justice Action and others’.” They say that, “Two of the protest actions Kennedy participated in were Operation Aeroscope and Operation Pegasus. The latter saw 29 protesters convicted of various offences in 2009 after they blocked a train carrying coal heading for the Drax power station, North Yorkshire. Aeroscope resulted in a pre-emptive raid by police of a meeting to plan the invasion of the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station and the arrest of 114 protesters.”

      The Canary report that, “26 people were accused of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and 20 were convicted, although not jailed. A further six of the accused, who were running a different defence and were therefore facing a separate trial, exposed Kennedy’s role in the action. The prosecution abandoned the trial when asked for more details about the UCO who played a part in ‘organising and helping to fund the protest’. Furthermore, it transpired the CPS knew all along of Kennedy’s role in the action and during the trial of the 20 it ensured that: Kennedy’s evidence was kept from court. Moreover, the Independent Police Complaints Commission later found that the CPS also knew about the activists’ plan, not only before it happened but before many of the activists themselves. Furthermore, Felicity Gerry, the prosecutor in the trial of the 20, had been informed about the existence of an undercover officer and had known Mark Kennedy’s true identity a week before any of the activists did.”

      The Canary reports that the, “Consequently, the 20 also had their convictions quashed. The activists who targeted Drax power station also had their convictions quashed as a result of Kennedy’s role. Here are extracts of transcripts the CPS had in its possession months prior to the Ratcliffe trial, but held back from the defence team: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Appendix. (Note: defendants’ names are redacted by this author for privacy purposes). Both the Ratcliffe and Drax cases were overseen by Nick Paul, based in the London CPS office that he shared with director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer. Starmer refused to accept that the problems Kennedy’s role presented was systemic, even though there was plentiful evidence to the contrary.” In an earlier Canary Article they discuss Sir Keir Starmer’s role in trying to marginalize and contain the scandal; for many Labour Party members this deception made him unfit to become the new Labour Party Leader as he cannot be trusted.

      So what is the extent of this undercover work and its impact of UK justice? According to the Canary, “COPS (Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance) claims: If the other 150 or so officers have similar tallies [as Kennedy], it means about 7,000 wrongful convictions are being left to stand. Even if we conservatively estimate just one false conviction per officer per year of service, it adds up to about 600. It may well be that spycops are responsible for the biggest nobbling of the judicial system in English history.”

      They say in, “Another example, In 2008, a group of environmental activists were arrested in France. Nine people, known as the Tarnac 9, were initially charged with terrorism. Essentially they were accused of participating in sabotage attacks against high-speed TGV train routes. They were alleged to have done this by obstructing power cables with horseshoe-shaped iron bars, that delayed 160 trains. A judge later ruled that they wouldn’t be tried for terrorism.” Who decides what qualifies as terrorism?

      The Canary report, “Detective chief inspector Richard May, of the UK’s NDEU (National Domestic Extremism Unit) provided assistance to the French prosecutors. It turned out the group had been infiltrated by Kennedy. One of the defendants, Julien Coupat, contacted a UK source for further information and the entire dossier (which concerns transcripts by Kennedy) was supplied. On page 27, dated 13 June 2008, Kennedy was instructed to: ‘put 5×5 on re Halpin visiting Julien at his Farm’. This is shorthand for 5x5x5 intelligence reports on page 20. ‘Halpin’ is Harry Halpin, a US citizen and core participant of the Undercover Policing Inquiry. On page 29 of the dossier, dated 4 June 2008, Kennedy confirms he received ‘concise instructions’ regarding Julien (Coupat), Halpin, and others. That information, including names of authorising officers, was relayed to the Tarnac support group by this author. In time, the case collapsed and all but one of the defendants, who was jailed for six months on a minor charge, were freed.”

      The Canary claim that, “It’s not all about UCOs; Intelligence is not only sourced by UCOs but other actors. For example, a report by Desmond de Silva QC into the murder of north of Ireland lawyer Pat Finucane in front of his children blamed ‘agents of the state’. Referring to the British army’s Force Research Unit that worked closely with the paramilitary UDA (Ulster Defence Association), SDLP MP Mark Durkan said: Between special branch, FRU and secret services we had a culture of ‘anything goes but nobody knows’.” They say, “there was the ‘black ops’ unit Zeus Security, managed by Peter Hamilton. Zeus was reportedly contracted by MI5 to spy upon environmental protesters who tried to halt the building of Sizewell ‘B’ nuclear reactor in Suffolk. Gary Murray explained that Hamilton was: a former member of Army Intelligence, where he held the rank of Major. Documents and tapes in my possession link this man to the highest echelons of British Intelligence.”

      According to the Canary, Murray added: “During my investigation I successfully recorded conversations with Hamilton admitting his services were being utilised by the Economic League. This author discovered that Zeus was financed by James Goldsmith (named in an unpublished version of ‘Spycatcher’ by former British spy Peter Wright as one of several persons who sought to ensure the Labour Party would not return to government). Zeus was owned by Antonio von Marx, Goldsmith’s nephew. Murray claimed that the murder of Sizewell B protester Hilda Murrell was conducted by ‘private investigators or security consultants acting on behalf of a government department’. Lord Chalfont joined the board of Zeus in 1981, but once his role was revealed (again, by this author) he was forced to resign his position as head of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.”

      The Canary report that, “There’s also the private operators. Chalfont was also linked to private surveillance operator Paul Mercer, who infiltrated various campaign groups. In 2007, Mercer was exposed for his role in monitoring the Campaign Against Arms Trade. His contract was via Global Open (GO), a private surveillance firm. GO included Kennedy and Rod Leeming (formerly of Special Branch). Between 1987 and 1991 Mercer served as the Conservative Borough Councillor in Charnwood. At a January 2011 meeting organised by think tank Policy Exchange, Mercer claimed to have ‘covered and having been on pretty well every major public order disturbance in London over that period’, including the Poll Tax Riots of 1990 and Mayday 2001.”

      The scope of activity that has justified spying is immense and we can be certain that as we progress towards Dictatorship it will get a lot more expansive. Tories determined to break the power of the Unions included identifying and blacklisting Union Organizers. The Canary report that, “During the Commons debate on the CHIS bill, MP Nick Thomas-Symonds referred to a Metropolitan police’s investigation into police collusion in blacklisting that concluded: on the balance of probabilities, the allegation that the police or special branches supplied information is ‘proven.’ Material revealed a potentially improper flow of information from Special Branch to external organisations, which ultimately appeared on the blacklist. Indeed, the Met admitted collusion and that thousands of its files on undercover policing went ‘missing‘ or were destroyed. The main blacklisting intelligence agency was the Economic League (EL), which has a long history of collaboration.” In the article this is depicted in a (diagram courtesy of Spies At Work).

      The Canary say that, “EL collapsed after activists published internal documents showing it was financially unviable. It’s estimated that at least 40,000 workers were blacklisted by several hundred companies subscribed to the EL. One victim was actor Ricky Tomlinson, who was previously a plasterer. He was secretly targeted by prime minister Edward Heath with the assistance of the Information Research Department (IRD), a Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) funded propaganda unit.” The article includes yet another Video of Tomlinson’s telling his story. What I found so shocking in his video presentation was the incredibly meagre and perfectly reasonable working conditions and basic safety measures the Unions were fighting for back then. This makes the extraordinary lengths employers used to intimidate, silence and blacklist Union Organizers in order to continue exploiting workers seem downright obscene. However, that is exactly where the Tories want to regress workers rights to after we crash-out of the EU.

      The Canary describe, “More blacklisting collusion; the EL’s successor was the much smaller Consulting Association (CA). More than 3,000 construction workers were targeted by that agency. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) suggested that police colluded in the Consulting Association’s blacklist, saying it was ‘likely that all special branches were involved in providing information’. Indeed, it’s known that detective chief inspector Gordon Mills of the NPIOU’s sister unit, the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU), met with the CA. Here is a leaked copy of notes from that meeting. As shown, the deployment of human intelligence sources can easily lead to relationship abuse. And infiltration can also result in miscarriages of justice. Such sources may also, wittingly or otherwise, provide information that can contribute to blacklisting of one sort or another.” The Canary conclude that for all of the reasons expounded here MPs need to, “Ditch the bill,” not just abstain and pout!

      The Canary have put a strong case for voting down this Bill saying that, “Despite government caveats, the CHIS bill is possibly one of the most dangerous to be put before parliament in decades. It should not be amended but ditched.” This bill will prepares the UK for the next stage of the authoritarian Dictatorial takeover that will be brutal and bloody, with the Tories still able to claim that we voted them in and therefore we must have approved of them using tough measures to deal with social unrest and restore law and order. Tories have conned us into believing in their fabricated ‘landslide victory’ in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election; it gifts them a massive and unstoppable majority in Government. We must have the result fully Investigated to totally delegitimize their right to rule and oust them from office. The corruption of using public funds to pay a Charity to generate propaganda targeting the opposition and the strong probability that stole data was used to send weapons grade PsyOps to persuadable voters: that alone should be enough. DO NOT MOVE ON!

      October 14, 2020 at 21:08#61588Reply

      Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (3)Kim Sanders-Fisher

        This CHIS (Spycops) bill represents their Tory jackboot on your neck! It signals a disturbing return to being criminalized for fighting tooth and nail for the most basic paltry demands, the requirement of survivable wages, safe living and working conditions and for us all to be included in the democratic process and treated with humanity. What is at stake are the core rights hard won by Trade Unions and enshrined in EU Law, all too soon to be rapidly stripped away after crash-out Brexit. This gives the stamp of approval to the authoritarian excesses of the new Tory Dictatorship, but Labour “under new Leadership” is veering in the wrong direction; the Captain of Capitulation, Keir Starmer, will in his continuing demonstration of self-serving cowardice order Labour MPs into another noncommittal abstention vote. That will only succeed if we fail to persuade all MPs and certainly those in the Labour Party that this is a disgusting betrayal of the all sectors of our population and these cowardly abstentions will never be forgotten by voters.

        Earlier today referring to the Video of Tomlinson’s telling his story in my post I wrote that: “What I found so shocking in his video presentation was the incredibly meagre and perfectly reasonable working conditions and basic safety measures the Unions were fighting for back then. This makes the extraordinary lengths employers used to intimidate, silence and blacklist Union Organizers in order to continue exploiting workers seem downright obscene. However, that is exactly where the Tories want to regress workers rights to after we crash-out of the EU.” This is way the Unite Union has teamed up with Momentum to send a clear message to Keir Starmer regarding the Labour vote on this vital issue: The CHIS Spycops Bill must be voted down on Thursday’s third reading in the Commons and we must all do our part in supporting this demand by contacting our MPs. I received the following email containing a Link to a preformatted letter of appeal to be sent to MPs; I hope you will agree that this action is necessary.

        MOMENTUM report that: “In parliament, the Tories are trying to push through a bill that could have severe ramifications for trade union organising and campaigns for justice. The CHIS bill – otherwise known as the SpyCops Bill – would give power to undercover state agents to commit crimes as extreme as murder, torture and sexual violence in the pursuit of ‘preventing disorder’ and maintaining ‘economic wellbeing’. But now our movement is shifting into gear to resist it.” They include a Link to, “read more about our joint letter with Unite” and another Link to, “Click here to read the Guardian story.”

        Momentum explain that, “Our movement is fighting against a huge opponent – a system that is run in the interests of the rich and powerful and that values profit above all else. But everything we’ve ever won in this struggle has come from ordinary people deciding that enough is enough. That’s why when they attack our right to organise, we can’t abstain. But the Labour leadership is talking about doing just that. We can’t let it stand. The Labour party exists to defend the interests of the many – and in this case, that means fighting the authoritarian implications of this bill every step of the way. We need to mobilise to put pressure on our MPs to back essential amendments tabled by the Socialist Campaign Group. If those amendments are unsuccessful, then every Labour MP should vote against this hard-right Tory bill when it goes to a vote on Thursday. You can use Unite’s template in the Link below to quickly and easily send an email to your MP listing your demands.”

        Momentum have included a Link to: “Send an email to your MP demanding they oppose the SpyCops Bill.” This goes to the same Unite Union page as a second Link with space to enter your postcode in order to send an email message using their provided Template to help facilitate this process. Momentum have teamed up with the Unite Union for this campaign and they remind us that, “These are the moments when we as the labour movement can show our strength. If we stick together – Labour members, the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, and the trade unions can push the Labour leadership to take a stand.” They sign off by urging recipients to act as, “United, we can win, In Solidarity, Team Momentum.”

        The Unite Union are urging all their members to contact their MP and demand that they, “Block the SpyCops Bill.” Unite warn that,
        “The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill (CHIS), otherwise known as the SpyCops Bill, is currently being rushed through parliament. Its purpose is to provide the legal basis for the conduct of undercover agents such as police officers, but in reality, it will go much further. There has been a well-documented history of state surveillance of lawful trade union activity and justice campaigns in recent years, including links with the criminal blacklisting of trade union members. These revelations have been admitted by the police, as has the appalling conduct of undercover police in pursuing surveillance of legitimate civil society organisations, including anti-racist, family justice and environmental groups. These are still subject to a public inquiry.”

        Unite outline the reasons for their opposition to the CHIS Spycops Bill by stating that, “Our concerns about CHIS include:
        • It allows state agents to commit crimes to stay undercover.
        • There’s no limit to what crimes they can commit, including murder, torture or sexual violence
        • They can commit crimes to ‘prevent disorder’ or maintain ‘economic well-being’.
        • It threatens trade union activity and justice campaigns.
        • There is no provision for innocent victims to get compensation.
        • It allows a wide range of agencies like the Food Standards Agency to spy on people and commit crimes.
        • It does not protect human rights.
        • It lacks prior judicial authorisation to commit a crime.”

        Unite remind us of the urgency of our taking immediate action by noting that, “Amendments to the bill are being debated by MPs this week (Thursday 15 October) and Unite is concerned that this is not only being done with undue haste and insufficient scrutiny, but that it risks compromising and undermining legal proceedings through which the victims of previous criminal conduct by undercover agents, are seeking justice.”

        Unite have facilitated this urgent action offering, “Please use our tool below to email your MP today, to ask them to support the amendments submitted by the Labour front bench, that would establish vital safeguards and ensure that serious crimes such as murder, torture and rape would be explicitly ruled out, as would trade union infiltration and blacklisting.” They warn that, “If these amendments are unsuccessful then the Bill cannot be supported. In this case, please ask your MP to lobby the government to withdraw the Bill, and to oppose it at 3rd reading if it is not withdrawn.” There is a space to enter your Postcode in order to target your specific MP.

        Another brave Labour Lioness stands ready to enter the fray, proving that we do not need “stale, male and pale” elitists to drag us into the wilderness with their lack of courage in voting to protect our rights. Jeremy Corbyn is leading the revolt as Starmer once again fails to offer true Labour Opposition. The Captain of Capitulation repeatedly orders his MPs to abstain from voting. We didn’t come out to vote in the pre-Christmas cold so that MPs would be empowered to do nothing! The Covert 2019 Rigged Election was a fraud that we must continue to reject, expose and Investigate, but our enfeebled numbers do not need to be further weakened by the impotent lack of leadership offered by Starmer. Labour abstentions will facilitate Tory authoritarian rule for several decades to come if Labour allows this Tory Trojan horse to continue running roughshod over the will of our MPs to vote with their conscience in vigorously apposing tyranny. So Labour MP for Coventry South, Zarah Sultana rose to challenge the Tory imposition of injustice.

        Zarah Sultana said, “As I am making the final Back-Bench speech, I will not be taking any interventions, apologies.” She began by relaying a horrific true story from the time of ‘the Troubles’ in Ireland saying, “On 12 February 1989, Pat Finucane, an Irish lawyer in Belfast, sat at his kitchen table to have dinner with his wife and three children. As they ate, two gunmen burst through the door, entered the room and shot Mr Finucane 14 times. He was killed by a loyalist paramilitary group that, as the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, admitted in 2012, was acting in complicity with British security services. Far from stopping Mr Finnigan’s murder, the Prime Minister described the ‘shocking levels of state collusion’—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 296] in Mr Finucane’s murder. His family are still owed a public inquiry into the murder.”

        Sultana continued, “Deeply troubling acts of state agents such as those in the Finucane case are not isolated. In 2010, it came to light that for 40 years, Britain’s police had run covert operations spying on thousands of civilians. More than 1,000 political groups were spied on. Overwhelmingly, it was left-wing, anti-racist and climate justice groups that were spied on, with just three far-right groups included on the list. The spy cops revelations have shown that police operatives deceived women into sexual relationships and even spied on grieving families seeking justice, including the parents of Stephen Lawrence.

        Sultana adroitly explained why, “This Bill must be opposed. It places no limits on the crimes that state agents can be authorised to commit. It does not prohibit torture. It does not prohibit murder. It does not prohibit sexual violence. Instead, all it requires is that authorising officers themselves believe that the conduct is appropriate, necessary by broadly defined criteria and meets requirements that may be imposed by an order made by the Secretary of State. Even the FBI expressly bans operatives from certain criminal conduct, but this Bill does not ban any type of criminal conduct for British state agents. The grounds upon which the authorisations can be granted are ill-defined and wide-ranging. They include not only national security but “preventing disorder” and to promote “the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”

        Sultana warned of what was at stake, “That has rightly raised alarm bells for trade unions such as my union, Unite, and justice campaigns such as the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, who fear that these powers could be used to interfere with the legitimate activities of trade unions. The Bill grants these powers to a dizzying array of agencies—not just intelligence agencies and the police, but the Competition and Markets Authority, the Gambling Commission and the Environment Agency, just to name a few. The oversight for authorisation of potentially serious crimes is scandalously weak. There are no provisions in the Bill for warrants or independent judicial approval. Instead, authorisation will be granted internally, which means that incredibly serious crimes could be authorised with less oversight than is currently required for phone tapping or police searches.”

        Sultana noted that, “As the human rights group Reprieve has noted, survivors of the spy cops scandal have sought justice through the courts for abuses they suffered, but this Bill will block future claims being brought forward, since it outlaws civil action against authorised activities. That is utterly unconscionable. In the Bill’s defence, the Government claim that public authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act, and for that reason, the prohibition of crimes such as torture is guarded. In reality, that offers no protection against agent criminality, because in the Government’s view, the Human Rights Act does not apply to crimes committed by covert agents. The Government told the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in November 2019 that, in tasking agents, the state ‘is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as responsible for it’. According to the Government’s own standards, the Bill will therefore not place any limits on the crimes that agents could be authorised to commit—not on torture, not on murder and not on sexual violence.”

        Sultana was then interrupted by Tory MP Mrs. Miller who requested, Will the hon. Lady give way? But Zarah Sultana stubbornly held her ground saying, “I must make progress. This Bill marks the latest step in a frightening descent into authoritarianism by this Government. In the past two weeks, they have proposed the effective decriminalisation of torture by British soldiers overseas, the shipping of asylum seekers more than 4,000 miles away to be imprisoned on Ascension Island, the ban on anti-capitalist teaching materials in schools and now this—licensing undercover agents to commit torture, sexual violence and murder. This descent into authoritarianism should be a concern to us all. It must be resisted.” Sultana’s speech was bold, impactful and succinct; it should by nagging the consciences of her less courageous colleagues on the Labour benches and those in the Shadow Cabinet of shame. This bright young Labour Lioness is one of the 2019 intake, surely one to watch with the courage to fearlessly combat injustice.

        A Reel News Video of Ricky Tomlinson speaking at “Voices of the Spied on” public meeting, University of London almost four years ago was included in the latest Canary Article on the CHIS Spycops Bill. Reel News say of Ricky Tomlinson, “before we knew him as Jim Royle or Brookside’s Bobby Grant – was a construction worker and trade unionist. In 1972 he took an active part in the first ever national building workers’ strike. Tomlinson was among 24 people arrested for picketing in Shrewsbury. Government papers now show collusion between police, security services and politicians to ensure these people were prosecuted. Six, including Tomlinson, were jailed. He is one of several high-profile figures who, despite concrete evidence of being targeted by spycops, has been denied ‘core participant’ status at the Pitchford Inquiry. Voices of the spied on: Ricky Tomlinson: Real News.

        Other Voices of the Spied on include several women deliberately targeted by Spycops who entrapped them in sexual relationships while hiding their true identity and the disreputable scope of their job assignment. Channel 4 interview a young lad who grew up not knowing that his father was an undercover cop and his attempts to form a relationship after discovering the truth. “BBC Panorama featured a program covering the abuse by undercover police officers on environmental campaigns” a 2018 RT News Report, “Victims launch legal action over undercover cops inquiry” and RT’s Going Underground Afshin Rattansi interviewed Rick Tomlinson in, “Dirty Tricks, Spying and Corruption: Ricky Tomlinson on the Shrewsbury 24 Papers Star of the Royle Family and member of the Shrewsbury 24, Ricky Tomlinson tells Going Underground why, 44 years on the government refuses to release the secret documents they have on him. Plus why he is not being allowed to participate in Lord Pitchford’s inquiry into undercover policing.

        In a 6th of October Evening Standard Article they reported that, “Labour civil war: Corbyn and Starmer in bitter dispute over ‘spy’ bill as MPs defy whip. Jeremy Corbyn has led a Labour rebellion against party leader Sir Keir Starmer over a controversial new bill that would allow undercover agents to legally commit crimes. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources Criminal Conduct Bill was put before MPs yesterday, though it will have to return for further stages on October 15. Sir Starmer had ordered his party via a whip to abstain from voting while the party pushed for amendments to be made. However, around 20 MPs are reported to have defied this order and instead voted against the bill. Jeremy Corbyn tweeted yesterday evening: ‘I have grave concerns regarding the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill. It could enable unnecessary and unlawful interference with the legitimate activities of trade unions, environmentalists, anti-racists & other campaigners. ‘We must always stand up for human rights’.”

        The Standard say, “Mr Corbyn was joined by a number of senior Labour members. Diane Abbott was one of the MPs who rebelled alongside Mr Corbyn. She said after the vote: “Pleased to have voted against the government’s #spycops bill. Abstention would have been wrong. ‘Labour Party has to stick to its values.’ Can’t be neutral on ‘undercover policing abuses.’ The bill was ultimately backed in this latest stage, however. Proponents say it will give ‘sound legal footing’ for undercover agents. Keir Starmer had ordered Labour MPs to abstain from voting. But critics are wary of what the bill would allow such agents to do, while also being vague in its scope.” They report that, “Such critics are not exclusive to the Labour party. Tory MP David Davis said the bill could “impinge on innocent people”. Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee Yvette Cooper called the bill “very vague and very broad”.

        The Standard report that, “Labour’s Apsana Begum, MP for Poplar and Limehouse, said the bill could even clash against the Human Rights Act. She wrote on Twitter: ‘I’ve voted against government plans that would allow undercover state agents to commit even murder, torture, and sexual violence’.” In defence of the CHIS Spycops Bill they say, “The government’s security minister James Brokenshire has claimed the bill is not the same as a ‘licence to kill’, as it would enforce rules within the scope of the European convention on human rights. He said at the start of the MPs’ debate: ‘Let me be clear, there are upper limits to the activity that could be authorised under this bill and these are contained in the Human Rights Act.’ Despite the concerns, MPs voted in favour of the bill by 182 to 20.”

        Sadly, this clearly demonstrates that had Starmer encouraged Labour MPs vote against the CHIS Bill it would have been defeated. In the dystopian future ahead of us Starmer’s truly disgraceful cowardice will be used as a weapon against the Labour Party. The Standard note, “It is not the first time in recent weeks Labour has faced a rebellion over a bill vote. Three frontbench MPs were fired last month after they joined Jeremy Corbyn in voting against an armed forces bill. The party whip again called for MPs to abstain. Mr Corbyn was joined by senior Labour figures Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and Rebecca Long-Bailey in defying this. One MP who voted against the law, Nadia Whittome, called the bill ‘anti-veteran, anti-human rights,’ and added it would ‘effectively decriminalise torture’.” We cannot condone Labour MPs failure to vote under an excuse of following the orders of new Leadership; these repeated abstentions on critical Human Rights issues demonstrate a dire absence of leadership: Starmer has to go! DO NOT MOVE ON!

        October 15, 2020 at 21:36#61598Reply

        Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (4)Kim Sanders-Fisher

          Today marks a very dark day for the future of our country as this corrupt rogue Tory Government gains a license to kill UK citizens with impunity and our loyal opposition follows the demand of Captain of Capitulation Starmer to wave the new legislation through unimpeded. The Tories must be rejoicing tonight over selecting the right Trojan horse to lead the Labour party into hell destroying the Human Rights of ordinary citizens to among other disreputable missions, protect the financial interests of the filthy rich Tory elite. Starmer must have collected a high ransom for functioning as Judas, firstly in betraying the Labour Party membership by rewarding John Ware and his fantisemitism smear team for their perjury, his ongoing critical support of the PM’s dangerously shambolic Covid 19 policy and now his support of lethal legislature that puts innocent, law-abiding citizens at dire risk of harm. The removal of Starmer from the Leadership of the Labour Party should now be a very urgent priority to restore democratic integrity.

          In a Labour List Article entitled, “Voting down the CHIS bill would weaken national security and human rights,” Labour’s shadow security minister Coner McGinn, tried to defend the CHIS Spycops Bill. He wrote, “One of the many problems with losing general elections is that you don’t get the legislation or indeed much else you want. Many bills introduced by this government are nakedly political, divisive and deeply harmful to the national interest. In that bracket you find – amongst many others – the internal market bill, which openly breaks international law; the agriculture bill, which would lower food standards and harm our farming industry; and the immigration bill, which makes it harder to recruit staff for our NHS and care homes. Some, though, are necessary – particularly when concerning national security. But, of course, under a Tory government these bills will always be imperfect and written with fundamentally different priorities to a Labour government.” ‘Imperfect:’ Gutting our core rights and protections from Tory abuse more like!

          McGinn claims that, “The covert human intelligence sources (criminal conduct) bill, which returns to the Commons this week, is in this latter group. The CHIS bill addresses a vital issue: the need to provide a clear lawful framework for telite.he use of human intelligence sources, who often help uncover crimes such as far-right terrorism and child sexual exploitation. Any responsible government acting in the national interest would need to legislate to address this. The current status quo is unacceptable, as it means this happens without proper oversight and the formal protections offered by the Human Rights Act.” Which would be a valid point if the Tory Party hadn’t pledged to withdraw the UK from the European Court of Human Rights and ‘redefine’ the rights that we will retain in future that will undoubtedly be geared towards protecting Corporate interests and the expanding wealth of the elite.

          McGinn explains, “Since 2017, the security services have thwarted 27 terror attacks and in 2018 alone covert human intelligence sources helped disrupt 30 threats to life. But these sources cannot and should not operate without a clear legal framework that is legally enforceable, and that includes effective and necessary safeguards. That is the point this bill tries to address. Without the legislation, undercover sources will either be unable to operate – depriving our security services of a vital tool in disrupting terrorism and serious and organised crime – or continue to do so only by operating in the shadows. Neither outcome is in the national interest. Both are worse than this bill passing.”

          McGinn claims that, “The bill makes clear that any activity carried out by agents must be compliant with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights – which explicitly outlaws torture, murder and sexual violence. This is a powerful, important and legally enforceable protection. It means agents cannot be authorised to undertake any activity that breaches the HRA or the ECHR – and that this can be upheld in court.” That might protect us until this Tory Government decides to abandon the jurisdiction of the Court exactly as pledged and rewrite our Human Rights Law. McGinn notes that, “Keir Starmer, who literally wrote the text book on human rights law and has represented those seeking justice in the very highest courts in the land on this issue, made that case incredibly powerfully to Labour MPs this week. However, we recognise the bill is far from perfect.” In his role at the CPS Sir Keir Starmer was strongly implicated in the Spycops scandal and his involvement could still be further exposed.

          McGinn touts the Labour intervention saying, “Our amendments would put in place stronger safeguards and strengthen rights for victims. They would also reinforce the existing legal position that legitimate trade union activity is explicitly excluded from the ambit of investigatory powers. We will also seek to improve the bill in House of Lords and use every opportunity possible to improve it throughout its passage through parliament.” All of the amendments were ditched, but without the necessary checks and balances you still abstained from casting a vote. Too little, too late now to regret your actions; this dangerous erosion of public protection from malign state actors will pass into UK law. It will be a war of attrition from here on in; how much influence will the House of Lords have now?

          McGinn seeks to reassure acknowledging that, “There have been concerns raised about the potential for this bill to interfere with the campaigns against burning injustices, such as the ‘spycops’ scandal, the appalling events at and surrounding Orgreave, the abuse and secrecy around the Cammell Laird shipyard workers and the Shrewsbury 24, and collusion on blacklisting.” He says, “That is why we have been pressing the government to be explicit in stating that this bill is in no way retrospective and cannot legally impede these campaigns for justice. On all these issues, the Labour Party led by Keir Starmer remains steadfastly committed to supporting those campaigns – many of which he has fought for throughout his working life. We also pressed and received a firm commitment from the government that this bill will have no business interfering in the lawful activities of our trade union movement, which is a cornerstone of our democracy.” Any assurances will be based on placing trust in a serial liar!

          McGinn also noted that, “Some people have raised the possible impact on addressing issues relating to the Troubles Northern Ireland and the pursuit of justice and truth, specifically in cases like that of the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane and many others involving state agents. This is something that is deeply personal to me and indeed Keir Starmer, and we place the utmost importance on it.” Yet more blind faith in the integrity of a serial liar… McGinn continued, “As I said at the despatch box when this bill received second reading, I do not need to be convinced about the consequences of the state exceeding its power in this arena. I saw the consequences of it, which is why I am acutely aware of the need the greater oversight and human rights protections in this bill. It’s also why I have been dogged in ensuring cast iron guarantees that this bill will not stand in the way of justice for victims.”

          McGinn felt he had made his case, but I question the naivety of his trust in a thoroughly untrustworthy Tory Government with a tracl record for abuse of power. He said, “In short, we must ensure that the security services have the powers they need to keep us safe – and we will also introduce proper oversight, scrutiny and legal safeguards alongside robust protection for victims. Given the opportunity that is what a Labour government would do: protect national security, strengthen human rights, support victims. But until then we have to deal with the legislation this government brings forward, and do so in a way that shows we are a responsible government-in-waiting. The covert human intelligence sources (criminal conduct) bill is imperfect, but voting it down would weaken national security and lead to weaker legal safeguards. That’s not a choice we will make.”

          The Independent Article entitled, “MPs vote against attempt to ban undercover agents from committing murder, torture and rape,” outlines those who took a conscientious stand and why. They report that, “MPs have voted against an attempt to formally ban undercover agents and informants from committing murder, torture and rape. The House of Commons rejected an amendment that aimed to limit the kind of crimes that can be authorised under a new law. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill went on to pass its third reading by 313 votes to 98, sending the unamended legislation off to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.It would allow public authorities, ranging from police and MI5 to HMRC and the Food Standards Agency, to authorise agents and informants to commit crimes while undercover.”

          What is truly shocking is that according to the Independent, “The proposed authorisations would not only be issued in the interests of national security or preventing and detecting crime, but also preventing ‘disorder’ and in the ‘interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.” One can very easily imagine how such broad-ranging powers could be stretched to encompass all protests against the draconian authoritarian measures that the Government will require to subdue the rage of the increasingly exploited UK population. Environmental groups, animal rights activists and pretty much all organizations on the progressive left of politics will be aggressively targeted; we know this as these groups have already suffered significant abuses in the past. This law will protect the Arms Industry, Fracking companies, fox hunters and the Israeli Lobby trying to stop BDS and call out fantisemitism smears or for that matter anyone trying to challenge the wanton destruction of our environment and the rapacious Corporate elitist greed.

          The Independent note that, “An amendment tabled by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer would have stopped the authorisation of serious offences including causing death or bodily harm, torture, violating the sexual integrity of a person and detention. It was defeated by 316 votes to 256 on Thursday.” Sadly it was not enough for the cowardly wimp now in control of the Labour party to finally ‘grow a spine’ and support MPs who have voted with their conscience against the CHIS Spycops Bill. The Independent note that even, “Conservative former minister David Davis, who proposed a similar amendment, pointed out that allies US and Canada have ‘specific limits’ on the crimes their agents can commit. He said the amendments ‘would give the intelligence services the protections they need but stop short of giving them the carte blanche authorisation to carry out the heinous crimes in the name of the state that have happened too often in the past’.” But it sees all attempts to instil sanity were defeated.

          According to the Independent, “James Brokenshire, the security minister, told MPs that the bill would make authorised crimes ‘lawful for all purposes and no crime will have been committed’. But he denied that it was a licence to ‘commit any and all crimes’ because of human rights laws and codes of practice.” They say, “MPs also voted against an amendment that would have required authorities to apply for judicial warrants for criminal conduct authorisations, and set out the reasons why they were needed.” This means that future lawlessness would require less authorization that a wire tap or a search warrant. Adding to the frustration felt by those who vehemently opposed the CHIS Bill was the way that it was raced through Parliament. They noted that, “Several MPs complained that time to debate the law had been severely limited, amid accusations that the government was rushing the bill through ahead of potentially damaging findings in the upcoming Undercover Policing Inquiry.

          To the utter disgrace of the party under the cowardly Leadership of Keir Starmer, the Independent report that, “Labour whipped its MPs to abstain from the vote, prompting a flurry of resignations from Labour front benchers from the left of the party – including shadow financial secretary Dan Carden who resigned his post ahead of the debate. He told the Commons the bill ‘paves the way for gross abuses of state power against citizens’ and accused the government of taking the Labour leadership ‘for a rise’ with loose assurances.” Why more Labour MPs did not demonstrate this courage of conviction is an issue they must be confronted with by their constituents in the coming months as we descend into the tyranny, exploitation and deprivation of full Tory Dictatorship.

          The Independent point out that, “Officials have argued that the Human Rights Act must be considered in authorisations and would prevent the most grievous crimes, but several MPs questioned that assurance. Sir Bob Neill, a former Conservative minister and chair of the Justice Committee, telling the Commons: ‘If that’s the case, given the importance of the subject, why not put that on the face of the Bill?” Ominously he warned that, “should there be at any time a future government… that derogated from the Human Rights Act, it would be better to have that protection here’. Sir Bob also raised concern over the redress open to victims of authorised crimes, but Mr Brokenshire said the bill was not a barrier to judicial review or scrutiny by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.” The Tories have already pledged in their Manifesto to remove the UK from the International Court of Human Rights and redefine what our rights will shrink to in the near future’ the Tories also pledged to reduce the powers of Judicial Review.

          The Independent reported that, “Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, called for an amendment to prevent children and vulnerable informants being subject to criminal conduct authorisations unless ‘exceptional circ*mstances apply’. The government said the proposal was covered by separate guidance on the law but she called for it to be contained in the bill itself, adding: ‘It is right to see them as children first’.” They noted that, “Liberal Democrat former minister Alistair Carmichael suggested a series of changes to implement further safeguards, including to prevent crimes on economic grounds being authorised unless there is a national security justification. ‘If it’s decided we may be need a different governor of the Bank of England, can we authorise a Chis (Covert human intelligence source) to wipe him out?’ he asked.”

          The article reported that, “The independent chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Julian Lewis, asked for a commitment to oversight in the bill, which Mr Brokenshire said he intended to provide. His amendment, which was also defeated, would have mandated annual reports to the committee containing statistics on the number and category of criminal conduct authorisations by the intelligence services. The bill was drawn up after MI5 narrowly won an Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) ruling over the lawfulness of agents’ crimes, while a separate challenge over the use of children as informants and spies continues.” It seems all attempts to include appropriate safeguards were rejected; so the new Dictatorship will have unlimited powers to break the law and sanction others from a slew of different agencies to function as covert henchmen on their behalf. It will be noted in history as one of the key stages in the destruction of UK democracy and the loyal opposition stood by and did nothing to stop it!

          I have yet to see the numbers, but there was opposition from the Tory side too so how big of an impact did Keir Starmer’s forced abstention by Labour MPs make on this third reading of the CHIS Spycops Bill? Could the bill have been defeated with enough to tip the balance or is it just an issue that will burn in the moral conscience of Labour MPs when the authoritarian Tory Dictatorship rampantly abuses these new powers? As already noted, in the dystopian future ahead of us Starmer’s truly disgraceful cowardice will be used as a weapon against the Labour Party. We cannot condone Labour MPs failure to vote under an excuse of following the orders of new Leadership; these repeated abstentions on critical Human Rights issues demonstrate an absence of leadership: Starmer has to go! The legitimacy of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election must be challenge and Investigated as it has deprived this country of Jeremy Corbyn, a truly humanitarian Socialist Leader acting for the good of the British people: the Tories must go! DO NOT MOVE ON!

          October 16, 2020 at 21:48#61601Reply

          Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (5)Kim Sanders-Fisher

            Although the massive Tory majority secured by Dominic Cummings in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election has made it possible for the Johnson/Cummings Government to radically dismantle our democracy by easily voting toxic Bills into UK Law it does not mean that the opposition should abstain from bothering to vote at all. All of the opposition MPs were voted into office to do a vitally important job, holding this rabid Tory Government to account, not sit on their hands. While the public have been understandably distracted by Johnson’s shambolic smorgasbord of Covid 19 ‘tiered’ shutdown restrictions, several extremely damaging pieces of legislation have been raced through the Commons at breakneck speed preparing the way for the impending solidification of the Dictatorship after crash-out Brexit. The Trojan horse now leading the Labour Party in the wrong direction Starmer may have used the order to abstain on the CHIS Spycops Bill as an excuse to purge every last vestige of left leaning support from front bench positions.

            It is clear that some who wanted to vote felt compelled to hang on or risk Labour losing all of the hard won progressive influence gained over the past few years of enlightenment, but it is not a good look and other political parties decisively put Labour to shame over the vote on this controversial Bill that will seriously endanger us all if it can’t be significantly amended in the Lords. The LabourList Article entitled, “34 Labour MPs break whip to oppose ‘spycops’ bill as seven frontbenchers quit,” reveals who took a stand on the vital issue of our Human Rights. Author Sienna Rodgers names “34 Labour MPs including seven opposition frontbenchers have broken the party whip today by voting against the covert human intelligence sources (criminal conduct) bill at third reading in the House of Commons. The government-proposed legislation, which authorises criminal conduct by bodies such as police forces to enable their work, was approved by MPs with 313 votes in favour and 98 against including the SNP and Lib Dems.”

            Rodgers notes, “The 34 Labour rebels, plus suspended Claudia Webbe, were nearly all from the left of the party.16 were elected for the first time last year. Geraint Davies, not on the Labour left, also defied the whip. The opposition party had whipped its representatives to abstain on the bill on the basis that the legislation is ‘far from perfect’ yet ‘necessary’ due to ‘the need to provide a clear lawful framework for the use of human intelligence sources’. Dan Carden resigned from the shadow Treasury team this morning in a letter to Keir Starmer, which described the third reading vote as a ‘matter of conscience’ on a bill that ‘sets dangerous new precedents’. Shadow education minister Margaret Greenwood also broke the whip. She was appointed as a member of Rebecca Long-Bailey’s team, but the leadership candidate was replaced by Kate Green after being sacked by Starmer.”

            Rodgers reports that, “Parliamentary private secretaries Nav Mishra, Kim Johnson, Mary Foy and Rachel Hopkins – all members of the Socialist Campaign Group – have also quit the frontbench to vote against, plus Sarah Owen, usually thought of as ‘soft left’. Both Mishra and Johnson were PPSs of Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner. Foy was PPS to Andy McDonald, Hopkins PPS to Marsha de Cordova and Owen was appointed Rachel Reeves’ PPS earlier this month. LabourList understands that Starmer met with MPs personally this week to urge them not to break the whip on the so-called ‘spycops’ bill, after concerns expressed over the abstention plans were not confined to SCG members. Sam Tarry did not resign today although he was expected to do so. LabourList understands that the decision was made not to quit after Starmer made a number of ‘concessions’ in a private meeting of MPs that was pivotal.”

            Rodgers reveals that, “A source on the Labour left said: “This afternoon a number of frontbenchers on Labour’s left, including Andy McDonald, Imran Hussain, Rachael Maskell, Cat Smith, Marsha de Cordova, Alex Sobel, Sam Tarry and Charlotte Nichols – took the collective decision to stay on the frontbench and use their roles to ensure the left has a stronger voice in future party policy.
            ‘They were also given clear assurances by the leader that the party will use its position to push forward union issues, and have more high-profile campaigning using opposition time from next week onwards’.”
            The problem with Keir Starmer’s clear assurances is that he has already demonstrated that he is not a man of his word and cannot really be trusted much more that our hapless PM. He made strong commitments to Labour Party members during the leadership contest that he would maintain the progressive agenda of the left, but the second he took control he stressed his ‘new Leadership,’ lurched to the right and ditched good policies.

            In his weak pledge to play catch-up, “LabourList understands that Starmer’s commitments included a clear statement that a Labour government is committed to reforming the bill that passes in line with the party’s amendments, and meanwhile to aggressively pursue amendments in the Lords. The leader also pledged to pursue legislation on wider concerns, particularly around trade union issues such as the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, and to put forward clear commitments and campaigning actions, for example a draft bill on an Orgreave Inquiry. One senior trade union official told LabourList: ‘My understanding is that a number of Labour MPs met with Keir Starmer before the CHIS bill vote, who gave several commitments. ‘Starmer also made clear that there is no ‘abstention strategy’, and that if there are no changes to the overseas operations bill the party will vote against it at the third reading’.” I think MPs who were taken in by Starmer should know better after seeing his track record in office; he cannot be trusted.

            Obviously many on the left of the Labour Party are coming to the same conclusion regarding their lack of influence moving forward. “Another trade union source, who strongly disagreed with the MPs who stayed, told LabourList: ‘The majority of the left no longer has faith that these roles carry any influence at all, and is scathing about those who chose to keep their jobs rather than back the people who put them there. In a House of Commons contribution to the debate this afternoon, referring to Neil Kinnock’s famous 1985 Labour Party conference speech, Carden said: ‘I fear my own party is being taken for a ride by this government’.”

            Cardin told Rodgers, “I tell you what happens: you start with the idea that legislating for something that operates in the shadows must be a good thing. You then engage in good faith with a morally bankrupt government arguing for vital safeguards. Once that government finishes stringing you along, you end up in the perverse situation of condoning laws that ride a coach and horses through our nation’s civil liberties and could even be used against the labour movement itself’. The former shadow financial secretary also told MPs: ‘The bill is written so badly and broadly that it’s effectively a license to criminally disrupt working people taking action to support themselves, their co-workers, their families. ‘We have seen this all too often in the past. The bill paves the way for gross abuse of state power against its citizens. And in Liverpool, we have a healthy suspicion of state power because we’ve felt its damaging force too often in the past.”

            Rodgers notes that, “Jeremy Corbyn highlighted the scandal of ‘spycops’ relationships with women engaging in legal activities. He said those targeted are ‘completely duped’, adding: ‘Does this bill protect women from that in the future? I think we all know the answer to that’.” She says, “Labour backbencher Stella Creasy did not vote against the bill, but raised concerns over the protection of children who become human intelligence sources and suggested the issue would likely be addressed in the House of Lords. She told MPs: ‘There may be exceptional circ*mstances in which a child may become an informant. It is right therefore that we have incredibly strict guidelines that put the interests of that child at heart when that happens’.”

            Rodgers goes on to list all of the courageous, “34 Labour MPs who defied whip to vote against CHIS bill: Diane Abbott, Tahir Ali, Paula Barker, Apsana Begum, Olivia Blake, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ian Byrne, Dan Carden, Jeremy Corbyn, Geraint Davies, Mary Foy, Barry Gardiner, Margaret Greenwood, Rachel Hopkins, Kim Johnson, Ian Lavery, Clive Lewis, Tony Lloyd, Rebecca Long-Bailey, John McDonnell, Ian Mearns, Navendu Mishra, Grahame Morris, Kate Osamor, Kate Osborne, Sarah Owen, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Zarah Sultana, Jon Trickett, Mick Whitley, Nadia Whittome, Beth Winter.” The voting public need to take note of who is really on their side and remember that Corbyn has never been on the wrong side of history!

            Writing collectively about several recent pieces of deeply disturbing legislation Jeremy Corbyn aired his concerns in a Tribune Article entitled, “Jeremy Corbyn: ‘It’s Time to Stand Up for Human Rights and Oppose the Spy Cops Bill’.” He warned that “By granting effective immunity to undercover agents who commit grievous crimes, today’s Spy Cops Bill places Britain alongside a global attack on human rights – and must be opposed.” He said, “The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill (CHIS) – described by campaigners as the ‘Spy Cops’ Bill – is currently being rushed through parliament and is due to be put to a vote this evening. I voted against the bill on its last reading and will do so again unless it is substantially amended.”

            Corbyn elaborates by saying that, “Concerns regarding this bill have been discussed widely in recent days but it is worth restating some of the key reasons why there is such broad, growing and impressive opposition across civil society. This alliance includes Liberty, Amnesty and other human rights organisations, trade unions, peace and climate justice campaigners, anti-racist groups and many others who simply want the right to campaign on important causes without police infiltration. These concerns include – but are not limited to – the CHIS Bill allowing state agents to commit crimes to stay undercover; no limit being placed on the type of crimes they can commit, which could include murder, torture or sexual violence; allowing the committing of crimes to ‘prevent disorder’ or maintain ‘economic well-being;’ as well as the lack of a provision for innocent victims to get compensation and a lack of prior judicial authorisation to commit a crime.”

            Corbyn stresses the very real danger inherent in the CHIS Bill saying, “In other words, this bill could put undercover police officers and security agents above the law, granting a range of state agencies the power to licence agents and officers to commit grave crimes. For this reason, former Labour Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald is among those to have asked why this bill does not follow the example of similar legislation in Canada in terms of excluding murder, torture and sexual violence from being legalised. Amnesty meanwhile have gone as far as to say ‘there is a grave danger that this bill could end up providing informers and agents with a licence to kill’.”

            In addition Corbyn also warns, “I am also greatly concerned that as it stands this bill risks compromising and undermining legal proceedings through which victims of previous criminal conduct by undercover agents are seeking justice. Furthermore, the bill risks pre-empting the findings of the Mitting (formerly Pitchford) Inquiry into undercover policing, which was set up in 2015 to get to the truth about undercover policing across England and Wales since 1968, and to provide recommendations for the future. It came after a range of revelations and reports concerning how over forty years undercover police had infiltrated more than 1,000 political groups. These groups included trade unions, environmental campaigns, animal rights organisations and family justice campaigns including the Stephen Lawrence campaign.”

            Corbyn highlights other pieces of toxic Legislation ripping through Parliament right now saying, “The CHIS Bill came to Parliament hot on the heels of discussion over the Overseas Operations Bill. The latter is also being rushed through Parliament, and it is an insult that more time has not been given to scrutinise, amend and discuss such important pieces of legislation. Myself and a number of Labour colleagues also voted against this bill, due to concerns that it both violates the rule of law and fails to protect the safety, wellbeing and rights of our military personnel. As Shami Chakrabarti has made clear, it will ‘immunise the Ministry of Defence from claims by the very veterans it has neglected and claims to want to protect.’

            Referring to the Overseas Operations Bill Corbyn points out, “Of particular concern is the fact that there would be a presumption against any criminal prosecutions of soldiers five years after an incident took place – including with regard to war crimes, even though these often take far longer than five years to be discovered. The bill also denies public transparency and accountability for military interventions, which is a serious matter considering the UK’s record in this area over recent decades. Liberty have therefore argued that if the Overseas Operations bill becomes law it will result in the effective decriminalisation of torture and many other breaches of the Geneva Convention.”

            Corbyn warn that, “These two bills come within a context of a potentially massive rolling back of our human rights under the Tories. In 2018, Tory MPs voted down including the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK law after Brexit. Then their 2019 manifesto argued for ‘updating’ the Human Rights Act, which is cited in many judicial review cases brought by charities and NGOs against government policies, and also ensures that the European Convention on Human Rights is part of UK law. There have been reports this year of a growing mood within the Conservative Party to pull the United Kingdom out of the European Court of Human Rights as a follow-up to Brexit, and it is well known that Dominic Cummings and other prominent Tories have called for a referendum on this issue. It is clear from recent developments around Brexit that this government is prepared to break international law if it fits with its political priorities.”

            Corbyn rightly claims that, “All of this will also damage our reputation on a global scale – meaning that our condemnation of human rights abuse elsewhere will inevitably stand for very little. It will lining Britain up with extreme right-wing administrations that show little regard for human rights, following in the footsteps of Donald Trump in the US, Modi in India and Bolsonaro in Brazil. It is a threat to us all when our rights are curtailed. Now is the time to stand up for our core Labour values of human rights and civil liberties and against this Government’s divisive, dangerous reactionary political agenda and attempts to follow Trump in to stoking up a ‘culture war’.” Do we really want to join this band of rogue states?

            I have now seen the full tally of who voted against the CHIS Spycops Bill and who followed the Captain of Capitulation’s order to abstain. It was truly shocking to see how many Labour MPs disgraced themselves while all other opposition party MP took a stand. Despite early protestations only one Tory voted against the Bill. Presumably other Tories would have worried they would just be thrown out of the Party for voting with their conscience: this is the very epitome of Dictatorship. Starmer will have felt he won a victory in his fight to curtail the influence of the progressive Left; his ‘new Leadership’ threat is on course to eradicate all the fine policy shifts of the Corbyn years. Starmer has secured his own dictatorship against the will of the membership and the Party faithful must fight back hard to get rid of him. The Covert 2019 Rigged Election didn’t just give the Tories a majority to exploit, it eliminated any viable opposition. We must Investigate the result, expose the truth to delegitimize and remove Starmer and the Tories. DO NOT MOVE ON!

            October 17, 2020 at 21:57#61607Reply

            Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (6)Kim Sanders-Fisher

              Before Prime Minister’s Question Time, Speaker Lindsey Hoyle, wanted to be absolutely clear regarding the PM passing the buck. He said, “I wish to make a short statement. On Monday, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) about virtual participation in debates, the Prime Minister inadvertently, I would accept—said ‘I defer to you and the House authorities.’ [Official Report, 12 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 40.] As the Prime Minister will know, decisions on the scope of virtual participation are for the House itself. All decisions have been made on the basis of motions moved by the Leader of the House. I know that the House of Commons Service would be more than happy to facilitate virtual participation in debates, if the House voted for it. If the Government wished to pass me the power, I would be more than happy to accept it, but the decision to bring forward the relevant motion is a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government he leads, not for me and the House authorities.”

              MP Mr Vara launched the PMQs scrutiny session with a typical Tory cheerleading non-question, saying, “During this pandemic, in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire, I have seen a number of instances of ordinary citizens doing extraordinary work helping the elderly and vulnerable, and that has been repeated across the country in every single constituency, giving true meaning to the words ‘community spirit’. Would my right hon. Friend take this opportunity not only to acknowledge the fantastic work that has been done by so many people, but to give a huge thank you to each and every one of these unsung heroes of our country?” You would think this was a response to a resounding Tory triumph when the PM replying, “I thoroughly concur with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate all the volunteers for their spirit and the achievements they have delivered for the people of this country. I was delighted that we had a first chance to honour them in the birthday honours list at the weekend, or just some of them.”

              While we are all grateful for the work, sacrifice and volunteer efforts of the public, in reality this ‘community spirit’ demonstrates the resilience of the British in response to the most shambolic mismanagement of a serious health crisis in modern history. But beyond the accolades and awards, we should reward these efforts with decent levels of pay and adequate support for those forced out of work. But PMQs moved on to that familiar very irritating pattern of ‘Parliamentary Ping Pong.’ ‘Ping’… Keir Starmer went into bat saying, “On 11 May, the Prime Minister said that the Government’s covid strategy ‘will be governed entirely by the science.” [Official Report, 11 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 36.] On 21 September, the Government’s own scientific advisers, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, gave very clear advice. They said that a ‘package of interventions’ —including a circuit breaker—would be needed to prevent an ‘exponential rise in cases’. Why did the Prime Minister reject that advice and abandon the science?”

              In betrayal of his constant claims of ‘following the science’ Pong… the PM batted back saying, “We will do whatever it takes to fight this virus and to defeat it, but since the right hon. and learned Gentleman quotes the SAGE advice, I might just remind him that, on page 1, it states: ‘All the interventions considered have associated costs in terms of health and wellbeing…Policy makers will need to consider analysis of economic impacts and the associated harms alongside this epidemiological assessment.’ The advice that I have today is that if we do the regional approach that commended itself to the House and, indeed, to him on Monday, we can bring down the R and we can bring down the virus. Will he stick to his position of Monday and support that approach?”

              Starmer knew his deviation from unchallenging support of the PM hurt the PM, Ping… he hit back by doubling-down on his original demand saying, “I do not think that approach goes far enough, and neither does SAGE. The Prime Minister talks of the costs. Since he rejected SAGE’s advice on 21 September, I remind him that the R rate has gone up, the infection rate has quadrupled and hospital admissions have gone from 275 a day to 628 a day in England. Yesterday, 441 covid patients were on ventilators and the number of deaths recorded was, tragically, the highest since 10 June. That is the cost of rejecting the advice. SAGE has a clear view on why that is happening. What is the Prime Minister’s view on why these numbers are all heading in the wrong direction?”

              Pong… The PM said, “I set that out very clearly in the House on Monday. The difference between this stage of the pandemic and March and April, as the House knows very well, is that the disease is appearing much more strongly in some parts of the country than others. In Liverpool, for instance, alas, the figures are now running at 670 cases per 100,000, against 33 cases per 100,000 in Cornwall. There are 540 cases per 100,000 in Newcastle, alas, against 32 in North Norfolk. That is why the three-tiered approach that we set out on Monday, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman supported, is the right way forward. We want to put in the most stringent measures necessary in the places where the virus is surging, in order to get it down where it is surging. That is the logical thing to do. Will he get on to his Labour friends in those parts of the north of England whom we want to work with to put those very stringent measures in place, in order to deliver the reductions that the whole country wants to see? Will he support those measures? He would not support them last night.”

              Ping… Starmer continued the volley of inept chiding of the PM, “I think the Prime Minister is behind the curve again. He probably has not noticed that this morning, the council leaders in Greater Manchester that he just quoted, including the Mayor and the Conservative leader of Bolton Council, said in a press statement that they support a circuit break above tier 3 restrictions—keep up, Prime Minister. The big problem the Prime Minister has, as the SAGE minutes make absolutely clear, is that his two main policies—track and trace and local restrictions—simply have not worked, and we cannot stand by. In July, the Prime Minister told me that track and trace, ‘will play a vital part in ensuring that we do not have a second spike this winter. Those were his words. Three months later, SAGE has concluded that track and trace is only ‘having a marginal impact on transmission’. It goes on to say, and this is the really worrying part, that this is likely to ‘further decline in the future’. So the PM ditched ‘the science’ we knew that.”

              Starmer felt it was necessary to spell out the reason for PMQ entails the asking of questions, demanding appropriate scrutiny, he scolded, “Let us not have the usual nonsense that anyone asking the Prime Minister a question about track and trace is somehow knocking the NHS. This is SAGE’s assessment—the Government’s own advisers. After £12 billion, let us have a straight answer: why does the Prime Minister think that his track and trace system has gone so wrong?” Does Sir Keir really think that the PM is going to admit that his worthless centralized Track and Trace program was just a money making scam for the Tory elite?

              The ‘Pong’ was becoming a rancid stench of decomposing questions ignored by the PM, but he defensively hit back, “It is thanks to NHS Test and Trace, which is now testing more people than any other country in Europe, that we know where the disease is surging. We know that it is regionally distributed, rather than nationally distributed, at the moment, and that gives us a chance to do the right thing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to close pubs. He wants to close bars. He wants to close businesses in areas across the country where the incidence is low. That is what he wants to do, and he wants to do it now, yet he voted to do nothing last night—nothing—in the areas where the incidence is highest. He says one thing at 5 o’clock about calling for a national lockdown. When it came to a vote in the House of Commons to impose more stringent measures, he failed even to turn up.”

              Ping… Starmer wasn’t deviating from his core chide and challenge hit, “I know that, for someone who has been an opportunist all his life, this is difficult to understand, but having read and considered the SAGE advice, I have genuinely concluded that a circuit break is in the national interest, genuinely concluded. It is the failure of the Prime Minister’s strategy that means tougher measures are now unavoidable. That is SAGE’s view. SAGE has advised that a circuit breaker should act to reduce R below 1, should reset the incidence of disease to a lower level and should set the epidemic back by approximately 28 days or more. All three are vital, and that is why Labour backs it, so can the Prime Minister tell us what is his alternative plan to get R below 1?”

              The rancid ‘Pong’ was getting stronger as the PM dodged accountability and attempted to distract by reverting to his strategy of claiming ‘you had supported me now you don’t’ saying, “The plan is the plan that the right hon. and learned Gentleman supported on Monday. The whole point is to seize this moment now to avoid the misery of another national lockdown, into which he wants to go headlong, by delivering a regional solution. Opportunism is, I am afraid, the name of the game for the party opposite, because they backed the rule of six or he backed the rule of six and then refused to vote for it. I think at three o’clock, the shadow Health spokesman said that a national lockdown would be ‘disastrous’; at five o’clock, he was calling for it. Let us go back to the approach that he was supporting on Monday.” Had Johnson managed to confuse the issue enough to spread the responsibility around?

              Pong… The PM whimpered as he danced on the head of a pin trying to split hairs to avoid the inevitable decision he will be forced to make in a week or less; he was loath to hand Starmer a victory. He sounded pathetic as he whacked the ball across the net saying, “Let us try to avoid the misery of another national lockdown, which he would want to impose, as I say, in a headlong way. Let us work together—let us work together, as he was prepared to do on Monday—to keep kids in school, who he would now yank out of school in a peremptory way, keep our economy going, and keep jobs and livelihoods supported in this country. Let us take the common sensical regional approach, and will he kindly spell out to all his colleagues across the whole of the country that that is the best way forward, as indeed he did on Monday?”

              Ping… Starmer hit the sweet spot, “Following the advice is now, apparently, opportunistic. Presumably the Prime Minister will say the same to the leader of Bolton Council, a Conservative leader, who this morning said he supports a circuit break. I have just listened to what the Prime Minister said about his strategy to get R below 1, but I cannot think of a single scientist who backs it. He will know that the chief medical officer said on Monday that he, the chief medical officer, is—his words: ‘not confident, and nor is anyone confident, that the tier 3 proposals for the highest rates…would be enough’. That is tier 3 the highest tier. So why is the Prime Minister so confident that his approach will get the R rate below 1 so confident or is that no longer the Government plan?”

              Pong… the PM hit back, “I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman is misrepresenting the position, doubtless inadvertently. Our advice is that, if the regional measures are tier 3 and at all levels were implemented in full with the support and the active co-operation of local leaders, as indeed we have seen from the leader of Liverpool city region, and I pay tribute to him and I thank him for what he is doing, and if we saw full and proper enforcement and if they were able to conduct proper local test and trace, with the support of the £500 million that we are giving, then yes, those measures would deliver the reduction in the R locally or regionally that we need in order to avert what none of us wants to see, what none of us wants to see, except now the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having performed this extraordinary U-turn, and that is the disaster, in the words of the shadow Health spokesman, of a national lockdown. We do not want to go there. We want the regional approach. He should co-operate with it.”

              Ping… A desperately defensive tap as Starmer tried to reassure to PM that he was still true to his commitment to capitulation, he just couldn’t resist getting the jump on the PM regarding the U-turn he will be forced to make anyway within a week so. He pleaded that, “I have supported the Government on all their measures so far, and I have taken criticism on it, but I think this measure is wrong and a circuit breaer is in the national interest. I have read the advice of SAGE and the Government have rejected it.” Then despite warning there was no new hit, “This is my last question, and I am sure the Prime Minister has his pre-prepared rant ready as usual, but we are at a tipping point. Time is running out. Maybe he can seize the moment and answer a question. This morning, The Daily Telegraph quotes senior Government sources saying the chances of the Prime Minister backing a circuit break in the next two weeks are about 80%. Is that right? If it is, why does he not do it now, save lives, fix testing and protect the NHS?”

              Pong… It was the PM’s last chance for game, set, and match as he focused on totally redundant argument of, ‘now you’re with me, now you’re not’ just to sew confusion, before MPs realized that the party Leader most likely to U-turn in the coming week was Boris Johnson. The PM hit back with, “The right hon. and learned Gentleman claims to be supporting the Government one day, and then performs a dramatic U-turn the next. He claims to support the rule of six one day, then pulls his support the next. He wants tough measures, and then refuses to vote for them. Everybody can see what he is doing. Labour have said it themselves. They see this as a ‘good crisis’ for the Labour party and one they wish to exploit.” Not quite, because none of the opposition parties have had the opportunity to trouser massive quantities of public money by assigning it to their donors and elitist chums the way the Tories have!

              Pong… The PMs last hit sent the ball bounding right out the door into the wild blue yonder with his meaningless prattle. He said, “We see this as a national crisis that we are going to turn around, and the way we are going to do it is—and I rule out nothing, of course, in combating the virus, but we are going to do it with the local, the regional approach that can drive down and will drive down the virus if it is properly implemented, and that is what I believe he should be supporting. He said he would support it on Monday. This is our opportunity to keep things going: to keep our kids in school; to keep our businesses going. That I think is what the people of this country want to do. This is our opportunity to do that, and to suppress the virus where it is surging. He refuses to accept that approach today. I hope that, not for the first time, he will change his mind and think the better of his actions.”

              SNP Leader, Ian Blackford warned, “Yesterday, the founder of BrewDog warned that ‘the end of the Job Retention Scheme will lead to a tsunami of unemployment’. BrewDog is just one of thousands of businesses across Scotland and the United Kingdom demanding that the Tory Government U-turn on their reckless plans to scrap the furlough scheme. There are just two weeks left to save people’s jobs and livelihoods, so in the next fortnight the Prime Minister has two choices: extend the full furlough scheme or inflict a tsunami of unemployment on our people this winter. Which is he going to choose?” The PM was emphatic replying, “As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Chancellor has already unveiled the job support scheme, which will go through till next year. Those on low incomes will also have the additional benefit of universal credit, which again is going through, in its uplifted form—£1,000 extra per year—to next April at least.” Those on legacy benefits like the disabled on ESA have not received extra money.

              Blackford responded by showing his utter disgust for the PM, “My goodness. That really does show that the Prime Minister does not get it. Universal credit, is that really what the Prime Minister is saying to those that could be saved? People do not want to hear the boasting and the excuses that we get; they want action. These half-measures do not cover it. Thousands have already lost their jobs. The Office for National Statistics has confirmed that we have the highest rate of redundancies since 2009. We are heading towards a Tory winter of mass unemployment created by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. We know what the Prime Minister’s Tory colleagues are saying: the Prime Minister’s next job could be on the Back Benches; he just does not know it yet. If the Prime Minister will not U-turn on his plans to scrap furlough, does he realise that he will never, not ever, be forgiven for the damage that he is just about to cause to people up and down Scotland?” I must add, that would be right across the UK!

              The PM did not relent, “As I have said many times to the right hon. Gentleman, this Government are continuing to support people across the whole of the UK, with many billions of pounds in Barnett consequentials—at least £5 billion in Barnett consequentials for Scotland alone. But one thing I will congratulate him on is the Scottish nationalist party’s support for the tiered approach, which I think is still its policy, unlike the Labour party. At least it is showing some vestige of consistency in its normal gelatinous behaviour.”

              SDLP MP Colum Eastwood kept up the pressure, “By the weekend, Northern Ireland will be in an effective lockdown. Under the Chancellor’s new furlough scheme starting in November, a minimum wage full-time employee, a normal worker, will be entitled to £227 per week. I doubt that this Prime Minister could survive on that. How, and under God, does he expect ordinary decent workers to survive on that?” The PM stubbornly evaded the question saying, “I am proud of what the Government have done to raise the national living wage, which this Government introduced. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that whatever happens, a combination of the job support scheme and universal credit will mean that nobody gets less than 93% of their current income.”

              Virginia Crosbie continued the Tory tradition of ‘me first’ saying, “My constituency has the best nuclear site in the UK. Will the Prime Minister confirm to me and the people of Ynys Môn that he is 100% behind Wylfa Newydd?” The PM glowed as he replied, “Yes, indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her fantastic campaigning for a nuclear future for Ynys Môn. She has no more fervent supporter in that objective than me.” Like the Tory commitment to fracking it’s proof the Tories will ditch ‘the Green crap!’

              Labour MP Matt Western focused on yet another Tory corruption scandal highlighting the fact that, “The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has a habit of hitting the headlines, and not always for the right reason. At the weekend, we discovered that his constituency had been awarded £25 million from the regeneration scheme and that that was approved by one of his own Ministers. The Secretary of State returned the favour by approving funding for that Minister’s constituency. We have one Department, two Ministers and tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Does the Prime Minister think that the approval process is appropriate, or does he think that the public might be right in thinking that this all looks a bit grubby?” ‘Nothing to see here’ according to the PM, “All this was independently approved, but if the hon. Gentleman has some serious allegation to make against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State then may I suggest that he has the guts to make it?”

              Labour MP Neil Coyle said, “Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told me that he would support charities to be able to open covid-safe accommodation for homeless people this winter, but yesterday the Government announced a £3 million cut in the cold weather fund this year, despite higher covid-related costs. Will the Prime Minister at least guarantee that all Government funds can be used to cover anyone and everyone needing shelter?” The PM said, “Of course, we will make sure that local authorities get the support they need. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already put in an extra £3.7 billion into helping local authorities and, I think, a total of £28 billion into tackling the local consequences of covid. We will continue to support people throughout the country.”

              There were other interventions before the Tory Party Political Broadcast that is euphemistically called Prime Minister’s Questions ground to a close. It was the same old redundant fare of Starmer v Johnson Ping-Pong with the stench of betrayal getting stronger by the week. The Captain of Capitulation whining about the PMs failures trying to solicit an apology, but only now after weeks in lockstep with the PM finally offering a hint of opposition. Johnson turned every attempt at scrutiny into an insult of other people and a ‘now you’re with me now you’re not’ melee. All critics ignored, the standard Tory fawning was used to embellish the PMs boastful lies in his PR spin. Really vital issues are being rushed through Parliament like the CHIS Bill, while the public are distracted trying to fathom restrictions. We need robust opposition that requires removing Starmer over his betrayal of Labour members and the Tories over corruption that includes the Covert 2019 Rigged Election: expose, Investigate, and remove them all from office ASAP! DO NOT MOVE ON!

              October 18, 2020 at 22:44#61618Reply

              Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (7)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                In the summer the distraction tool pimped by the BBC and the media focused on ‘bums on beaches;’ where could we go on holiday without facing quarantine after returning to the UK. This non-news rubbish I called ‘handyfloss’ flooded the airwaves to detract from the grim reality of job losses and the prospect of reduced support on furlough before an inevitable redundancy. Now the handyfloss is an obsession over pub closing times and punitive localized lockdowns, necessary because the masses failed to unflinchingly obey the strict orders of the wealthy elite who are of course exempt from any curtailment of their unbridled privilege. The wrangling between Johnson and city Mayors over his policy to disproportionately punish Labour supporting northern cities through forced lockdowns, where minimum wage earners are expected to subsist on just two thirds of their income, was just a raucous distraction to obscure the stripping away of our human right with powers that allow police and other agents to function entirely outside the law.

                The necessary protective restrictions to reduce the spread of Covid 10 and limit its damage would be far less complicated if we first focused on logical evaluation of personal risk driving responsibility for individual behaviour within a strong framework of pragmatic national guidelines. This personal risk assessment is exactly what I did at the beginning of March; it included the following:
                • Personal Health Risk Factors: advanced age, underlying health conditions, comorbidities, gender and ethnicity are all factors.
                • Location risk: Living in London, any other major metropolitan area or within the regular commuting range of same, places with large Students populations, localities with a high propensity for overseas travel within the local population.
                • Contact & Proximity Risk: elderly housing or care facilities, multigenerational homes, overcrowded accommodation including Student Halls, frontline work assignments.

                From this it is possible to gauge your own potential risk and modify your personal conduct accordingly within nationally accepted regulations. Although you may feel that none of the first category applies to you, where you live, the personal circ*mstances of your accommodation or your work assignment might still put you at risk. Your ‘Contact & Proximity Risk ‘ is quite high if you cannot work from home due to a frontline job; the Tories know that wealthier Tory voters evade many of these risks. Nationwide risk will increase despite the Government imposed three tear unworkable plan that is really just a subterfuge. The Tories are relying on the children to act as vectors for Covid 19; despite the success of their planned cull they have kept their vile agenda under wraps. This is why the Tories are determined to keep schools open and have forced their Trojan horse Starmer to wholeheartedly endorse the plan. Meanwhile they distract and annoy us by closing pubs knowing those who can’t meet up can’t gripe or organize a protest.

                The Government could have created an online algorithm for people to self assess their own personal risk and modify their conduct to compensate. If they had done this in February, plus set up checks and restrictions at points of entry and invested extra money in local test and trace, that was already a well established function of local health authorities, we could have greatly restricted the few cases arriving from hot spots. We should have reassessed our stockpile of PPE and access to ventilators and made up for the shortfall by stocking up fast in preparation. If we had done these things we would not be in this mess, the UK would be like New Zealand. Despite the warped agenda of their news coverage the BBC have a global reputation for program excellence; they could have started putting together educational materials for at home schooling for all age groups. Children who do not necessarily have a computer still have a TV, but even if it wasn’t needed at all in the UK, such programs could have been sold to countries overseas.

                If the UK had acted swiftly following this tactic we really could have been ‘world beating,’ using our high tech sector to produce the supportive equipment and work on a vaccine, while we used caution to prepare and protect our entire population at the same time developing televised teaching materials well before we needed to close any schools. Instead influenced by ‘Herd Nerd’ eugenicist Dominic Cummings and warped by Corporate financial interests, an obsession with power and personal greed this rabid Tory cabal exploited the Covid crisis to plunder public money. Having seized control by fraud they enriched the wealthy elite by driving millions of the working poor into destitution while deliberately exterminating the elderly and disabled to reduce any future burden on the state. No tinkering around the edges over the restrictions is going to stem the carnage as they complete their ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple’ because that is their intended policy for the UK in the lead up to solidifying their Dictatorship after crash-out Brexit.

                Boris Johnson will now sell the snake oil of his crash-out Brexit, the ‘No Deal’ that the Tories had planned all along; promoting it as if it were some massive benefit for ordinary British people. Any negative consequences will be blamed on the intransigence and confected bad-faith negotiating tactics of the EU and the compliant UK Media will indoctrinate the people in this new propaganda. The reality is just as duplicitous as Johnson’s ‘levelling up’ lie while forcing the northern Labour strongholds into greater hardship and destitution as he ‘Decimates Down’ with the Tory boot of austerity and punitive wage cuts firmly on our necks. Two thirds of minimum wage will become fully established as the new normal wage throughout the entire country as the Tories dictate that this will be necessary for businesses to recover from the double whammy of Covid and this punitive EU stance on crash-out Brexit. All of this hardship will be portrayed as totally unavoidable and not the fault of bad governance as the economic divide widens.

                One phenomenon is a universally accepted consequence of destitution and starvation: those who are facing a slow death will riot and fight back. Johnson will not hesitate to use the full force of the military to assist police in quelling the masses, but he could also draft in a substantial private militia to function well beyond the normal restraints of our police and conventional forces; either way many will slaughtered. The UK is a global leader in the creation of ruthless private mercenary companies who have been deployed all over the world to suite the neo-con agenda. These operations have been shrouded in secrecy and act with impunity committing war crimes overseas; they stand ready to serve any paymaster without conscience; without doubt they could be used against protesters and innocent citizens in our country. The recent dangerous bills rushed through Parliament will expand their powers and increase their immunity from persecution as well as distance the Tory Government from accountability for their actions.

                I fear that the recent CHIS Spycops bill and the Overseas Operations Bill are a component of preparing to use brutal force against the population to subdue resistance; they are being raced through Parliament at speed. Because the UK has recruited and trained more private mercenaries than almost anywhere on earth there is a huge private army available to be rapidly mobilized to subdue our population if we rebel or protest against Tory authority. Focusing on the conduct of one rogue ‘security company, KMS, under the title, “The shocking story of UK mercenaries in Sri Lanka,” The Canary have posted a Video Interview. “Phil Miller, co-director of the new documentary Keenie Meenie, talks to The Canary about his film which exposes a shadowy British mercenary company involved in war crimes in Sri Lanka.” The Canary also post a Link to a far more detailed Declassified UK Article including the full Keenie Meenie documentary.

                The Canary posts a number of ways in which you can proactively “get involved: If you live in the UK and want to raise the issue of Keenie Meenie Services (KMS) with your elected representatives then here are some things to include:
                • Your local MP can ask the Foreign Secretary and Culture Minister to stop censoring files about KMS and release them in full to the National Archives.
                • If you live in London, your London Assembly Member can ask the Mayor for updates on the investigation into KMS by the Metropolitan Police war crimes team.
                • If you live in Scotland, your MSP can ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to stop Police Scotland from working with Sri Lankan officers.”

                They remind activists to, “Please keep your correspondence with politicians courteous and polite.”

                In the Declassified Article entitled, “Keenie Meenie Services – the most powerful mercenary company you’ve never heard of – was involved in war crimes in Sri Lanka for which its shadowy directors have never been held accountable” They report, “We began making this film in 2017 when UK Foreign Office files about Keenie Meenie Services (KMS) started to be declassified. This came 30 years after they were first written by British diplomats in the midst of Sri Lanka’s long civil war. These telegrams provided documentary evidence that British mercenaries had not only trained a notoriously violent Sri Lankan paramilitary unit – the Special Task Force – but that KMS pilots themselves flew helicopter gunships during operations. This happened during a period of constant aerial attacks on Tamil civilians in which hundreds of people were killed.”

                Declassified say. “This paper trail from one of the most secretive foreign policy episodes of Margaret Thatcher’s tenure as prime minister also provided long-hidden clues about the key players at the centre of this story. It named the mercenaries, civil servants and political fixers who knew exactly what was happening.” Lest we forget her proclivity for mercenary interventions the Guardian Article entitled, “Margaret Thatcher ‘gave her approval’ to her son Mark’s failed coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea” she condoned her own son’s illegal activity. They say in an, “Unpublished version of memoir by former SAS officer Simon Mann records Baroness Thatcher’s endorsem*nt of plan to depose oil-rich country’s president.” This was revealed according to “the chief protagonist of the bid, former SAS officer Simon Mann. The former prime minister, whose son, Sir Mark, was convicted in a South African court of involvement in the attempted 2004 coup, allegedly told Mann at a meeting at her Belgravia home: ‘I’m sure it’s going to work’.”

                Declassified reporting on KMS in Sri Lanka say, “While some had long since passed away, we were able to track others down in a four-year journey that took us around the UK, Europe and across post-war Sri Lanka, an island still living under a heavy military presence. Behind the mercenaries themselves – with their close connections to Britain’s special forces and intelligence agencies – there was always the political power of Whitehall. The UK government had a permissive policy towards KMS, which allowed the company to operate in Sri Lanka with a veneer of plausible deniability. To this day, the Foreign Office is resisting full disclosure of its KMS archive. While Whitehall is hiding the past, another UK agency appears unwilling to learn from it. Our film shows how Police Scotland has been working with the exact same Sri Lankan paramilitary unit that KMS coached in the 1980s – a unit whose tactic back then ‘when fired upon while on patrol [was] to enter the nearest village and burn it to the ground’.”

                Declassified reveal that, “Scottish police have since trained the unit in ‘public order’ tactics and continue to offer Sri Lanka ‘community policing’ skills. However, there remains hope that the victims may see justice. The Metropolitan Police war crimes team recently launched an investigation into the activities of KMS in Sri Lanka. It is possible that some mercenaries may finally have to answer questions about their shadowy pasts, even if we were not able to speak to them for this film. Bringing criminal charges against anyone who was involved in KMS from this period would be a landmark moment. Although the UK has one of the largest private security industries in the world, no one has been convicted of mercenary offences by a British court in the last 150 years.” Will the Overseas Operations Bill effectively shut down any investigation into this and similar war crimes overseas? Worse still could we see equally violent tactics employed here in the UK against those who resist the oppression of the new Dictatorship?

                The auther, “Phil Miller is a staff reporter for Declassified UK, an investigative organisation covering British foreign policy. His book, Keenie Meenie: The British Mercenaries Who Got Away With War Crimes, is available to buy from Pluto Press. Lou Macnamara is a self-shooting documentary director. Lou co-directed documentary short Working Illegally (2015) which explores the UK’s privatised immigration detention estate. They are both directors of Yardstick Films.” We must tenaciously defend this courageous level of professional investigative Journalism that is under serious threat right now with the extradition hearing of Julian Assange also discreetly buried by compliant news reporters supporting the authoritarian will of this corrupt Tory Government. When war crimes, atrocities and injustices remain secret no one is ever held to account for Human Rights abuses which in turn will further embolden those considering the use of extreme force, extraordinary rendition, torture and summary executions in future.

                Way back in a December 2018 Open Democracy Article entitled, “Britain is the world centre for private military contractors – and it’s almost impossible to find out what they’re up to” they elaborated on the lawlessness of modern day mercenaries. They wrote that, “Yesterday, an American man was convicted for killing unarmed civilians whilst on patrol in Iraq. But he wasn’t a member of the US Army. When the incident took place, he was working for the company Blackwater. Last month, the Taliban carried out a lethal suicide attack in Kabul, Afghanistan. But the compound they targeted wasn’t controlled by the army of any nation. It was run by G4S. According to the Islamist group, the British company constituted an ‘important base of occupying forces’, from which attacks against the Taliban were planned and mobilised.”

                Open Democracy report that, “G4S, one of the UK’s biggest private military companies, provides pivotal ‘operational support’ to Britain’s military in Afghanistan and such incidents bring back into focus the extent that private military and security companies are present, and sometimes directly involved, in combat. Since the ‘War on Terror’ began in 2001, billions of dollars have been made by men (and it is almost always men) working for private military and security companies (PMSCs) around the world. In the killing zones of Iraq or Afghanistan, Somalia or Yemen, such corporations have become central to undertaking roles traditionally reserved for national militaries.” However the name G4S is familiar to citizens here in the UK where they have been awarded an increasing number of Government contracts and have been accused of Human Rights violations in their treatment of asylum detainees. The old Keenie Meenie company KMS has morphed into a new entity ‘Saladin’ with the same directors and the same deadly mandate.

                Open Democracy warns that, “Britain has led this privatisation of modern warfare. It leads the world in providing armed contractors to ‘hot spots’, be it combating terrorism in the Middle East or fighting pirates off the Horn of Africa. Some of their biggest clients are governments; since 2004, the British state has spent approximately £50 million annually on mercenary companies. The total worth of the global private military and security industry has been estimated to stand somewhere between £69 billion and £275 billion a year. Many of these companies will serve whoever can pay, from wealthy private individuals to faceless corporations. It is easy for them to do so. Despite the size of this mercenary industry, the entire sector is marked by secrecy. Men trained in the arts of subterfuge and counter-intelligence dominate this sphere, and the result is an industry that operates from the shadows.” We should ask, what would it take, under Tory Government orders, for the latest priority ‘hot spot’ assignment to be the streets of UK cities?

                The project of shifting this country from a deeply flawed democracy to the full authoritarian Dictatorship of Boris Johnson as controlled by Dominic Cummings is nearing completion. They have abandoned all pretence of negotiating an EU deal after only played along with the concept in order to dupe the UK public, while running down the clock and ramping-up the assignment of blame to the EU for the inevitable failings and the horrendous consequences for ordinary working people here. With his disastrous mismanagement of the Covid 19 crisis, the PM has managed to keep the British public distracted from the reality of his deliberate targeting of the most vulnerable ‘economically inactive’ elderly and disabled sectors of the population he is actively trying to exterminate. For the working poor, the Tories will force wages down below subsistence levels using regional lockdowns; crash-out Brexit will just exacerbate this mass misery as we are all collectively brought to heel under the new Tory Johnson/Cummings Dictatorship.

                Dictatorships endure for decades and this one will be no exception, unless we derail their plan by removing them from office ASAP a lengthy dystopian nightmare lays ahead. The only way to avert this grisly scenario is to expose the industrial scale fraud of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and fully Investigate the result to render it invalid. That would delegitimize the Tories claim to power with their stolen ‘landslide victory’ majority in Parliament and could see the PM, Cummings and key Ministers not just removed from office, but also jailed for their illegal conduct. The Tory Government’s misappropriation of public funds paying the ‘Integrity Initiative’ to create libellous propaganda to discredit the Labour Leader and opposition party would be enough to warrant jail sentences in any valid democracy, but sadly the UK has already departed from that high standard of integrity. Evidence for this last deception already exists, but it is far from the only plundering of public money that must now be dealt with in Court to Get the Tories Out! DO NOT MOVE ON!

                October 19, 2020 at 23:13#61649Reply

                Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (8)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                  I cannot help ranting about this latest assault on our Human Rights: CHIS! A Canary Article entitled, “Human rights clauses in ‘spycops’ bill are worthless, leaked document reveals” draws attention to the ongoing alarm over the controversial CHIS Spycops Bill. They say that, “A confidential police document seen by The Canary reveals that instructions to ‘spycops’, or undercover police officers (UCOs), regarding adherence to the Human Rights Act are not worth the paper they’re printed on. Similar instructions form part of the Covert Human Intelligence (CHIS) bill, heavily denounced by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Tory government is progressing a bill to legalise the criminal activities of Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) who work with the police, MI5, and other state agencies. The bill passed its third reading on 15 October with Labour, under Keir Starmer, mostly abstaining. Meanwhile, in response to Starmer’s hardline stance, eight Labour MPs have resigned from front bench positions.”

                  With regard to CHIS and human rights, although the Canary report that, “A government website summarising the bill states that: Any authorisation for criminal conduct must be necessary and proportionate and compatible with obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights’ there are still serious concerns. Confidential instructions issued to UCOs in 2009 specified that ‘Police officers must be fully conversant with Article 6 (the right to fair trial) and Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights’.” The Canary have printed “an extract from confidential police files included in UCO Mark Kennedy’s Operation Aeroscope dossier, and signed by him.” They contend that, “in the field, it’s another matter entirely. Kennedy routinely disobeyed these instructions to provide cover. He had long-term sexual relationships with a number of women, including with ‘Lisa Jones’ for over six years.”

                  The Canary list several more examples showing that, “There were many other UCOs who disregarded these instructions in this manner too. For example:
                  o John Dines (cover name John Barker) spied on several left wing groups while in a relationship with environmental campaigner Helen Steel.
                  o Jim Boyling (cover name Jim Sutton) infiltrated animal rights and environmental groups. He formed a relationship with campaigner ‘Laura’ and fathered two children with her. He also had at least two other serious relationships.
                  o Mark Jenner (cover name Mark Cassidy) had a relationship with ‘Alison’ and used her as cover to infiltrate a number of political groups.
                  Indeed, more than thirty women have reported being exploited in this way. It can therefore be argued that the instructions in the CHIS bill for operatives to adhere to human rights legislation are meaningless. For there is no guarantee that a CHIS agent will obey such instructions.”

                  The Canary report that, “On the same day the bill passed its third reading, police finally conceded that six of their UCOs spied on environmental activist Kate Wilson. One of the UCOs was Kennedy. The Met and the NPCC (National Police Chiefs Council) admitted to breaching Article 8 rights and that ‘the intrusion was even greater’.” They say, Wilson commented: “These admissions have wide reaching significance for the public at large. Over 30 women now know that they were deceived into intimate, sexual relationships with undercover officers. Many more people were subjected to similar infiltration by undercover officers. What happened to me was by no means unique, and hundreds of people will have had their rights violated in this way. These admissions mean it is simply not sustainable to say these operations were legitimate, proportionate, or lawful.”

                  Calling the Government’s assurances “Disingenuous” the Canary say, “Regarding the bill, Howard Beckett writes in Labour List that the human rights stipulation is merely a device: Security minister James Brokenshire is hiding behind the legal requirement for compliance with the Human Rights Act (1999), which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights. But the government’s track record suggests this is being put forward in bad faith. Beckett went on to explain: Not only have many Tory backbenchers flirted with revoking the HRA altogether, the government’s legal defence team has previously argued that the state cannot be held responsible for the human rights compliance of individual agents once lawfully authorised, telling the [Investigatory Powers Tribunal], ‘the state, in tasking the CHIS… is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it… It would be unreal to hold the state responsible’.”

                  The Canary report, “Similarly, prior to the third reading of the bill, trade union leaders and 20 Labour MPs issued a statement regarding their concerns. Their list of objections includes: The reliance on the Human Rights Act as limiting the scope of what might be legally authorised, despite the government’s own previous reliance on a legal defence that the State cannot be held responsible under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights for actions undertaken by individual agents.” They say that the, “Bill attacks workers and protesters,” as it offers, “Authorisation for a CHIS agent to participate in criminal conduct could be given:
                  (i) In the interests of national security,
                  (ii) For the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder, or
                  (iii) In the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”

                  Strikes or any public protest, including acts of civil disobedience that might impinge on the financial interests of powerful Corporations, to prevent exploitation of people or the environment, would be fair game.

                  The Canary report that, “In a damning speech in the Commons, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn queried the last example. He suggested the bill could target striking workers, who could also be subject to blacklisting. If CHIS agents are used to prevent strike action and/or assist in blacklisting, this could potentially be a violation of human rights. The protections in the CHIS bill, as with the instructions to UCOs, are arguably disingenuous, if not worthless. They equate to an attack on all workers and their livelihoods, and on political dissent itself.”

                  According to the ‘Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance’ (COPS) Campaign Website, “On 8 July 2018, people targeted by Britain’s political secret police held a ‘people’s inquiry’ at Conway Hall in London. Exasperated by the state public inquiry’s bias toward secrecy as it drags on for years without even formally starting, the victims of spycops held this theatrical event to envision what an effective inquiry would look like. Marc Wadsworth’s testimony is shown here in full. A veteran anti-racist campaigner, in the 1980s he led the Labour Party’s black section, and in the 1990s he was leader of the Anti-Racist Alliance. Asked by Stephen Lawrence’s family to help build their campaign for justice, he was targeted by officers from Britain’s political secret police. He is a core participant at the Undercover Policing Inquiry. The people’s inquiry was part of a weekend of activities celebrating 50 years of progressive political campaigns achievements despite being infiltrated by counter-democratic police.”

                  COPS say that full details of that weekend’s activities are still available on the COPS Campaign Website where you will find other videos for an overview of the People’s Inquiry, and for that day’s conclusions. Here is a list of “Recommendations following the Peoples Public Inquiry:
                  1. Full disclosure of all names – both cover and real – of officers from the disgraced political police units, accompanied by photographs
                  2. Release of the names of all groups suspected to have been spied upon
                  3. Release of all personal files on activists
                  4. Extension of the inquiry to all countries where the British spycops are known to have operated
                  5. The appointment of a diverse panel with experience relevatnt ot victims to assist the chair in making decisions and judgements 6. Inclusion of children and young people who had contact with spycops as Core Participants in the Inquiry
                  7. Urgent and immediate review of convictions where spycops had involvement in the cases & misled courts – 50 wrongful convictions have already been overturned and this is likley to be a fraction of the true total.
                  8. The Inquiry must extend its scope to understand political policing and its impact on democracy. This must include a thorough investigation into racist, sexist, anti-working class, anti-democratic behaviour on behalf of the spycops and those that instructed them to operate in this manner. Such political policing and political policing units must be abolished.
                  9. An urgent review into all undercover police activities to investigate whether the bad practice exposed by this inquiry has been extended to other areas of undercover operations
                  10. Make available the necessary resources of the judge to be able to do their job in the available time
                  11. Equalising of resources, the police are spending millions on stonewalling the inquiry, victims have almost nothing
                  12. Increase the severity of penalties for non-compliance with the inquiry
                  13. Investigation into collusion between police and corporate spies.”

                  For more information on Britain’s political undercover police, see their website: campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com Find them on Facebook or Follow them on Twitter.

                  In a RealNews Article entitled “Fund and Destroy: Tracking The Home Office Relationship with Spycops” Merrick Badger warns, “Few would have believed that anything like it happens in this country.” He reports, “Hundreds of campaigns, from trade unions to environmentalists to anti-racists to grieving families seeking justice, undermined. Undercover police officers spending years living a double life, integrating into targeted families and communities. Dozens of women abused in the most complete invasion of privacy it is possible for the state to enact. Astonishment and a desire to know the full truth of what happened is an understandable response. However, it ignores the bigger question, why? What made the authorities so paranoid? Who gave the orders? There’s no doubting that it was sanctioned, quite possibly directed, from the highest levels of government. London’s Metropolitan Police formed its intelligence-gathering Special Branch in 1883 to spy on Irish activists. It rapidly broadened its remit to other ‘subversives’.”

                  Badger recalls, “In 1968, it did something new. London’s police had failed to anticipate the ferocious intensity of a demonstration against the Vietnam War. The crowd overcame the police and protesters got into the American embassy. It was hugely embarrassing for the government and, seeing the revolutionary stirrings across the Channel that year, they decided something must be done. Special Branch’s Detective Chief Inspector Conrad Dixon asked for ‘half a million pounds, twenty men and a free hand’. The government agreed, and Home Secretary (later Prime Minister) James Callaghan decreed that the Home Office would secretly directly fund the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). Like other increases in state power of the time, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act, such extreme policing was intended to be temporary but actually became permanent and increased its scope. The SDS was highly secretive. Most Met officers wouldn’t have known it even existed. Briefings were given orally.”

                  According to Badger, “Comparatively little was written down and much of what was documented has been destroyed. The government also keeps its dubious dealings hidden and ensures that, if discovered, any miscreants can be plausibly denied and kept at arms’ length. A secret Home Office letter from 1969 talks of fears that knowledge of the SDS ‘could leak out and criticise the Home Secretary’ and one from 1970 worries about the potential for ‘acute embarrassment for the Home Office’. The Home Office stopped directly funding the SDS in 1989. There’s no surviving evidence of there being any accountability from that date onward. That doesn’t necessarily mean the Home Office weren’t told what was going on, and they certainly hadn’t lost interest in this type of political policing. A second unit was set up in 1999, once again with direct Home Office funding. The National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) had a bigger budget than the SDS and a national remit, deploying the likes of Mark Kennedy.”

                  Badger says, “After the spycops scandal hit the headlines in 2011, the increasing flow of revelations forced the government to finally do something in 2014. A public inquiry was announced, and it would be preceded by an investigation into links between the Home Office and the SDS by ex-Audit Commission director Stephen Taylor. Curiously, the NPOIU was not included in his remit. Taylor spends the first half of his slender report listing places fruitlessly searched for documents, saying the ‘investigation did not identify any retained evidence available in the Department of any correspondence, discussions or meetings on the SDS for the 40 year period’ that the unit existed. Nothing, in the entire Home Office. Time and again he found reference to a file, catalogue number QPE 66 1/8/5, understood to have covered Home Office dealings with the SDS. It has disappeared. It would have contained material classified Secret or Top Secret, which would have strict protocols around its removal or destruction, yet there is no clue as to what happened to it.”

                  Badger reports that, “They physically searched all storage facilities in the Home Office. It’s gone. Taylor can’t make allegations but rather pointedly said ‘it is not possible to conclude whether this is human error or deliberate concealment’. The only files found were a series of letters held by police. Just 48 documents for 40 years, either dealing with funding or the SDS’ annual reports to their paymasters. The absence of evidence is far from evidence of absence. Even the cautious and equivocal Taylor bluntly says ‘it is inconceivable that there would have been no discussions within the Department or with Special Branch… however, the nature of the SDS suggests these may not have been recorded, and if they were, there is no available record’. Nobody spends millions without wanting something for their money. SDS funding increased fourfold between 1980 and 1985, and it’s notable that the SDS expanded into new areas at the time, such as animal rights.”

                  Badger contends that, “It beggars belief to suggest that this just happened idly and organically without serious discussion and subsequent reporting. Yet Taylor found no written evidence of the Home Office ever reviewing its financial control or value for money. The annual reports provided by the SDS include a list of all the groups targeted, monitored and infiltrated as well as intelligence gathered. In 1983 and 1986 the Home Office asked for more detail, which proves those reports were read. The reports from those two years show 48 and 63 groups targeted respectively. There can be no doubting that the Home Office knew which sort of political groups were being undermined. Today, aware of the outrage at spying on Stephen Lawrence’s family, the police continue to deny they specifically targeted family and racial justice campaigns (claiming this was ‘collateral intrusion’ from spying on groups allied with the campaigns).”

                  However, Badger asserts that, “This is contradicted by the fact that both the 1983 and 1986 reports list justice campaigns as being spied upon. Such groups have always been targeted by spycops. The denials are an insult to our intelligence and an affront to justice. The 1987 report mentioned the arrest of two individuals ‘at great risk to an SDS officer’. This is thought to refer to Bob Lambert who had infiltrated the animal rights movement. In July 1987 he was part of a cell of three activists who planted incendiary devices in branches of Debenhams that sold fur. Lambert was to target the Harrow store, which burned down causing £340,000 of damage. He was publicly named as the firebomber four years ago (it’s something he denies, though has failed to say who else it could have been). He is currently under criminal investigation for it.”

                  Badger recalls that, “The Home Secretary at the time, Douglas Hurd, read the 1987 report and is documented as expressing his approval of the SDS’ work. Although the Home Office stopped directly funding the SDS in 1989, there was further interaction with a Home Secretary. On 16 October 1993 anti-fascist groups held a march on the BNP headquarters in Welling, South London. Seven of the SDS’ ten officers were in relevant groups. One was in the BNP, guarding the building. Others, including Peter Francis, were in the anti-fascist crowd. Between the two sides were 5,000 uniformed officers, many in riot gear. That’s three separate lots of police on the streets, all licensed to fight the other two, which is exactly what happened.” This was total insanity…

                  According to Badger, “Afterwards, Francis, who has since turned whistleblower – joined other SDS officers at their safe house in Balcombe Street, Marylebone where they were visited by the Met Commissioner Paul Condon who personally gave each of them a bottle of whisky. A surviving letter shows the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, was due to meet the SDS officers with Condon but was unable to attend. The targets of secret police reflect the establishment’s values, not any moral objectivity. Protests of all kinds are treated as a dangerous threat to be contained by force. An active desire for change is in and of itself a problem. As generations of activists up to and including today’s anti-fracking campaigners can testify, the casual beating up, fitting up and harassment of people who dare to voice dissent is the clear task of uniformed officers.” This imperative remains relevant to this day, but look how dangerously to the far-right Tory Government has strayed with a racist PM under eugenicist Cummings’s warped control.

                  Badger warns, “It’s not just the secret police, it’s a policing culture that cannot distinguish between a threat to national security, a threat to corporate profit, a threat to government policy and a threat to police credibility. This is exactly why it was all so secretive. They needed to ensure the general public had no idea what was being done, how our protectors and elected representatives were running a counter-democratic campaign against us. They knew it was inexcusable and so ensured that, if it did get out, as few and as lowly people as possible would be held responsible. The truth exists but largely just in the memories of the perpetrators. The faltering public inquiry process may yet bring forth more whistleblowers. The Met admit that a lot of ex-spycops have great hostility to their former employers. If an officer gets scapegoated, they may well point up the ladder. Such hope relies on the integrity of the spycops, something they conspicuously lack.” New Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer in his former CPS role was hip-deep in this quagmire!

                  Badger believes that, “as Peter Francis has shown, contrition is possible. Most activism is based on the idea that people can drastically change their lives to make a better world for others. We may yet come to know the truth.” I cannot help but dwell on the looming Orwellian consequences of the CHIS Spycops bill and the impact it will have in supporting the impending Dictatorship. The contrition of key people capable of turning Whistleblower is also perhaps our last hope to expose the industrial scale fraud of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and fully Investigate the result to render it invalid. The huge misappropriation of public funds, not just paying a charity to generate damaging defamation in order to seize power, but in awarding of worthless contracts during a national crisis while pursuing a policy of a negligent targeted ‘Covicide’ cull of the most vulnerable; these are serious criminal acts for which this Tory Government must be held accountable. Beyond immediate removal from office senior figures must be charged and jailed! DO NOT MOVE ON!

                  October 21, 2020 at 03:03#61661Reply

                  Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (9)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                    I am still obsessing over the issue of the CHIS Spycops Bill because I fear it will have a profound impact on the authoritarian hell to which we will be subjected under the Tory Dictatorship. It is vitally important that we protest this incursion on our liberties and abuse of our Human Rights while we are still at liberty to protest as this bill will help remove such tights. In a Leftfoot Forward Article entitled, “New law may deny justice for spycops’ victims, Prem Sikka,” highlights the injustice the CHIS Spycops Bill will inflict on the women who were victims of undercover office’s abhorrent deception. Sikka starts out by asking, “How do we protect ourselves from terrorists, criminal gangs, human traffickers, arms smugglers and others, and at the same time protect and advance civil liberties? This tension is at the heart of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill (CHIS) currently going through the UK parliament and the government’s draconian measures should worry all law-abiding people.”

                    Sikka reminds us that, “The Bill authorises undercover agents to infiltrate groups and commit unlimited variety of criminal acts, with little public accountability.” In terms of justification for resorting to extreme measures of covert surveillance Sikaa elaborates that, “Clause 5 of the bill states that criminal conduct may be authorised if it is:
                    (a) in the interests of national security;
                    (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or
                    (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”

                    This deceptively brief list is extremely broad and disquietingly vague in its definition of parameters; one can easily imagine it being stretched to encompass issues only tangentially relevant to these confines and there is little doubt this will occur. Almost all public protests and industrial action would warrant covert surveillance and I can imagine private security firms rubbing their hands in glee.

                    Sikka reminds us that, “Subject to limits, the police have always been able to undertake covert operations. The Intelligence Services Act 1994 and its predecessors have long authorised security services to commit criminal acts in the course of foreign operations. However, CHIS authorises numerous agencies to commit criminal acts on British people.” Sikaa then lists the alarming number of forces or agencies that gain expansive covert surveillance powers under CHIS and the laundry list couldn’t be much longer, “These include military, police, intelligence services, HMRC, Financial Conduct Authority, Serious Fraud Office, National Crime Agency, Food Standards Agency, Competition and Markets Authority, Environment Agency, Gambling Commission, Home Office, Department of Health and Social Care, Ministry of Justice and numerous other government departments and bodies.” That is a pretty expansive list of potential future lawbreaking abusers who will in future not be held to account for targeting us!

                    Shockingly Sikaa reports that, “The Bill does not impose limits on the variety of criminal conduct that might be authorised though the authorisation is expected to be necessary, proportionate and specific. Violent and sexual crimes can be authorised. The authorising officers need to conclude that the conduct is appropriate and necessary. Currently phone tapping or a property search requires a court warrant, but that would not be necessary under the Bill. No judicial approval is required for authorised criminal acts.” This strips away necessary safeguards that are currently in place to leave the public wide open to victimization, exploitation and abuse with no recourse to justice in cases where a gratuitous, overzealous undercover operation causes significant harm to an innocent individual.” This ‘no judicial approval necessary’ aspect of the CHIS Bill is really scary as it means that expansive list of agencies, including their unaccountable private contractors, can interpret what is necessary arbitrarily and at our ecpense!

                    Sikaa reports that, “Undercover agents can be provided by private corporations, and can recruit women, children and vulnerable people to secure their objectives. There are few, if any, explicit constraints.” This legislation will give unlimited authorization to powerful Corporations to intimidate and silence public protest against their exploitation of workers and the environment. Sikaa stresses, “We all remember female environmental and animal rights campaigners who in the late 1990s were deceived into sexual relationship by undercover policemen. They considered that relationship to be abusive and rape. The CHIS Bill will not enable women to bring any legal action against the policemen. Indeed, it is likely to prevent the current litigation from going forward.” This is totally unacceptable. A number of these women have had children by these undercover officers only to have the contracted Spycop disappear without trace once their assignment objective was switched, abandoning all parental responsibilities.

                    Sikaa brings up one horrific case dating back to ;the Troubles’ in Northern Ireland, saying, “In the late twentieth century, Northern Ireland was the site of an armed rebellion and many civilians died. Pat Finucane was murdered in 1989 by loyalist paramilitaries, with the complicity of security services. A report concluded that agents of the state were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder. Former Prime Minister David Cameron acknowledged that there was ‘shocking state collusion’ in Finucane’s murder. His family are still awaiting a public inquiry and CHIS would prevent this altogether. If CHIS results in a criminal prosecution, the affected party may be able to challenge the legality of an authorised criminal conduct, but as the above examples show it may take years. It presupposes that the state agencies would cooperate. The big change is that acts now considered to be criminal would cease to be so in the future.”

                    Sikaa ominously warns that, “The Bill introduces a total surveillance society where undercover agents can infiltrate homes, schools, universities, factories, offices, trade unions, political parties, civil society organisations and everything else. Their activities can lead to blacklisting of trade unionists, murder and exploitation of innocent people, but victims will have little/no protection or recourse against the authorities. Almost all of our emancipatory rights come from the actions of small groups of conscientious people who argued that fulfilling lives can be lived differently. Faced with silence and exclusion, the suffragette movement had to resort to violence to secure voting rights for women. Trade unions, campaigners against nuclear weapons and environmental degradation; people seeking jobs, disability, gender and racial equality and numerous reformers had to go against the status-quo, but could now become the subject of authorised criminal acts by state agents.” Now they can be targeted by a ruthless unaccountable state!

                    Sikaa asks, “How would societies which conflate criminal acts with cries for social justice manage social tensions? Would they eventually implode? Other societies face security threats too, but have a more calibrated approach. For example, the US and Canada have specific limits on the crimes their agents can commit. These include prohibition to commit murder, torture and sexual offences. The UK government has refused such prohibitions. Tory government’s assurance is that the Human Rights Act 1998 would protect people’s rights, but it can’t be trusted. Its 2019 election manifesto said: ‘We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government’.” Reading between the lines of this alarming manifesto pledge it should be painfully obvious just whose ‘rights’ will be prioritized by the wealthy elite and who will be exposed to untrammelled exploitation and abuse by this Tory Government.

                    Sikaa rightfully insists that, “The warning signs on the road to fascism are flashing red. The CHIS Bill is the latest act of a right-wing government to disempower citizens and centralise power in an authoritarian state. We have already seen illegal closure of parliament, threats to judges, TV/radio stations and critical journalists, and curbs on the use of anti-capitalist literature in schools. The Internal Market Bill has shown contempt for international law and more will come.” We cannot afford to ignore this significant warning of the peril to come if we do not derail the fascist Tory regime ASAP. Labour’s progressive Left must stand up to Starmer and boot him out as we need robust opposition. Rebelling against the Tory dictates would be easier if we delegitimized their claim to power so we must challenge the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, Investigate the incredulous result and stop the plundering of state funds by this corrupt Tory cabal by booting them out of office and charging their top instigators with the crimes they’ve committed! DO NOT MOVE ON!

                    October 22, 2020 at 03:14#61683Reply

                    Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (10)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                      Today we saw another limp performance of Keir Starmer at Prime Minister’s Questions after being almost totally MIA as Johnson dragged the Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to his knees over a tier three lockdown Starmer’s. As has become his standard routine Starmer wasted his PMQ quota of six questions, by belabouring the same point without advancing a new question; this is not ‘forensic’ questioning it is a forlorn enablement of this Tory Government with the Captain of Capitulation failing to provide robust opposition. After a string of abstention votes imposed on Labour MPs over massively important Bills with huge Human Rights implications, and his belated mention of Burnham and Manchester’s plight, people are wondering what he really stands for? During his time as Director of Public Prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service Sir Keir Starmer QC had a disgraceful track record of not protecting the most vulnerable and advancing measures that significantly undermined British Justice; he remains on that track.

                      In a Medium Article Lucy Nevitt analyses his most significant failures while he was Director of Public Prosecutions, under Starmer she describe the CPS as “Shambolic,” saying that he was, “previously dubbed ‘an enemy to women’, proves he is unfit to serve as a member of parliament, let alone leader of the opposition.” In the piece that was published before he won Nevitt warns that, “In her role as Home Secretary, Priti Patel has already crafted the attack lines the Labour Party will face if Sir Keir Starmer becomes its next leader. After having been appointed head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in November 2008, Sir Keir’s half decade in the position oversaw cases as large and polarising as the Rochdale grooming gang scandal, mass sexual abuse scandals involving entertainment figures such as Jimmy Savile, and the John Worboys case. Patel noted Sir Keir has a complete ‘lack of interest in prosecuting horrendous crimes against women’, a statement hard to argue with when presented with his record.”

                      According to Nevitt, “Arguably the biggest scandal during his time as DPP came right at the beginning of his tenure. A victim of the Rochdale Grooming gang had reported to Greater Manchester Police the sexual exploitation she’d been experiencing since the age of 15, including becoming pregnant by one of the men abusing her. When referred to the CPS, they decided that the victim was ‘not credible’ and that due to ‘insufficient evidence’ there was an ‘unrealistic prospect of conviction’. Victims continued to be plied with alcohol, drugs and gifts and were prostituted out to multiple men a night, multiple times a week for a further five years. In 2011, Nazir Afzal, who was then the chief prosecutor in the North West, reopened the case. The evidence previously deemed ‘insufficient’ by Starmer’s CPS, evidence which included DNA and eventually led to 47 other victims allegations, proved vital to securing the convictions of ten men.”

                      Nevitt highlight the disgraceful abandonment of one of the grooming gang’s helpless young victims saying that, “One of the victims was still not seen as ‘credible’ enough by the CPS because, despite being abused herself, she had later assisted in recruiting other girls to be groomed.” This was hardly a surprising consequence given her impressionable age and lack of support, but it seems the CPS were oblivious to her plight, Nevitt says, “The CPS did not want to call her as a witness and had ruled it was not in the public interest to prosecute the men who had abused her, but they needed to use the victim’s evidence. The CPS chose to name this victim as a co-conspirator without informing her that she had been named on the indictment along with the men who had trafficked and raped her. This resulted in social services attempting to remove her child from her custody and the resignation of the Detective Constable overseeing the case resigning from the force, so that he could publicly criticise the CPS’s treatment of victims.”

                      Nevitt explained that, “Local authorities had previously blamed their reluctance to prosecute on the fear of being perceived as racist due to the fact the perpetrators were of South Asian origin and the victims were mostly white British girls. This reluctance and inaction saw a rise in far-right agitation across northern England; a father of one of the victims even joined the BNP for a short period over frustration at the lack of action by authorities. After significant public backlash, Sir Keir was forced to apologise for the mishandling of the case, saying that prosecutors shouldn’t ‘shy away’ from the ‘issue of ethnicity’ which had to be ‘understood and addressed’, and that ‘a number of assumptions, myths and stereotypes’ about sexual violence had resulted in the previous decision to ‘no further action’ the case.”

                      Nevitt pointed out that, “This response feebly indicated that the CPS needed to review how staff viewed sexual violence and the treatment of victims. Unfortunately, as later demonstrated by repeated failings on such issues, any internal review that may have gone on seems to have further embedded assumptions, myths and stereotypes within the institution. Retrospectively looking at Sir Keir’s language, it is quite clear now that his wording, though seemingly confident on this issue, lacked any substance.” This flaw is proving typical of Starmer’s bland proclamations and public demonstrations of support on various vitally important Human Rights issues that are not then underwritten by clear substantiate political statements or a bold voting record that is expected of a Leader. Indeed Starmer’s record of failures and accomplishments while Director of Public Prosecutions clearly demonstrates the unjust biases he has retained to this day which made him perhaps the worst possible choice among the Labour Leadership contenders.

                      Nevitt reported that, “In 2009, whilst Jimmy Savile was still alive, police in Surrey and Sussex referred 4 cases to the CPS alleging that Jimmy Savile had abused 3 girls under the age of 16. Savile was interviewed under caution at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where one of the incidents allegedly took place in the seventies. Within the same month, the CPS had received the files from police, but dropped the case due to ‘insufficient evidence’’. It would later emerge after Savile’s death that he had abused up to 500 victims over a four-decade period. In 2012 Emily Thornberry, Sir Keir’s former opponent in the current Labour leadership contest, stated that she found it ‘deeply disappointing’ that the CPS was ‘presented with evidence of a clear pattern of sexual assaults by Savile and decided not to act’.” It is hard to understand how Starmer’s systematic failure to protect women and minors from harm was not raised as a strike against him, but he was the Mainstream Media pick for the ideal ineffectual opposition candidate.

                      Nevitt then highlighted, “one of the most crucial cases is related to John Worboys, the black cab driver who spiked the drinks of scores of unsuspecting women before sexually assaulting them while they were unconscious in the back of his taxi. Worboys was convicted in 2009 of 19 charges against 12 women. It was suspected that there were over 100 more victims. But Sir Keir ruled not to pursue further charges. What is most interesting about the case is that Carrie Symonds, the current partner of Boris Johnson, was a victim of Worboys. If Sir Keir is elected Labour’s next leader elected, the party would face a situation where they would have not only failed to elect a woman leader, but they would also elected a man who oversaw the mishandling of a high-profile rape case involving the prime minister’s partner.” One would have thought that Boris Johnson would be more concerned about this flaw in his primary opponents track record, but as a hard core misogynist, having a weak opposition sparring partner was far more important.

                      Although the abysmally low conviction rate for rape cases has been in the news lately no one is linking the former Director of Public Prosecutions to this worrying trend. However Nevitt reminds us that, “Sir Keir also oversaw the dramatic decline in the prosecution rate of rape cases as a result of the introduction of new guidance which led to police referring fewer cases to the CPS for charging decisions. The guidance saw an increase in the burden of proof from 50% to 60% which resulted in more complex cases that were more difficult to prosecute being dropped, with thousands of victims seeing their cases ‘no further actioned’ due to ‘insufficient evidence’ and an ‘unrealistic prospect of conviction’.” She notes that these were, “the same things the victims of both Savile and the Rochdale grooming gang were originally told, which points to systemic failures resulting in untold numbers of abusers walking free without ever facing trial.”

                      Nevitt said, “A senior Met officer told the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that ‘referrals (to the CPS) had dropped as a result of policy change put in place in response to the CPS director’s 2011 guidance on charging’. This has contributed to the current crisis in the criminal justice system where campaigners have described rape as being ‘effectively decriminalised’. As a result, the End Violence Against Women and Girls Coalition and Centre for Women’s Justice have brought a judicial review against the CPS for their failure to prosecute rape cases. Sir Keir also failed to end the process of survivors who are disbelieved by authorities, or who withdraw their allegations from being charged for ‘false reporting’. The fear of false accusations is hugely disproportionate to the frequency of this occurrence. False allegations are extremely rare, ones that are labelled as ‘false’ often result in being true years later or are legitimate allegations that were withdrawn under pressure from the attacker, family and friends or the police.”

                      Nevitt remarked that, “After Sir Keir’s resignation from the role, he called on the CPS to implement changes to how rape cases were investigated and even helped the Labour Party draw up a victim’s law outlining how it could be done. This was after he had the power to push for these changes himself within the institution. Instead he left deeply held biases and myths go mostly unchallenged, allowing for a culture of disbelief to continue, paving the way for the further decline of conviction rates.” This is typical of Starmer playing to the public for kudos after failing to take responsibility while in post; his actions are superficial publicity stunts with the sole priority of advancing his political career and no firm conviction to back up the measures he claims to support. “Survivors deserve support and justice, but Sir Keir reserved that for a small few choosing suspicion first and foremost, even in cases with multiple victims like the Rochdale grooming gang and Jimmy Savile scandals.”

                      Nevitt claims that, “As shown when it comes to sexual violence, Sir Keir is not a man of principle, he won’t champion justice or stand up for human rights, he will actively deny you them. Sir Keir doesn’t believe sex crimes to be in the public interest to prosecute. Evidence of this is on public record for all to see. If Labour Party members ignore Sir Keir’s history at the CPS we risk sending a damning message that his previous judgements as DPP do not matter and by extension those victims who were let down don’t either.” The only reason these damning facts did not destroy Keir Starmer’s chances in the Leadership contest is that the right wing Media knew that as a compliant, enabling Trojan horse Starmer’s total lack of principals would be a huge asset to a smooth transition into Tory Dictatorship. By forcing all Labour MPs to abstain on the CHIS Spycops Bill Starmer is once again reinforcing his absolute disregard for the Human Rights of women in situations of extreme and persistent exploitation and abuse.

                      But Keir Starmer is an equal opportunity let down and turncoat devoid of any moral compass. He pretended to champion the Left promising to keep progressive policies in place, but he has made a strong point of ditching everything the Labour Party fought so hard for under Jeremy Corbyn. He also touted his desire to unify the Party, only to selectively remove all progressive Labour Left influence including with his disgraceful firing of Rebecca Long Bailey on a flimsy pretext. Against the sound advice of Labour’s Legal team he betrayed the entire Labour membership by paying off the SLAPP Lawsuit filed by John Ware, thereby hardwiring unwarranted guilt for the ongoing fantisemitism smear campaign into the ‘fake news’ history of the Labour Party and driving an exodus anong the members. He failed to demand the removal of Dominic Cummings for his gross violation of lockdown restrictions and Keir Starmer has bent over backwards to enable Boris Johnson offering zero opposition to his shambolic Covid strategy.

                      The once strident champion of calls for a ‘Peoples Vote’ that proved divisive among some Labour members, and was blamed as a contributing factor in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, has not been mentioned by Starmer since then. I do not understand how, if so many staunch Labour supporters ‘lent’ the Tories their vote, supposedly because they were so determined to “Get Brexit Done,” those Party members would have voted for the leadership candidate with the strongest anti-Brexit conviction? They would have still had membership cards or at least had time to join to show their anger towards Starmer, but sadly he won! That is just one of the still unexplained anomalies that discredits the legitimacy of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, which is why the result should be fully Investigated, because the fake Tory ‘landslide victory’ due to ‘borrowed votes’ has never made any logical sense. Now as the UK careens towards a catastrophically damaging crash-out Brexit the Captain of Capitulation, Keir Starmer has fallen eerily silent.

                      The poorest people in the UK are facing the greatest hardship, but zero conviction Starmer now offers zero opposition to crash-out Brexit! In an Independent Article published back in 2017 entitled, “Brexit could cut wages by 30% over next two decades, says private equity boss Guy Hands,” they highlighted the winners and losers in Britain after we leave the EU. Quoted Hands they said, “Leaving the European Union will be bad for most people but good for his own multi-billion pound fund, he says.” They described Hands as, “One of the most high profile names in finance has said that Brexit is going to lead to dramatic economic upheaval which will be bad for most people but good for his multi billion-pound private equity firm.” They say, “Guy Hands, chairman of Terra Firma, one of Europe’s largest private equity groups, warned that the country will have to get rid of much of its social safety net and may see a 30 per cent decline in wages in real terms in the next 20 years to enable it to compete outside of Europe.”

                      How does Hands see our post Brexit future playing out? It looks decidedly grim for most of us as, “Debt will command higher interest rates as more risk is ascribed to an independent UK, and immigrants from Europe will be replaced with workers from the Indian subcontinent and Africa, who may be willing to accept ‘substantially’ lower pay, he said.” UK citizens will not be competing with EU migrants on the level playing field of equal rights at work for equal pay. The numbers will not reduce, but those who come here from further afield have far more to lose making them more compliant with low wages and poor working conditions. The entire workforce will be dragged down to this lower level with Covid used as an excuse to help cover for the Brexit fiasco. The lockdown restrictions are helping to acclimatize the working poor to what will become the new normal of extreme poverty wages a third lower than the current minimum wage; people will be told this adjustment is necessary to help crippled businesses recover.

                      The Independent report that, “Still, ultimately, the exit will be a good thing for the economy, Hands said.” Most savvy progressives now realize that, “good for the economy” is Tory code for healthy profits for major Corporations and the wealthy elite at the grim expense of grinding poverty for the vast majority of ordinary workers who will suffer unemployment, wage regression, debt and destitution. Without expressing the slightest degree of genuine regret Hands says, “The slightly sad thing is the people who voted for Brexit aren’t the people who are going to have to make these sacrifices.” Hands then added, “That’s not unusual for big, political decisions when people don’t fully analyse what the economic consequences are.” There is simply no excuse for the Tories ongoing deliberate deception or lack of opposition from Starmer as Labour Leader. Hands statement sounds like a disingenuous way of telling us we were all duped by dishonest politicians, which has become pretty much standard practice, but we are getting sick of it.

                      Back in 2017 the Independent reported that, “that Prime Minister Theresa May said this month that the country would leave the European Union’s single market, pursuing a so-called hard Brexit and severing the bloc’s influence over the UK’s immigration and laws. She’s aiming to preserve tariff-free trade between Britain and the continent while securing the liberty to make new deals with other countries. Brexit will also present opportunities for buyout funds, Hands said. As interest rates go up, some businesses will go bankrupt, leading to buying opportunities, he said. ‘Sadly, and this is always one of the strange things about business, I think it’s probably a bad thing for the majority of people and bad for the country, but I think, for my business, it’s probably going to be good,’ he said.” We know that the selective restriction the Tories are imposing will accelerate bankruptcies. This is why Tory MPs are so eager to keep us duped with zero transparency over the catastrophic impact of Brexit; they will be laughing all the way to the bank!

                      We are facing a crisis of Leadership on both sides of the political divide. The lying, dismissive narcissist Boris Johnson is too lazy and inept to run the country, but he is controlled by a far more devious eugenicist the ‘Herd Nerd’ Dominic Cummings. Meanwhile, masquerading as Leader of the opposition, our Captain of Capitulation the Tories faithful Trojan horse Sir Keir Starmer is equally deserving of removal from office. What will it take to rid us of both men? Starmer could easily be caught out by the exposure of the fantisemitism scam that he manipulated to his favour in betrayal of Party members or Labour could reach a tipping point of sheer disgust in his self-serving lack of moral fibre; he needs to ‘grow a spine’ fast. The Tories are so embroiled in corruption it seems impossible that they will be able to continue using their stolen victory to plunder the public purse and ‘Slaughtering the Sheeple’ while dragging the entire population into destitution under the excuse of Covid. These toxic tyrants have to go ASAP! DO NOT MOVE ON!

                      October 23, 2020 at 03:20#61690Reply

                      Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (11)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                        Johnson began prime Ministers Questions with a tacit admission of defeat against the Covid 19 threat as yet another Member of the Chamber has now tested positive for the virus. All he could say was, “I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I am sure Members from across the House will want to join me in wishing her a speedy recovery.” It was not a great start! Labour MP Catherine West associated herself with the PMs sympathies, but then appealed, “My constituents are reeling from the 9% contraction of the economy since March this year. Unemployment has sky-rocketed and joblessness in Haringey is the highest in the capital. Unfortunately, we are at the same time facing the idea that there could be a congestion tax forced on an extra 4 million Londoners by this Government. These Londoners are already facing the double whammy of covid and financial ruin. Will the Prime Minister please immediately stop the imposition of this dreadful plan? I look forward to his answer.”

                        It was to become the hallmark of this session of PMQs, former London Mayor Boris Johnson slagging off the current Labour Mayor during this weekly Tory Party Political Broadcast, where the PM gets to spew fabricated statistics and lies unchallenged on a regular televised event. He started spouting his fanciful web of lies saying, “I must respectfully inform the hon. Lady that the current Mayor of London had effectively bankrupted TfL before coronavirus had even hit and left a massive black hole in its finances. Any need to make up that deficit is entirely down to him. It is entirely his responsibility. Any expansion of the congestion charge or any other measure taken to improve the finances of TfL are entirely the responsibility of the bankrupt current Labour Mayor of London.” This statement was rapidly debunked as inaccurate during later analysis, but shallow liar Johnson is just targeting the rapid soundbite!

                        Tory Rob Butler said, “People the length and breadth of the country have made many sacrifices over the last few months to try to suppress covid-19, but infection rates are increasing fast and Buckinghamshire may soon find itself in tier 2. Can my right hon. Friend tell the people of my Aylesbury constituency how long we would be expected to stay there, what additional help there would be for local businesses, and, crucially, what the route out would be?” A recurrent theme; the PM replied, “I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend by telling him that the incidence in the Vale of Aylesbury is in fact less than half the England average. The way forward for constituents in the Vale of Aylesbury and everywhere else is for everyone to keep following the guidance, observing the new restrictions and, obviously, washing hands, wearing a face covering in enclosed spaces and keeping a sensible distance.”

                        Keir Starmer was to the point, saying “I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). Prime Minister, how does an area which goes into tier 3 restrictions get out of those restrictions?” The PMs reply was equally brief as he said, “The simplest and most effective way for areas to get out of those restrictions is, of course, to get the R down to 1 or below, and I am very pleased to say that some areas are already having a considerable effect with the measures that they are taking.” Starmer did not attempt more than to just ask for a further clarification that he should have known would not be forthcoming, he said, “Can I press the Prime Minister on that answer? If the infection rate, R, in a tier 3 area has not come below 1, will it be possible in any circ*mstances for that area to come out of tier 3, if the R has not come below 1?” This was a wasted opportunity, dithering over the same worthless rebuttal to score points perhaps, but this is not robust opposition!

                        The PM must have felt relaxed with this easy deniability question as he chose to meander all over the place with his response. He said, “Obviously, the R is one of the measures that we look at. We take a decision based on a number of things including the R—also, of course, rates of infection, rates of admission to hospital and other data. But the most important thing is for areas that do go into tier 3—and I am very grateful to local leadership in the areas that have gone into tier 3, because it is the right thing for them to do, the right thing for their constituents, the right thing to save lives—when they are able to make progress, then, of course, they will come out of tier 3. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well, the measures that are put in place are reviewed every 28 days.” The question successfully remained unanswered cloaked in superfluous waffle to disguise the deviation.

                        Starmer replied, “I am now confused by the Prime Minister’s answer. If it is not the R rate under 1, what is it? Millions of people want to know the answer to that question. Millions of them are in tier 3 and millions more are likely to go into tier 3. They really need to know. On Friday, the chief scientific officer said that tier 3 on its own certainly is not enough to get the R rate below 1. On the same day, the Prime Minister himself said that there was only a chance of getting infection rates down.” Eyes were glazing over; where was this going? Starmer rambled on, “That goes to the heart of the issue in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. The widespread fear is that tier 3 is the worst of all worlds: it brings significant economic harm without getting the virus sufficiently under control to exit tier 3. So instead of being a solution, tier 3 is a gateway to weeks and weeks, or more likely months and months, of agony from which there is no likely exit. Can the Prime Minister not see the problem if there is not a clear exit?”

                        The PM must have been really pleased with his great distraction ploy as it was working so well, he said “I am sorry, but I have made it absolutely clear that a part of the country going into tier 3 is in there only for 28 days; we will review it after 28 days. Areas that have gone into tier 3 are, I believe, already making progress, and areas where there are restrictions in place are also showing signs of progress. We are pursuing a local—a regional—approach, which is the sensible approach for this country. That is what the epidemiology supports. It is what the deputy chief medical officer supported last night. Again, I want to thank local leadership in Merseyside, in Lancashire, actually in London, in the west midlands and elsewhere for what they are doing. It is a bit incoherent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to attack local lockdowns when he wants to plunge the whole country back into a damaging lockdown for weeks on end, and he has no clue about how he would propose to get the country out of that—does he?”

                        Starmer had swallowed the distraction bait, hook, line and sinker; he meandered on, “I appreciate that there will be a review every 28 days, but if the R rate has not come below 1, then the infection rate is still going up, the numbers are going up, the admissions are going up, the numbers in hospital are going up and the deaths are going up. Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that he would take a tier 3 area out of tier 3 with the R above 1? I do not think so. Let me spell out what that means. On Friday, thousands of people in Greater Manchester, taxi drivers, pub and hospitality workers, people working in betting shops, the self-employed and freelancers, will either be out of work or face significant pay cuts. That is the reality on Friday in Greater Manchester. But their rent and their mortgage will not be lower; their food and their heating bills will not be lower, and that could last for months. Why can the Prime Minister and the Chancellor not understand that? They should stop bargaining with people’s lives, stop dividing communities and provide the support that is needed in Manchester.”

                        The PM began to brag, “I am very proud that this Government have already given Greater Manchester £1.1 billion in support for business, £200 million in extra un-ring-fenced funding, £50 million to tackle infections in care homes, £20 million for Test and Trace, and another £22 million for the local response that we announced yesterday. Yesterday, the Mayor of Greater Manchester was offered a further £60 million, which he turned down, having had no encouragement to support it, I may say, from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I can tell the House today that that cash will be distributed to the boroughs of Greater Manchester. I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Bolton West (Chris Green), for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), for Bury North (James Daly), for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), for Leigh (James Grundy), for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for the support that they have given in this matter.”

                        A bit late to start trying to shame the Teflon PM but Starmer gave it a whirl, “This is a Prime Minister who can pay £7,000 a day for consultants on Track and Trace, which is not working; who can find £43 million for a garden bridge that was never built; but who cannot find £5 million for the people of Greater Manchester. I really think the Prime Minister has crossed a Rubicon here, not just in the miserly way that he has treated Greater Manchester, but in the grubby take-it-or-leave-it way that these local deals are being done. It is corrosive to public trust to pit region against region, mayor against mayor, council against council and ask them to trade away their businesses and jobs. We need a one nation approach to replace these endless local battles with clear national criteria and proper support for jobs. Labour’s motion this afternoon would do that. Why will the Prime Minister not support it?”

                        It was time for more untrammelled bragging and downright lies, as Johnson replied, “I am proud of the one nation Conservative support that we have given to the entire country: £200 billion in support for jobs and livelihoods across the whole of the country already, and a further £9.9 billion now for the job support scheme. It is this Government who have cut VAT for business and deferred business rates. There is no other country in Europe where so much support and so much help has been given to the population to get through this crisis, and we will continue to do that. It is the height of absurdity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands up and attacks the economic consequences of the measures we are obliged to take across some parts of the country when he wants to turn the lights out with a full national lockdown, taking kids…” Closing schools would halt the spread. “That was his policy last week anyway, wasn’t it? Perhaps he could confirm that that is still his policy. Is that what he wants to do?”

                        Starmer rolled out the stats while cautiously avoided mentioning any school transmission data, “At his press conference yesterday, the Prime Minister produced heat maps across the country showing that the infection rate was up in all ages and across all regions, and particularly showing regions that have been in the equivalent of tier 2 restrictions for weeks, if not months, moving into tier 3. If they are moving into tier 3, tier 2 has not worked, because if tier 2 had worked, they should be going into tier 1. So tier 2 goes to tier 3, and tier 3 has no end, because there is no prospect or confidence in the R rate coming below 1, and I do not believe that a tier 3 region will come out of those restrictions unless R is below 1 and while the numbers are still going up. So we now have a stark choice. By the way, Prime Minister, Cornwall is the only place, possibly with the Isle of Wight, where the infection rate today is less than it was in Greater Manchester when it went into local restrictions, so this idea that some areas are immune is wrong.”

                        Without much conviction, he droned on, “there is a stark choice: carry on with the Prime Minister’s approach, which will lead to weeks and weeks and months and months of prolonged agony in everyone’s constituencies for millions of people in tiers 2 and 3, with no exit; or put in place a two to three week time-limited circuit break to break the cycle and bring the virus back under control. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, in part, have chosen that path. With half term starting this Friday, this may be the last opportunity for the Prime Minister to put in place an effective circuit break. The Prime Minister was too slow in the first phase of the pandemic; he is being too slow again. We cannot repeat this mistake. Will he act in the public interest and take the opportunity to put in place a circuit break this Friday?” Johnson would now pounce on the opportunity to rant against more lockdown not less…

                        The PM could now pretend he was battling against a belligerent, intransigent opposition who wanted to inflict greater restrictions on the whole country, oblivious to the fact that this was a SAGE recommendation he was himself ignoring. He ranted, “We will do whatever it takes to get this country through the crisis, with or without the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have explained why I do not believe that his policy is the right one for the country, because it would involve closing schools and shuttering businesses, with all the psychological and emotional damage that a lockdown of that kind brings. He cannot say how many circuit breakers he thinks would be necessary. He cannot say how long they would go on. He cannot say how much damage they would do to the UK economy and to people’s mental health.”

                        Pretending to take the moral high ground Johnson prattled on, “We, on the other hand, want to go on with our common-sensical approach, which is a local and regional approach, keeping kids in school and keeping our economy moving, because that is the way to get the whole of our country through this crisis together so that all the regions of the country, particularly those regions that are now, alas, under tier 3 restrictions, bounce back strongly together.” What the PM and Starmer both refuse to acknowledge is that the infection rate in our schools is the major factor driving the second wave of infection with asymptomatic children acting as vectors to pass the virus on to vulnerable elderly in multigenerational household living together in overcrowded accommodation. This is the main priority target group for the next phase of a planned Tory cull of the ‘economically inactive.’ This Covicide requires the Labour Party to ignore Teachers Union advice and support keeping children in school while they keep the statistics hidden.

                        The SNP’s Ian Blackford said, “My thoughts are very much with the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I hope she makes a speedy recovery.” He then asked, “Next week, just as the pandemic is worsening, the Tory Government will scrap the furlough scheme in a move that will cause a wave of mass redundancies across the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, behind closed doors the Prime Minister is complaining that he cannot get by on his £150,000 salary. If the Prime Minister is finding life such a struggle, how on earth does he expect many workers to get by on just £5.84 an hour when the Tory cuts to furlough sink in?” Few are talking about it but the MP are about to get another above inflation pay rise so they have no concept of this level of poverty.”

                        The PM deflected the question saying, “Actually, I am proud of what we have done to support people on low incomes throughout this period and, indeed, before. It was this Government who raised the living wage by record amounts, and we have just increased universal credit by around £1,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point about furlough; as he knows, if universal credit is combined with the job support scheme that we have just announced, workers will be getting 80% of their existing salary. We will get this country through this crisis and we will continue to support people of low incomes throughout the period.” Johnson fails to mention the interminable wait just to get onto Universal Credit, pushing people into rent arears debt and releance on food banks, or the devastating hardship and misery this deliberately inflicts on the working poor.

                        Blackford persisted, “I am afraid the Prime Minister just does not get it. Yesterday, we saw his total disregard for the people of Greater Manchester, a Tory attitude that people in Scotland are all too familiar with. Millions of families are struggling to get by and this Tory Government want to cut their incomes in the middle of a pandemic. It is clear that the Prime Minister has made a deliberate decision to let unemployment soar, just like Thatcher did in the 1980s. Time is running out. With one week left, will the Prime Minister finally U-turn on his cuts to the furlough scheme and invest in our communities? Or will he leave millions of people on the scrap heap?” The PM was indignant saying, “I really must reject what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, because it bears no relation to the facts or the reality of what the Government are doing to support people throughout the country. It is not just the £200 billion investment in jobs and livelihoods; we are also engaged in and will continue to deliver a colossal investment in education, health, housing and infrastructure that will deliver jobs and growth throughout this United Kingdom for a generation.”

                        Tory Andrea Jenkins pitched a rallying cry in support of breaking a signed international agreement saying, “I congratulate the Prime Minister and his negotiating team on their strong stance in the negotiations with the EU. Does he agree that the EU’s position on fishing and the European Court of Justice demonstrates that it is not treating us as an independent state, that it is not acting in good faith to deliver a free trade agreement and that, in international law, the UK is therefore entitled to leave the withdrawal agreement and make its own arrangements regarding the UK’s internal market?” The PM was thrilled with this input supporting his lawlessness saying, “Whatever the effect of the withdrawal agreement, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the UK’s internal market, which I think everybody on both sides of the House values, is protected and upheld and by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is currently going through the other place. It also, of course, protects the Good Friday agreement.” Another lie!

                        There was another blistering Tory attack on the London Mayor “…£5.65 billion to keep TfL running…” with a snide comment about Unions, in reply to which Johnson lied by bragging of his sound record with TfL as Mayor! Then Labour’s Dr. Rupa Huq focused on the left behind, after acknowledging “Financial support packages, tackling homelessness… honouring Marcus Rashford,” saying beyond “what the Government have done on covid” she was concerned that “with winter set to bite and no end to the virus in sight, may I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the arbitrary end to many of his schemes, which were set months ago when we knew so little? Three million self-employed people were completely left out of all of these measures, a number of whom are now set to face destitution when the minimum income floor ends next month. Furthermore, school dinners for 3,272 kids in his own seat and 2,016 in mine are in the balance. Can he start by voting with us tonight and make sure that that gong does not mean nothing?”

                        The PM feigned understanding and sympathy, but swerved off track emphasizing the priority to “keep kids in school if we possibly can…” This is key to the Tory Government strategy of utilizing the children as vectors to infect older family members living together in cramped multigenerational households. This targeting of the vulnerable was particularly effective in culling the working poor in ethnic minority communities as the PMs Eugenicists master had designed for this phase of the Covicide cull. His Trojan horse in Labour offered limp resistance; as long as Starmer maintained his stagnant opposition Johnson could remain on track. We need to derail this Tory juggernaut before it reaches the end of the track with crash-out Brexit. How dare the Tories bang on about ‘levelling up’ while refusing to fund free school meals. We must delegitimize these lies and fully investigate the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to remove this corrupt Tory Government from power ASAP, before more kids go hungry and more vulnerable die of Covid! DO NOT MOVE ON!

                        October 24, 2020 at 03:07#61704Reply

                        Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (12)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                          When the Labour Leader stood at the Dispatch box on Wednesday to propound his clever arguments at Prime Minister’s Questions his uninspiring opposition was neither targeted nor ‘forensic;’ it was the usual characteristic attempt to ask the same basic question in several different ways, failing dismally at each attempt. Sadly, Sir Keir Starmer has all the captivating exuberance of a stagnant pond, with the murky secrets of his dubious past polluting the fetid waters. It fell to other MPs like the SNPs Ian Blackford, Dr Rupa Huq, Labour and Daisy Cooper LibDem to highlight the glaring injustice and stark disparities between greedy Tory priorities and the hungry children conspicuously and callously left behind by Johnson’s fictitious ‘levelling up’ agenda. We need to call these selfish elitists out to stop the crippling ‘Decimating Down’ deliberately hitting the neglected northern cities the hardest with targeted lockdowns driving people into destitution. Beyond a cursory mention of Manchester, don’t expect Starmer to champion their cause.

                          In the Canary Article entitled, “Tory MPs face barrage of criticism after voting to let over a million children ‘go hungry’” they highlight the obscenity of voting to deny meals to hungry children. This is disgraceful considering the money plundered ans squandered by this Tory Government. They say, “Opposition figures have savaged the government after Tory MPs voted against footballer Marcus Rashford’s bid to have free school meals for eligible children extended through the coming holidays. Labour’s motion, which called for the scheme to be extended over school holidays until Easter 2021, was defeated by 261 votes to 322.” Visit the Government Petition webpage to sign this Petition to, “End child food poverty – no child should be going hungry Government should support vulnerable children & #endchildfoodpoverty by implementing 3 recommendations from the National Food Strategy to expand access to Free School Meals, provide meals & activities during holidays to stop holiday hunger & increase the value of and expand the Healthy Start scheme.”

                          The Canary report that, “Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said the Conservatives had voted to let the more than 1.4 million children eligible for free school meals go hungry through the holidays. ‘Tonight I voted to feed our country’s vulnerable and needy children. The Tories voted to let them go hungry,’ she tweeted, adding: ‘I voted for workers facing hardship in areas under lockdown to get 80% of their incomes. The Tories voted against it. That’s all you need to know.’ Labour MP for Nottingham East Nadia Whittome also attacked the Conservatives. ‘I don’t know how the 322 Tory MPs are sleeping tonight. Because I can’t, knowing that 1.4 million children like Cameron will go hungry this Christmas,’ she said, referring to a boy featured in a documentary she shared. She added: ‘Rishi Sunak spent £500m on the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme. It costs around £20m to provide free school meals for a week. There is money for half-price Nando’s but there’s no money to feed children?”

                          The Canary note that, “The Liberal Democrats’ health and social care spokeswoman Munira Wilson tweeted: ‘It would be hugely unjust for this Govt to allow children to go hungry this winter, particularly in the middle of a pandemic. I urged the Govt to follow the lead of Lib Dem Edu Minister Kirsty Williams in Wales by extending #FreeSchoolMeals over the school holidays. The Liberal Democrats’ health and social care spokeswoman Munira Wilson tweeted: ‘It would be hugely unjust for this Govt to allow children to go hungry this winter, particularly in the middle of a pandemic. I urged the Govt to follow the lead of Lib Dem Edu Minister Kirsty Williams in Wales by extending #FreeSchoolMeals over the school holidays’.”

                          The Canary report that, “Some Conservatives, however, defended the decision. Nottingham MP Ben Bradley engaged in a Twitter exchange with Rashford, writing: ‘Gov has lots of responsibilities: supporting the vulnerable, helping people to help themselves, balancing the books. Not as simple as you to make out Marcus. Extending FSM to sch hols passes responsibility for feeding kids away from parents, to the State. It increases dependency.’ Rashford tweeted back: ‘Ben, the economy already pays a high price for child hunger. If children were fed properly you would increase educational attainment and boost life chances. @KelloggsUKI calculated we would spend at least £5.2M a year on lost teaching hours as teachers are caring for hungry kids. ‘And for a more humane response, since March, 32% of families have suffered a drop in income. Nearly 1 million have fallen off the payroll. This is not dependency, this a cry for help. There are no jobs!! 250% increase in food poverty and rising. Nobody said this was simple…”

                          The Canary say, “Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group Alison Garnham said Britain had ‘reached a low point if in the midst of a pandemic we decide we can’t make sure children in the lowest income families have a nutritious meal in the middle of the day. Tonight’s vote means more children going without and more desperately anxious parents – just as a coronavirus winter approaches’.” Garnham was quoted as saying in the Mirror. “In short it ducks our moral responsibility to protect the country’s most vulnerable children. It will not sit well with all those people from many walks of life who back Marcus Rashford because they do not want child poverty to be ignored any longer.” Has the horrific truth sunk in yet, this is the reality of what the Tories call “levelling up” the removal of funds from the most vulnerable and in need to be sucked upwards into the bank accounts of wealthy Tory cronies, Powerful Corporations and Tory donors’ you realy had to know this was coming with the Tory track record: they never change!

                          But in a Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Breaking: Liverpool mayor announces city will provide free school meals during holidays to its vulnerable kids,” it reports Labour Councils are fighting back. “Almost 20,000 children written off by Tories will no longer go hungry as UK’s reddest city steps up Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson has just announced that the city will feed its poor children during school holidays, after the scandal this week of 322 Tory MPs voting not to provide food to kids who receive free school meals during term time – while the government denies financial support to parents who are told to self-isolate via the Tory contact-tracing app. The politically reddest city in the UK is stepping up because the national government is run by a party of people that thinks it’s ok to leave kids starving because there have always been hungry children. Bravo to Joe Anderson – who lost a brother to COVID last week and another to cancer recently – and his colleagues on the city council for protecting our kids and shaming the Tories.”

                          In the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Sky News ‘forgets’ to mention MPs who voted to keep poor children hungry were Tories; Here is a list of them all” they name and shame the heartless MPs who do not care if kids go hungry. They point out how the Tories can hide their shame due to, “Appalling media bias once more on show as cruel Tories again vote to take food from the mouths of poor children Sky News omitted to mention an important fact during its coverage of the disgrace in Parliament this evening as Boris Johnson whipped his MPs to vote against a plan to provide free, hot meals for the nation’s poorest children. Sky tweeted the result, but neglected to mention that the MPs who had voted to keep poor children hungry during school holidays were Tory MPs – and was quickly pulled up by left-wing Labour MP Jon Trickett: 322 Tory MPs were either too callous or too weak to ignore Johnson’s instruction, instead voting – again – to take food out of the mouths of the nation’s most desperately poor kids.”

                          The Skwawkbox report that, “A few Tories abstained, but only a handful had the spine and humanity to rebel and vote for the motion to extend free meals in holidays through to next spring.” Just five Tory MPs who rebelled: Caroline Ansell, Robert Halfon, Anne Marie Morris, Holly Mumby-Croft and Jason McCartney. Skwawkbox say, “Almost a million and a half children suffer ‘food insecurity’ during school holidays and teachers report that many are too hungry to learn even during term time, with well over 4 million children living in poverty. Labour’s Angela Rayner was accused earlier today of calling a Tory MP ‘scum’. Based on today’s scandal, at least 322 of them merit that description.”

                            Skwawkbox printed a full list of all the MP who callously voted against this bill.

                            The shamed Tories include a number who gained Red Wall seats the full list is as follows: Nigel Adams – Selby and Ainsty; Bim Afolami – Hitchin and Harpenden; Adam Afriyie – Windsor; Imran Ahmad Khan – Wakefield; Nickie Aiken – Cities of London and Westminster & Richard Bacon – South; Peter Aldous – Waveney; Lucy Allan – Telford; David Amess – Southend West; Lee Anderson – Ashfield; Stuart Anderson – Wolverhampton South West; Stuart Andrew – Pudsey; Edward Argar – Charnwood; Sarah Atherton – Wrexham; Victoria Atkins – Louth and Horncastle; Gareth Bacon – Orpington; Kemi Badenoch – Saffron Walden; Shaun Bailey – West Bromwich West; Duncan Baker – North Norfolk; Steve Baker – Wycombe; Harriett Baldwin – West Worcestershire; Steve Barclay – North East Cambridgeshire; Simon Baynes – Clwyd South; Aaron Bell – Newcastle-under-Lyme; Scott Benton – Blackpool South; Saqib Bhatti – Meriden; every last one of them Tories, but wait there’s a whole lot more…

                            For former Labour constituencies who might or probably were not duped by the false Tory promise of ‘levelling up’ finding their new MP in among those listed here should be a wakeup call’ it is time to stop this sham of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Oust these cruel bastards before they cause the working poor any more pain and suffering: Peter Bottomley – Worthing West’ Andrew Bowie – West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine; Karen Bradley – Staffordshire Moorlands; Graham Brady – Altrincham and Sale West; Suella Braverman – Fareham; Jack Brereton – Stoke-on-Trent South; Steve Brine – Winchester; Paul Bristow – Peterborough; Sara Britcliffe – Hyndburn; James Brokenshire – Old Bexley and Sidcup; Anthony Browne – South Cambridgeshire; Fiona Bruce – Congleton; Felicity Buchan – Kensington; Robert Buckland – South Swindon; Alex Burghart – Brentwood and Ongar; Rob Butler – Aylesbury; Alun Cairns – Vale of Glamorgan; Andy Carter – Warrington South; James Cartlidge – South Suffolk;

                            The following Tory MPs all chose to have Stuart Andrew cast a Proxy Vote on their behalf: Nickie Aiken – Cities of London and Westminster & Richard Bacon – South Norfolk; Miriam Cates – Penistone and Stocksbridge; Maria Caulfield – Lewes; Alex Chalk – Cheltenham; Rehman Chishti – Gillingham and Rainham; Jo Churchill – Bury St Edmunds’ Greg Clark – Tunbridge Wells; Simon Clarke – Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland; Damian Collins – Folkestone and Hythe; Alberto Costa – South Leicestershire; Geoffrey Cox – Torridge and West Devon; Mims Davies – Mid Sussex & David Davis – Haltemprice and Howden Nadine Dorries – Mid Bedfordshire & Steve Double – St Austell and Newquay; Ruth Edwards – Rushcliffe; Luke Evans – Bosworth; David Evennett – Bexleyheath and Crayford; Michael Fabricant – Lichfield; Mark Francois – Rayleigh and Wickford; Cheryl Gillan – Chesham and Amersham; Jo Gideon – Stoke-on-Trent Central; Helen Grant – Maidstone and The Weald; Oliver Heald – North East

                            These Tories also chose to have Stuart Andrew cast a Proxy Vote on their behalf: Hertfordshire; Ranil Jayawardena – North East Hampshire; Laura Farris – Newbury; Simon Fell – Barrow and Furness; Katherine Fletcher – South Ribble; Mark Fletcher – Bolsover; Nick Fletcher – Don Valley; Vicky Ford – Chelmsford; Kevin Foster – Torbay; Lucy Frazer – South East Cambridgeshire; Mike Freer – Finchley and Golders Green; Richard Fuller – North East Bedfordshire; Mark Garnier – Wyre Forest; Nick Gibb – Bognor Regis and Littlehampton; Peter Gibson – Darlington; John Lamont – Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk; Ian Liddell-Grainger – Bridgwater and West Somerset; Marco Longhi – Dudley North; Jonathan Lord – Woking; Karl McCartney – Lincoln; Mark Menzies – Fylde; Stephen Metcalfe – South Basildon and East Thurrock; Nigel Mills – Amber Valley; David Morris – Morecambe and Lunesdale; Guy Opperman – Hexham; Owen Paterson – North Shropshire; Mike Penning – Hemel Hempstead;

                            Stuart Andrew also cast a Proxy Vote on behalf of: Chloe Smith – Norwich North) Selaine Saxby – North Devon; Henry Smith – Crawley; Gary Streeter – South West Devon; Mel Stride (Conservative – Central Devon; Edward Timpson – Eddisbury; Jamie Wallis – Bridgend; David Warburton – Somerton and Frome. Other Tory MPs who used a Proxy vote were: Caroline Dinenage – Gosport (Proxy vote cast by Caroline Nokes); Natalie Elphicke – Dover (Proxy vote cast by Maria Caulfield); Nusrat Ghani – Wealden (Proxy vote cast by Steve Baker) Adam Holloway – Gravesham (Proxy vote cast by Maria Caulfield); George Freeman – Mid Norfolk (Proxy vote cast by Bim Afolami); Marcus Fysh – Yeovil (Proxy vote cast by Craig Mackinlay.

                            The Tory hall of shame continues with: Theo Clarke – Stafford; Brendan Clarke-Smith – Bassetlaw; Chris Clarkson – Heywood and Middleton; James Cleverly – Braintree; Thérèse Coffey – Suffolk Coastal; Robert Courts – Witney; Claire Coutinho – East Surrey; Virginia Crosbie – Ynys Môn; James Daly – Bury North; David T C Davies – Monmouth; James Davies – Vale of Clwyd; Gareth Davies – Grantham and Stamford; Philip Davies – Shipley; Dehenna Davison – Bishop Auckland; Sarah Dines – Derbyshire Dales; Jonathan Djanogly – Huntingdon; Michelle Donelan – Chippenham;Oliver Dowden – Hertsmere; Jackie Doyle-Price – Thurrock; Richard Drax – South Dorset; Flick Drummond – Meon Valley; David Duguid – Banff and Buchan; Iain Duncan Smith – Chingford and Woodford Green; Mark Eastwood – Dewsbury; Michael Ellis – Northampton North; Tobias Ellwood – Bournemouth East; George Eustice – Camborne and Redruth; Ben Everitt – Milton Keynes North; John Glen – Salisbury.

                            The list of shame is seemingly endless: Robert Goodwill – Scarborough and Whitby; Michael Gove – Surrey Heath; Richard Graham – Gloucester; James Gray – North Wiltshire; Chris Grayling – Epsom and Ewell; Chris Green – Bolton West; Damian Green – Ashford; Andrew Griffith – Arundel and South Downs; Kate Griffiths – Burton; James Grundy – Leigh; Jonathan Gullis – Stoke-on-Trent North; Luke Hall – Thornbury and Yate; Stephen Hammond – Wimbledon; Matt Hanco*ck – West Suffolk; Greg Hands – Chelsea and Fulham; Mark Harper – Forest of Dean; Rebecca Harris – Castle Point; Trudy Harrison – Copeland; Sally-Ann Hart – Hastings and Rye; Simon Hart – Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire; John Hayes – South Holland and The Deepings; Chris Heaton-Harris – Daventry; Gordon Henderson – Sittingbourne and Sheppey; Darren Henry – Broxtowe; Antony Higginbotham – Burnley; Damian Hinds – East Hampshire; Kevin Hollinrake – Thirsk and Malton; Philip Hollobone – Kettering;

                            More Tories too feeble to stand up for poor kids: Paul Holmes – Eastleigh; John Howell – Henley; Paul Howell – Sedgefield; Nigel Huddleston – Mid Worcestershire; Eddie Hughes – Walsall North; Jane Hunt – Loughborough; Jeremy Hunt – South West Surrey; Tom Hunt – Ipswich; Alister Jack – Dumfries and Galloway; Sajid Javid – Bromsgrove; Mark Jenkinson – Workington; Andrea Jenkyns – Morley and Outwood; Robert Jenrick – Newark; Boris Johnson – Uxbridge and South Ruislip; Gareth Johnson – Dartford; David Johnston – Wantage; Andrew Jones – Harrogate and Knaresborough; Fay Jones – Brecon and Radnorshire; David Jones – Clwyd West; Marcus Jones – Nuneaton; Gillian Keegan – Chichester; Danny Kruger – Devizes; Kwasi Kwarteng – Spelthorne; Andrew Lewer – Northampton South; Brandon Lewis – Great Yarmouth; Caroline Johnson – Sleaford and North Hykeham; Simon Jupp – East Devon; Alicia Kearns – Rutland and Melton; Daniel Kawczynski – Shrewsbury and Atcham.

                            Yet more Tory cowards: Julian Knight – Solihull; Greg Knight – East Yorkshire; Robert Largan – High Peak; Andrea Leadsom – South Northamptonshire, yes that is the very same Andrea Leadsom who thought she would be a better PM because she was a mother… some mother who would let poor kids starve! Edward Leigh – Gainsborough; Ian Levy – Blyth Valley; Chris Loder – West Dorset; Mark Logan – Bolton North East; Julia Lopez – Hornchurch and Upminster; Jack Lopresti – Filton and Bradley Stoke; Craig Mackinlay – South Thanet; Cherilyn Mackrory – Truro and Falmouth; Rachel Maclean – Redditch; Alan Mak – Havant; Kit Malthouse – North West Hampshire; Anthony Mangnall – Totnes; Scott Mann – North Cornwall; Julie Marson – Hertford and Stortford; Theresa May – Maidenhead; Jerome Mayhew – Broadland; Johnny Mercer – Plymouth, Moor View; Huw Merriman – Bexhill and Battle; Robin Millar – Aberconwy; Maria Miller – Basingstoke; Amanda Milling – Cannock Chase; Andrew Mitchell – Sutton Coldfield.

                            People need to read these names and confront the MPs who are not protecting children from starvation: Gagan Mohindra – South West Hertfordshire; Robbie Moore – Keighley; Penny Mordaunt – Portsmouth North; James Morris – Halesowen and Rowley Regis; Wendy Morton – Aldridge-Brownhills; Kieran Mullan – Crewe and Nantwich; David Mundell – Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale; Sheryll Murray – South East Cornwall; Andrew Murrison – South West Wiltshire; Robert Neill – Bromley and Chislehurst; Caroline Nokes – Romsey and Southampton North; Jesse Norman – Hereford and South Herefordshire; Neil O’Brien – Harborough; Mark Pawsey – Rugby; John Penrose – Weston-super-Mare; Chris Philp – Croydon South; Christopher Pincher – Tamworth; Rebecca Pow – Taunton Deane; Victoria Prentis – Banbury; Mark Pritchard – The Wrekin; Jeremy Quin – Horsham; Will Quince – Colchester; Tom Randall – Gedling; John Redwood – Wokingham; Jacob Rees-Mogg – North East Somerset.

                            The list is long: Nicola Richards – West Bromwich East; Angela Richardson – Guildford; Rob Roberts – Delyn; Laurence Robertson – Tewkesbury; Mary Robinson – Cheadle; Andrew Rosindell – Romford; Lee Rowley – North East Derbyshire; Dean Russell – Watford; David Rutley – Macclesfield; Gary Sambrook – Birmingham, Northfield; Paul Scully – Sutton and Cheam; Bob Seely – Isle of Wight; Andrew Selous – South West Bedfordshire; Grant Shapps – Welwyn Hatfield; Alok Sharma – Reading West; Alec Shelbrooke – Elmet and Rothwell; David Simmonds – Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; Chris Skidmore – Kingswood; Greg Smith – Buckingham; Julian Smith – Skipton and Ripon; Amanda Solloway – Derby North; Ben Spencer – Runnymede and Weybridge; Mark Spencer – Sherwood; Alexander Stafford – Rother Valley; Andrew Stephenson – Pendle; Jane Stevenson – Wolverhampton North East; John Stevenson – Carlisle; Bob Stewart – Beckenham; Iain Stewart – Milton Keynes South.

                            Then there is ‘splash the cash’ Rishi Sunak – Richmond (Yorks) not so ready to part with pounds to feed school kids, but the rogues gallery continues: James Sunderland – Bracknell; Desmond Swayne – New Forest West; Robert Syms – Poole; Derek Thomas – St Ives; Maggie Throup – Erewash; Kelly Tolhurst – Rochester and Strood; Justin Tomlinson – North Swindon; Michael Tomlinson – Mid Dorset and North Poole; Craig Tracey – North Warwickshire; Anne-Marie Trevelyan – Berwick-upon-Tweed; Laura Trott – Sevenoaks; Tom Tugendhat – Tonbridge and Malling; Martin Vickers – Cleethorpes; Matt Vickers – Stockton South; Theresa Villiers – Chipping Barnet; Robin Walker – Worcester; Charles Walker – Broxbourne; Matt Warman – Boston and Skegness; Giles Watling – Clacton; Suzanne Webb – Stourbridge; Helen Whately – Faversham and Mid Kent; Heather Wheeler – South Derbyshire; Craig Whittaker – Calder Valley; John Whittingdale – Maldon; Bill Wiggin – North Herefordshire.

                            The last disreputable few are: James Wild – North West Norfolk; Craig Williams – Montgomeryshire; Gavin Williamson – South Staffordshire; Mike Wood – Dudley South; William Wragg – Hazel Grove; Jeremy Wright – Kenilworth and Southam; Jacob Young – Redcar; Nadhim Zahawi – Stratford-on-Avon. All Tories except one shamefull indepentdent: Julian Lewis – New Forest East. Yet Skwawkbox say that, “Sky simply called them ‘MPs’. Shame on the whole disgraceful lot of them.”

                            In another Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Swindon academy shows infection rate more than 333 TIMES higher than surrounding community” we get a strong hint of why the Tory Government is so adamant about denying free school meals to children when they are not in school. They say that, “The Wilkes Academy in Swindon has been closed after seeing a level of coronavirus infections more than 333 times as high as in the community around it. The town’s overall 14-day rate stands at 92 infections per 100,000 – but the equivalent rate in the school is 30,481 per 100,000, a rate of over 30 percent. Pupils have been sent home and face to face classes suspended in response to 85 pupils and staff infected out of a population of around 270.” Despite growing damning evidence that Covid is being spread via the schools the Tory Government is absolutely determined to keep children in school.

                            Skwawkbox say that, “The government continues to deny that the infection spreads freely among children and from them to others They are wilfully ignoring the clear fact that keeping schools open is fuelling the second wave, while pointlessly closing hospitality venues. Hospitality represents around 4% of new infections in England – and school-age children more than a third. Johnson’s lockdown delays in the spring caused tens of thousands of needless deaths. His latest refusal to institute a ‘circuit-breaker’ lockdown in England is expected to cost at least 1,000 lives a week from now through to April.” This wilful negligence is a conscious eugenics decision to use children as unwitting vectors to assist in culling the elderly and most vulnerable ‘economically inactive to lower their burden on the state. We must fight back to derail their Covicide, demand an Investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to delegitimize the result and therby remove the Tories from office before more people die needlessly. DO NOT MOVE ON!

                          October 25, 2020 at 03:00#61715Reply

                          Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (13)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                            For me it was always incomprehensible to imagine that former Labour supporters could possibly have consciously ignored the relentlessly cruel austerity agenda of the past decade that has plunged so many of their families into destitution, to overwhelmingly ‘lend’ their votes to the perpetrators of that atrocity in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Despite expansive lies supported by the biased BBC and corrupt right wing media to promote the illusive claim of ‘levelling up’ the Tories were never going to change; once again ‘Free school meals for the poorest children’ forms the bedrock of this Government’s intentional “Decimating Down” plan. We have sunk to this low point before, right after former PM Theresa May announced help for the “Just about Managing,” but the only discernable difference is a new slogan for Tory lies! To claim voters were too gullible to recognize Johnson’s ruthless intentions as PM or that they were so obsessed with Brexit they just didn’t care is totally insane: we must investigate the Tory ‘landslide victory.’

                            The deceitfully fabricated façade of ‘levelling up’ crumbled into dust over the past week as the PM, probably under the direction of his master manipulator Dominic Cummings, carved up the country into three tiers of increasing oppression to intentionally destroy the economies of the Labour supporting cities in the north. The refusal to acknowledge that it was not the hospitality sector, but the schools that were driving the new surge in Covid infections remains discreetly obscured by the press as the Government double-down on the pressure to keep schools open by voting against the support for free school meals during the holidays. These young ‘vectors’ are far too important to the Cummings eugenics project to cull the ‘economically inactive’ elderly, disabled and vulnerable all crammed into multigenerational homes in deprived areas; the Tories will not budge despite the exposure of their hypocrisy. The penalty for a school closure to suppress the virus is that the children will be forced into starvation without Government support.

                            Back in a 2018 Evolve Politics Article entitled, “Tories launch scheme that completely destroys their own argument for cutting Free School Meals” they were playing a similar sleight of hand game to fool the British public. “Despite implementing cruel policies that will reportedly steal free school meals from the mouths of a million disadvantaged children, the Tories have spent today promoting a new scheme that completely flies in the face of their illogical arguments for implementing their latest despicable free school meals policy. With great fanfare, the Tories today announced the Holiday Activities and Food Research Fund which will – no word of a lie – look at how to help disadvantaged children to benefit from ‘healthy meals and enriching activities’.”

                            Evolve Politics reported that, “Launching the fund, the Department for Education said the fund would go to organisations to explore: ‘how best to help the most disadvantaged children to benefit from healthy meals and enriching activities’ and was designed to ‘help to ensure that every child, whatever their background or wherever they are growing up, has the opportunity to reach their potential’. Incredibly, the announcement of the pilot programme comes just three days before the government are set to restrict access to free school meals.” They said, “what’s more, the Tories are trying to take all the credit for the new fund – despite it not even being their idea! Labour MP Frank Field first introduced a private member’s bill calling for local authorities to be required to provide food and activities for children during school holidays. But Education minister Nadim Zahawi made it clear that the government would not support the bill, saying that he did not believe that primary legislation was required.”

                            Exposing the charade Evolve Politics said, “Instead, the government has put a tiny amount into a pilot programme, and is claiming all the credit. The government cut £26bn from the welfare budget in 2016/17 alone, so the £2m for the fund represents just 0.008% of the money cut from welfare in that year. Put another way, it’s worth less than 50p for each of the 4.1m British children now living in poverty. And whilst this is just a pilot project, there is no holiday project which could possibly make up for the damage caused by ongoing cuts. As usual, Twitter was quick to respond to the Tories’ latest deeply ironic PR scheme.” Conservatives@Conservatives on Mar 29, 2018. Tweeted: “Weve launched a new fund to support disadvantaged families during the school holidays. We want every child to reach their potential. That’s why this fund will support new holiday programs for the most disadvantaged families. Because healthy meals and activities in the holidays can contribute to their development and improved attainment.”

                            But while the Conservative Mar 29, 2018 Tweet claims, “We’ve launched a new fund to support disadvantaged families during the school holidays. We want every child to reach their potential. That’s why this fund will support new holiday programs for the most disadvantaged families. Because healthy meals and activities in the holidays can contribute to their development and improved attainment.” Evolve Politics noted the widespread skepticism as “Highly Unlikely@BillingClaire” Tweeted: “How do you qualify?? The poorest families don’t get free school meals, so do you have to be even poorer to get this??? There were 3.9 million children living in poverty in the UK in 2014-15 That’s 29% of children or 9 in a class of 30. (Source: Households Below Average Income An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 – 2015/16 tables 4a and 4b Department of Work and Pensions 2016.)” The current Tory claim that Universal Credit and other support packages make prioritizing free school meals unnecessary is eerily familiar!

                            Commenting on this announcement back in 2018 Evolve Politics wrote, “At the moment, children from families receiving Universal Credit are eligible for free meals. But after April 1st, an earnings threshold of £7,400 will be implemented, with families earning more than that no longer eligible, although those already in receipt of meals will continue to get them. The Children’s Society has reported that the Tories’ changes will result in one million poor children missing out on free school meals.This whole charade really sums up the Tory austerity agenda in a nutshell: force millions of children into poverty with one utterly despicable policy, and then throw them a few crumbs with another and hope everybody just shuts up. Let’s hope the Tories don’t also expect those children to be grateful.” This is the Tory deprivation agenda that Boris Johnson inherited from his Tory predecessor that formed the basis of an disgustingly consistent track record of deliberate deprivation that voters would need to accept in order to vote Tory: they did not!

                            Published at the same time The Week Article entitled “Children to ‘go hungry’ after free school meals cuts” they highlighted how the, “Tories face backlash for exempting Northern Ireland from reforms which could affect one million children. Under the new legalisation, English families on universal credit will have their income threshold for free school meals slashed to £7,400 a year. The cuts mean around 212,000 children in London stand to go hungry, 130,000 in the West Midlands and another 130,000 in the North West.” Sam Royston of the Children’s Society wrote in The Guardian that “the total number of children who lose out could be as high as one million, the majority from working class families. Once a family with one child passes the £7,400 mark, it will need to earn an extra £1,000 a year, working 2.4 hours more each week at the national living wage, to cover the cost, he says.” He also cited research that found “loss of free school meals is a major disincentive to work” – extra hours would deny future support.

                            The Week note that, Northern Ireland would to be protected from free school meal cuts despite the fact that “the Government had just taken direct control of budgets, the same threshold for eligibility will be nearly double the rest of the country, at £14,000.” They report that “HuffPost UK says this has led to ‘fresh criticism’ of Theresa May’s alliance with the DUP…” Evolve Politics commented that “In order to get the requisite amount of votes for a deeply unpopular policy, they are reduced to exempting Northern Ireland from the fallout of that policy so that the DUP can vote it through for other areas. The perverseness is astounding.” At the time, “A last-minute series of votes tabled by Labour aimed at blocking changes to universal credit benefit thresholds and mitigating the effects of the cuts was defeated…” But they said that, “Whatever the economic rationale behind the move, it never looks good for the party in power to be seen to be taking food away from children – as Margaret ‘milk snatcher’ Thatcher found out in 1970.”

                            It was a slew of policies like this that would have dissuaded Labour voters and even the allegedly critical older voters in ‘Red Wall’ constituencies from trusting a serial liar like Boris Johnson not to continue punishing the working poor in northern cities to the point where they would seriously consider ‘lending’ the Tories their vote. Grandparents who have had their children move back home after an eviction caused by the wicked deprivation and stalled payout of Universal Credit would not vote for the grandchildren, now crammed into their house, to go short of food. I simply cannot believe that their fantasy nostalgia for pre EU Britain was enough to generate such overwhelming selfishness in the elderly that they accepted the strong possibility of condemning their grandchildren to starve by voting for Boris to ‘Get Brexit Done’. Do I think these same delusional voters were so deeply troubled by reports of how Corbyn was inadequately dealing with fantisemitism that they could not support Labour; this was a pathetically obscure red herring!

                            Were such woefully bizarre and inaccurate lines of warped reasoning enough to justify a Tory ‘landslide victory’ in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election? Despite a nonexistent ground campaign with Tory candidates, including Johnson himself, not even bothering to show up for Hustings, if valid, such a win would have been truly astounding. After an even more shambolic election campaign than ‘the Maybot,’ where Boris Johnson was so consistently heckled by the public that the BBC had to stage manage small meticulously well controlled groups in their effusively supporting coverage of the PM and he was once forced to hide in a fridge, he shocked the nation with a ‘landslide victory!’ Why do the public believe this clear impossibility? The conspicuous absence of victorious Tories explaining their triumph should have alerted us all to the scam. But the Tory controlled BBC bailed out Boris yet again by parading dozens of Labour MPs on TV shows and forcibly humiliating them into selling the veracity of a totally fabricated defeat.

                            Within just a few short months Johnson was manipulating the Covid crisis to devastate northern businesses, punish the working poor, disadvantage their children and most sickening of all cull their elderly relatives with the Cummings eugenics ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple!” So why would Johnson deliberately kill off his strongest voting support base? Dictators are liberated from the unreliable vagaries of actually allowing the population to vote in free and fair elections. If this corrupt Tory Government is allowed to get away with their falsified win in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, there will be no further opportunities to restore our democracy after they solidify their absolute power with crash-out Brexit. The no-deal scenario was planned from day one as it will provide catastrophic hardship bringing an already severely weakened and subjugated population to their knees, ripe for excessive Tory exploitation that will further enrich the wealthy elite. We must act immediately to derail this deadly process with robust opposition.

                            Robust opposition will require the removal of the Tory Trojan horse, Captain of Capitulation Keir Starmer. The timid enabling of the Tories refusal to fund free school meals drew abhorrent, but sadly accurate comparisons with a previous Tory PM. The Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Starmer should be shouting about scandal of people having to feed poor kids because Tories are psychopaths – not sounding like David Cameron” lays his inadequacies bare. They say that, “Keir Starmer has appalled many Labour supporters by ‘doing a Cameron’ on English people’s response to the Tories’ conscious cruelty toward the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable children. The Tories voted earlier this week to leave at least 1.5 million children in England hungry during school holidays (and any eventual lockdown), despite a massive campaign by footballer Marcus Rashford and his supporters – and in spite of Johnson’s u-turn during the summer on Rashford’s initial campaign to provide food for kids entitled to free school meals.”

                            The Skwawkbox report that, “Labour – rightly and unusually under Starmer – opposed the Tories and exposed the cruelty at the heart of the conservative party, but Starmer has now made Johnson’s life easier by opting to treat the response of English people, councils, football clubs and businesses as if it’s a positive and not a scandal that they have to step up and fill the gap left by the Tories’ utter disregard for the wellbeing of the nation’s children. Starmer tweeted a Daily Mirror headline about the response and added his own rider implying that it’s the people’s responsibility to ‘get us through this crisis’ of starving children. He didn’t even mention the Tories: It was a comment reminiscent of David Cameron’s appalling attempt to treat food banks as part of the welfare state, instead of the damning indictment of the Tories’ contempt for the poor, including millions of ‘working poor’ people.”

                            Skwawkbox report that, “Labour giant Clement Attlee rightly took the view that for a government or people to rely on charity to fill the gaps left by inadequate taxes and state action is anything but a positive thing” He is quoted as saying, “Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.” Skwawkbox assert that, “The response of the UK’s people, councils and businesses is hugely praiseworthy and has become essential because of the Tories’ reckless disregard for children and the poor. But it is not their job to provide something that government should be doing. It is a desperate last resort and an absolute scandal that they are having to do it.” They say that, “Keir Starmer should be loudly and relentlessly be calling attention to that, not sounding like David ****ing Cameron.” It is well past time to unambiguously ditch the deceitful pretence of the Tory ‘levelling up’ agenda; they have unequivocally eradicated that fantasy by letting kids starve,

                            If you really were taken in by the bold, but totally vacuous slogan ‘Get Brexit Done;” how is that ‘oven ready deal’ that was not just half baked, but still growing the wheat to mill into flour; how is that deeply duplicitous deception working for you? When you hear solid evidence that the Tory Party used public funds to create defamatory lies and distribute this vile propaganda to deliberately deceive you and influence your vote, do you think their crime should be punishable with jail sentences or rewarded with a stolen victory? Do you think the ongoing Tory plundering of public funds to enrich their cronies and Corporate donors should continue unabated with the Tory Government able to shut down Judicial Review, abolish the Electoral Commission and install compliant politically appointed Judges? Is starving our children a necessary price to pay for the promised Brexit utopia that is rapidly shaping up to be a dystopian nightmare scenario enabling a prolonged Tory dictatorship of slave labour, hardship and extreme deprivation?

                            Sadly it has become almost as much of a priority to unseat the current Labour Leader as it is to oust PM Boris Johnson and his corrupt Tory cabal. While Rashford’s efforts are to be applauded, it should not require a footballer to dropkick a conscience into the minds of thoughtless, detached and far too wealthy political leaders. We need to respect the fact that not only are the ‘Res Wall’ constituencies seriously aggrieved by the betrayal of their new Tory representatives, they never voted them into power during the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. The massive proliferation of TV reporters avidly encouraging carefully selected participants to rant about their anti-Labour gripes have all miraculously evaporated; they served their purpose supporting the fake narrative, bit now local views need to be tightly gagged to keep the Tories in power unchallenged. We cannot rely on the BBC or conventional right wing media to voice our concerns, but then again, we cannot afford to remain passively silent as we slide into Tory Dictatorship. DO NOT MOVE ON!

                            October 26, 2020 at 03:49#61746Reply

                            Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (14)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                              The vile totality of the horrific truth of the shame, blame and the recrimination is now focused on the Tory Party whose deprivation agenda is discretely constrained in a bed if lies, but the horrific reality rained down in the Party with unrelenting force this week as they belligerently clung to their inhumane plan to deny free school meals to the most disadvantaged children in the UK. The feeble excuse that councils are being provided with funds conveniently neglects to mention how far those funds are expected to stretch and who must be excluded from any future access to rescue in dealing with the pandemic if the funds are diverted elsewhere on protecting children from starvation. Under Government cuts Local authorities have already been authorized to relinquish all fiscal responsibility for care of the elderly and disabled; the stark choice is save the young by sacrificing the elderly! The Tories have hidden this stark reality within a blizzard of Government spending that obscures some devastating gaps in the Social Safety net.

                              A Skwawkbox Article highlights familial shame as a brother vents his disgust at a shameless Tory MP in the Skwawkbox piece entitled, “Charlatan… self-serving waste of space – MP’s own brother’s damning verdict after Tory tries to justify voting to keep kids hungry,” They say that, “A Facebook discussion of his attempt to excuse his decision to vote to keep poor children hungry has led to an embarrassing bombshell for Blyth Valley’s Tory MP Ian Levy. Levy wrote a self-justifying Facebook post claiming the public outrage, at the Tories’ appalling determination not to provide meals for 1.4 million of England’s poorest children during the school holidays (and any eventual lockdown), was ‘extremely disappointing’. Levy also justified his vote by pointing to the Tories giving free school meals to ‘another 50,0000 children’. He neglected to mention that the vote in fact denied free school meals to another million children, in one of the biggest political scandals of 2018.” So shame on him…

                              The Skwawkbox recount how, “the outraged discussion of Levy’s excuses was about to lead to serious embarrassment for Levy – as his own brother Grahame chipped in on the thread with a withering verdict on the Tory MP, he described as a ‘Charleton’ [sic] and ‘a self serving waste of space’ For good measure, Grahame, who now lives in Scotland, added that, I feel sorry for the folk of Blyth. So great was the outrage at the MP’s comments and vote that Labour MP Ian Lavery had to put out a tweet clarifying that he’s not the Tory MP with a vaguely similar name: Ian Lavery MP@IanLaveryMP Tweeted that, “For the sake of accuracy and complete clarity my name is IAN LAVERY the Labour MP for Wansbeck & last night I voted FOR the extension of Free School Meals #FSM It was IAN LEVY the Tory MP for Blyth Valley that voted AGAINST feeding the kids” No one wants to be tainted withthis Tory slime. S will the Tories U-turn to avert further embarrassment? Sadly they are shameless!

                              The Canary Article entitled, “Over 2,000 paediatricians write to Boris Johnson asking he extend free school meals for the holidays More than 2,00 paediatricians have signed a letter urging Boris Johnson to extend free school meals to vulnerable children during the holidays. The open letter from the RCPCH members says: Childhood hunger is an issue that should transcend politics. Few would disagree that one of our most basic human responsibilities is to ensure children have enough to eat!” The article then says: “We call on the UK Government to match the pledges of the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, to continue to provide children from low-income backgrounds with free meals over the coming weeks and to then extend this at least until the Easter school holiday, as they have done in Wales and Scotland.”

                              The canary say that, “Members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) said they are shocked by the government’s ‘refusal’ to do so.” It says “they praised footballer Marcus Rashford for his ‘powerful campaigning’ on the issue. Businesses and organisations across England have pledged to offer free food to children from low income backgrounds. It comes as MPs rejected a bid from Labour, backed by the Manchester United star, to extend free school meals over the holidays until Easter. Rashford’s own campaign goes further than what Labour has called for, as the footballer has petitioned the government to:
                              – Expand free school meals to all under-16s where a parent or guardian is in receipt of Universal Credit or equivalent benefit
                              – Provide meals & activities during all holidays,
                              – Increase the value of Healthy Start vouchers to at least £4.25 per week, and expand the scheme.”

                              The Canary report that, “Labour has now warned it’ll bring the issue back to the House of Commons if ministers don’t change course in time for Christmas. Shadow education secretary Kate Green called on the prime minister to meet with Rashford’s taskforce ‘as a matter of urgency’ to discuss its proposals for ending child poverty.’ They say, ‘Johnson’s own party colleague Robert Halfon said meeting with Rashford was a ‘no-brainer’. While fellow Tory MP Tobias Ellwood said extending provision over the holidays is a ‘simple and practical vehicle’ to support families. He called on the government to ‘re-visit’ the option. Councils, including Conservative-run bodies, have announced stop-gap measures to cover the October half-term break which begins on 26 October.”

                              The Canary report on, “Local councils, Tory-run Kensington and Chelsea council said it will pay for free school meals for eligible pupils in the borough. While other Tory-controlled councils getting on board include Hillingdon, Medway, and Wandsworth. Tory West Midlands mayor Andy Street said the government should make ‘a clear decision’ on whether it would or wouldn’t fund free school meals over holidays. He added that it should not be ‘a last-minute thing’.” Meanwhile, “The Labour leader of Birmingham City Council pledged to provide 61,000 eligible youngsters with meals. It will be in a scheme which will cost the local authority between £800,000 and £1m. And the mayor of Liverpool said he was ‘not prepared to stand by and watch”, as he announced £300,000 of funding’.”

                              Businesses have also joined the fray as, “McDonald’s UK has also offered support to families. It’s announced a partnership with Fare Share UK to provide one million meals for families in need. Downing Street has declined to praise such outlets for stepping in, with a Number 10 spokesperson saying: I believe the PM said during PMQs that free school meals will continue during term time and that he wants to continue to support families throughout the crisis so they have cash available to feed kids if they need to.” It is not a good look… But even worse has been reported from Tories desperate to defed this self-serving bill.

                              In the Canary Article entitled, “Children in ‘crack dens’ and ‘brothels’? A Tory MP accidentally exposed the state of Britain’s care system.” In a now deleted tweet, Conservative MP for Mansfield Ben Bradley said that in his constituency, “One kid lives in a crack den, another in a brothel’. He went on to say that free school meal vouchers effectively lined the pockets of drug dealers and pimps. This tweet was part of a defensive thread explaining why he was one of over 300 Conservative MPs who voted against proposals to provide disadvantaged children in England with free meals until Easter 2021.”

                              But the Canary say, “Bradley’s comments didn’t go unnoticed on Twitter: Dr Rosena Allin-Khan@DrRosena” Tweeted: “Putting “£20 going to a crack den” aside. It alarms me that Ben Bradley knows there’s a child living in a brothel/crack den in his patch, and he’s seemingly content, knowing that. I wouldn’t sleep if there was evidence a child in Tooting was in that situation.” Un a seoerate response, “David Maddock@MaddockMirror” Tweeted, “It turns out that ghoul Ben Bradley – who says parents of hungry kids will somehow spend school meal vouchers on crack and prostitutes – claimed £58,985.65 in HoC expenses in 11 months. That’s £5,362.33 a month. Free. Who’s really bleeding the system @BBradley_Mans?” While, Drivelcast@drivelcast wrote, “Tories: Good work, lads. All that focusing on Angela Rayner seems to have distracted the attention from us being horrible child-starving bastards. We’ve got through the week unscathed!”

                              The Canary say that, “Ben Bradley: Bradley may be lying in his shocking tweet. Or perhaps he has inadvertently shone a light on the dismal state of Britain’s care system under the Tory government.” Reporting on those “forced out of care, A spokesperson for Become, a charity for children in care, told The Canary: Though we don’t know the specifics relating to the situation in Mansfield, we do know that lots of children leaving care will end up in desperation coming out of the care system without support. Too many are left homeless or living in unsuitable accommodation. We are calling on the government to end this care cliff so that care leavers can get the support they need. In June 2020, children’s charity Just for Kids Law published a report revealing that hundreds of vulnerable 16- and 17-year-olds aren’t being taken into care. Many are left to fend for themselves in unregulated accommodation, while others face homelessness, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.”

                              The Canary say that, “Regardless of whether Bradley’s comment is true or not, it has shone a light on the Tory government’s appalling failures to protect the welfare of vulnerable children. The vote against feeding hungry children was just another indication of the government’s stubborn and determined campaign to neglect the children and young people most in need of support. Perhaps Bradley should focus his energies on ensuring no child in his constituency is living in unsafe conditions, rather than advocating against free school meals on Twitter and Newsnight.”

                              Meanwhile as the nation remains conveniently distracted by the present fight for survival, far worse looms just ahead. In another Canary Article entitled, “The price of groceries could soar in the event of a no-deal Brexit,’ they warn how, ‘Import costs for everyday items could rise by around a third in the event of a no-deal Brexit.” They report on how, “This would make the household shopping basket ‘much more expensive’, a major UK business group has warned. The Canary highlight how, ‘The cost of moving goods could also rise due to import taxes’.” They say, “Restrictions to the number of UK lorries that can enter the EU could put businesses across the country at risk, Logistics UK said. Logistics UK chief executive David Wells urged the government to keep working towards a deal. He said a no-deal scenario could drive inflation up as a result of the rise in prices for imported goods.”

                              The Canary report on, “a letter to the Sunday Times, he said: Everyday household items we import will become more expensive under World Trade Organisation tariffs, some by 30% or more. This will make the household shopping basket much more expensive, particularly in the early part of 2021 when we rely on imports for much of our fresh food. Senior cabinet minister Michael Gove has acknowledged that leaving the transition period without a trade deal would cause ‘some turbulence’,” They say, “In his letter, Wells added: The actual cost of moving goods will also increase, if new vehicles, parts and tyres are also subject to tariffs. This is more than ‘turbulence’, as suggested by Mr Gove last week, and logistics businesses, operating on 2% margins, cannot afford to take on these costs.”

                              With regard to increased risk, “A government spokesperson said: The Prime Minister has been clear that a negotiated outcome at the end of the transition period remains our preference. The EU has now agreed to a genuine intensification of negotiations, with talks taking place daily, and both sides recognising that time is extremely short. At the end of the year we will be outside the single market and the customs union and intensive planning is under way to help ensure that businesses are ready to seize the opportunities that it will bring. Citing concerns around permits for lorries to access the EU market in the event of a no-deal, Wells said: The permit quota available to UK operators will fall short by a factor of four, putting businesses at risk right across the country. We are urging government to keep pressing for a deal with Brussels, to protect not only our industry but the economy as a whole.”

                              At the start of the pandemic MP awarded themselves over £7000 extra a tear to help them cope with the rigors and extra demands of working from home. Now they are about to award themselves yet another above inflation pay rise, but they do not thing frontline nursing staff in the NHS who have risked their lives to treat Covid patients deserve a little extra pay. No “we all need to tighten our belts” after a ‘we’ are all in this together. This, despite expecting the working poor to be able to subsist on two thirds of minimum wage the Tories adamantly refuse to extend the furlough scheme. Now they appear astounded that parents who have been told not to work and are trying to get by on a greatly reduced income are struggling to feed their children. They rant about parents not taking responsibility for the welfare of their children when they inflicted this hardship on us all. Tories expect charity to pick up the tab for feeding starving school kids because the Tory Government is not responsible for the welfare of its most vulnerable citizens.

                              How is that ‘levelling up’ agenda working for you? We as a nation don’t have to compliantly stand by while this Tory Government wrecks havoc on our economy and our survival as a free democracy, we can fight back. The sooner we challenge the dictates of this corrupt Government the better. There is ample legitimate reason to question the incomprehensible result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and demand an Investigation into the outcome. In any legitimate democracy it would be considered criminal corruption for the Government in power to use public funding to pay a charity to create defamatory propaganda to deliberately sabotage the electoral chances of their opposition party. But is the UK still a democracy in the true sense of the word; it will soon descend into a fascist dictatorship if we fail to act immediately to prevent this from progressing further. Dictatorships take decades to remove and the UK is most of the way there already. Crash-out Brexit will be the final heave-ho for UK freedom: fight back! DO NOT MOVE ON!

                              October 27, 2020 at 03:46#61766Reply

                              Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (15)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                Are we really “All in this together?” Not! The Covid crisis has put Tory greed into overdrove as they relentlessly squander public funds. In the Morning Star Article entitled, “Pay rise plans for MPs amid pandemic criticised by unions,” they report how, “Unions have condemned a proposal to raise MPs’ salaries next year while ministers refuse to negotiate a rise for public-sector workers who have maintained services during the pandemic. MPs could receive a pay rise of more than £3,300 a year from next April under new proposals from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). Ipsa is the body responsible for overseeing MPs’ pay, pensions and expenses and is independent from Parliament.” We should bear in mind that despite equally robust restraints on wage increases and the continuation of frozen benefits the Tories accepted an above inflation pay rise in 2019 and an additional operational bonus of £7000 due to extra pressures caused by Covid over and above their often obscene ‘expenses’ claims.

                                The Morning Star say, “some MPs have expressed unease about being awarded an increase in their current £79,468 salary at a time when many of their constituents are facing redundancies and economic uncertainty. Tooting Labour MP Dr Rosena Allin-Khan said she would not take the pay rise or, if unable to refuse it, would donate it to charity. Even Tory business minister Nadhim Zahawi described the proposal as ‘inappropriate.’ Mark Serwotka, general secretary of public-sector union PCS, told the Star: ‘The generous pay rise for MPs stands in stark contrast to the thousands of public-sector workers who have suffered pay restraint for more than a decade. Thousands of workers in job centres, at the borders, in tax offices and at airports have kept the country going during a global pandemic and public-health crisis. They deserve no less than a significant above-inflation pay rise and safe working conditions for the phenomenal work they have done throughout the coronavirus crisis. Anything less is an insult to their courageous efforts.”

                                According to the Morning Star, “The government is also being urged to give nurses an immediate rise, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been condemned for doing ‘absolutely nothing’ about bringing forward pay talks. Dame Donna Kinnair, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, will tell a virtual conference on Thursday that Mr Johnson has not yet entered into talks, despite 14 health unions calling for discussions since July. She will also say that the government should commit to a 12.5 per cent pay increase for NHS nursing staff when it sets out its spending priorities next month. Ms Kinnair will add: ‘Some of [Mr Johnson’s] colleagues tried to tell us we’d just had a rise. One even said there were other priorities. ‘Before they get any ideas this winter, I have something simple to say to Boris Johnson: we don’t want claps, medals or pin badges this time. Just pay us fairly for the tough job that we do’.”

                                The Morning Star report that, “Unison assistant general secretary Christina McAnea said: ‘The public servants who really need a wage rise are the ones who’ve kept us safe, cared for us and kept services running for the past few months. With infections rising it looks like we’re hurtling towards a repeat of the situation in the spring. It’s time for the government to do the right thing and give an early and significant rise of at least £2,000 to every health worker in the country. Care staff also deserve a substantial increase in pay’.”

                                The Canary Article entitled, “Communities rally to feed hungry children as ministers leave them high and dry” they highlight the extent of the betrayal of our children by this selfish Tory Government. They say, “After a shocking 320 Tory MPs voted to prevent children living in poverty from receiving free school meals during the holidays, local businesses, authorities and community groups are stepping in to plug the gap in duty-of-care. Meanwhile, ministers face a damaging grassroots Tory revolt over the issue. Dozens of people from a range of organisations have stepped in to help their local communities. Health secretary Matt Hanco*ck, who voted against the motion to feed hungry children, has leapt at the chance to praise their ‘absolutely wonderful’ efforts. Meanwhile, he insists that the government has already provided millions to town halls to help their communities.”

                                The Canary report on how the success of, A Petition from footballer Marcus Rashford, who has been spearheading demands for the extension of free meals in England over the school holidays, has passed 800,000 signatures, piling further pressure on the government to act. Hanco*ck told Sky News he agrees ‘very strongly’ with ‘the purpose’ of Rashford’s campaign, saying: ‘I think we’re all inspired by the way that he’s led that campaign.’ Whilst Rashford is no doubt delighted that the health minister is theoretically in favour of feeding children, he did question the government’s willingness to engage with him on the issue. Hanco*ck told BBC Breakfast that the prime minister had communicated with Rashford on the topic: But Rashford’s reply suggested they had not spoken since the government’s U-turn on providing food vouchers during the summer break in June: “Hanco*ck has also said that Universal Credit had increased by £20 a week, while central government has already provided £63 million to local authorities so that they can support people.”

                                The Canary say, “He hinted that further help could be given, amid reports the government is planning a partial climbdown in time for the Christmas holidays. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: Our attitude and our purpose it to ensure that everybody gets the support they need and no child, of course, no child should go hungry, nobody could possibly want that. The question is how best to do it. Hanco*ck was challenged over whether decisions by councils, businesses and charities to step in showed that more direct action is needed. He apparently sidestepped the question, saying: I think that’s absolutely wonderful that companies have come forward and are playing their part and supporting people in these very difficult times.” He totally failed to comprehend that struggling businesses and concerned citizens should not need to take on the responsibility of the Government to protect children from the misery of starvation in a national health emergency.

                                Why are Government Ministers so eager to use public funds to carry out unnecessary and costly military interventions overseas that only serve to intensify terrorist activity targeting the UK, nut they consistently fail to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from harm? We do not need Trident we need to end child poverty, destitution and homelessness! The Canary quote Hanco*ck saying that, I also think that it’s brilliant that the councils are coming forward, having been funded by central government, £63 million has gone to councils so that they can do exactly what you say, so that they can support people and make sure that everybody and every child gets the support that they need,” he said. They say “Despite rumours of a grassroots revolt among local Tory councils, Hanco*ck persisted in his view that all was well, saying ‘of course’ he welcomes the support from councils, ‘because that is the councils delivering with the funding that has been provided by central government’. To put the £63m funding in perspective:

                                Greater Manchester alone has been granted a £60m relief package to help businesses affected by coronavirus restrictions. Local leaders originally asked for £90m.
                                • The £63m funding is intended to cover all coronavirus related hardship; not school meals. Leaders of Warwickshire County Council said to the BBC that ‘they had already spent all the money allocated under the £63m fund… and it was not enough to fund school meals too.’
                                • As The Canary previously reported, the government has squandered nearly a billion pounds giving out coronavirus related contracts to its friends. Much of that money has simply been wasted.
                                • Meanwhile, taxpayers continue to subsidise MPs’ meals – to the tune of £4.4m in 2018.”
                                That really is an obscene fact!

                                The Canary point out, “While government ministers stand by and applaud, humans are stepping up, despite their own hardships, to feed hungry children in their communities.” They list a few of the businesses who were eager to contribute, “First stepping in to help include Barry’s Tearoom in Cumbria, Greenfields Farm in Telford, The Watering Can in Liverpool, Jordan’s Cafe in Worthing and Count House Cafe in Cornwall. Rashford, who has used his social media profile to highlight examples of businesses that have pledged to help with meals for local children tweeted: Once again, communities are showing their power and resilience to look after each other in the face of shocking behaviour from ministers who’ve seemingly abandoned hungry children.”

                                The Tories remain oblivious to the rampant inequality ravaging the UK. In the Morning Star Article entitled, “Millions face poverty and deprivation under strict Tier-3 lockdown restrictions,” they highlight workers severely impacted by the Tory Government’s self-serving and unnecessarily punitive Covid restrictions that have uniquely targeted northern Labour heartlands including those stolen in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Following Andy Burnham’s defiant protest over the impoverishment of the city they report on, “Protesters to take to Manchester’s streets in anger at government’s ‘disgraceful’ treatment of the city region and its workers,” saying, “Millions of workers face the prospect of poverty and deprivation after being forced into draconian Tier-3 lockdown restrictions from this weekend with utterly inadequate financial support.” They report that, “Protesters will take to the streets of Manchester on Saturday, demonstrating against the government’s ‘disgraceful’ treatment of the city region and its workers.”

                                The Morning Star detail the extent of the problem as, “A swathe of the North is now subject to the government’s Tier-3 lockdown, which shuts businesses and lays off hundreds of thousands of workers. More than seven million people are affected in areas including Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and South Yorkshire. It was also announced today that Warrington in Cheshire will move to Tier-3 from next week. Laid-off workers will receive only 67 per cent of their income because Chancellor Rishi Sunak axed the furlough scheme, which maintained wages at 80 per cent. Hardest hit will be those on the minimum wage of £8.72 an hour.” In reality the most seriously impacted will be young people who under our warped entrenched inequality are not even entitled to the amount euphemistically called the living wage. Their reduced wage and equally reduced benefit entitlement id predicated on the harsh reality that they must remain living at home with parents, but some cannot rely on this luxury.

                                In a disgraceful exposure of worker exploitation the Morning Star report that, “As the new restrictions were implemented last night, government figures revealed that an estimated £3.9 billion has been fraudulently claimed by some employers who instructed furloughed staff to keep working and pocketed the payments. HMRC has urged workers to report employers if they suspect furlough payments have been claimed fraudulently.” You would have thought there was a simple way to prevent such exploitation and fraud, but inexplicably this wasn’t written into the program. In this Tory ‘business friendly’ era exposing and prosecuting such employee exploitation cases will be a very low priority. The Morning Star say, “Saturday’s Manchester demonstration in Piccadilly Gardens, organised by Manchester People’s Assembly Against Austerity, is ‘in opposition to the government’s disgraceful treatment of Greater Manchester as we are forced into Tier-3 restrictions without adequate financial support’.”

                                Chris Neville, one of the organisers, told the Morning Star: “We believe that the government is failing in its duty to protect the population from coronavirus. ‘We fully support the arguments Mayor Andy Burnham has been making as he sought to protect the most vulnerable from the destitution they face after being forced to survive on two-thirds of their income. Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have no problem lining the pockets of greedy shareholders by paying private contractors billions of pounds to mess up our track-and-trace system. Yet we are told there is no money to help those who will struggle as a result of their workplaces being forced to close down.” He said, “The People’s Assembly demands that this government agrees to Andy Burnham’s requests for a return of the furlough scheme, as well as income-support – at 80 per cent – for the earnings of the self-employed.”

                                The Morning Star warn that the, “hospitality industry is one of the sectors hardest hit by Tier-3 restrictions. Pubs, clubs and bars must close completely unless they usually serve “substantial” meals. Those that remain open have a 10pm curfew. Hospitality workers have launched a Cancel the Curfew campaign given the lack of evidence to suggest it has any effect on the spread of the virus. Beginning in Manchester it has been taken up in towns and cities nationwide, including Bristol and London. Bar worker Adam Wilson from Manchester is one of the organisers. ‘A lot of hospitality workers are in dire straits,’ he said. ‘Every city and major town has a Facebook group where we talk to each other and the campaign started from there. We look out for each other. Then it extended to putting pressure on local MPs. Within two weeks we had a question asked in the House of Commons. It’s fully nationwide.”

                                The Morning Star reported that, “Speakers at Saturday’s Manchester rally from 12 noon include anti-racism campaigner Deej Malik-Johnson, student Lucy Nichols, who contracted coronavirus while confined to her Manchester hall of residence, Steve North of Unison, and Richard O’Brien of Unite. Wales also began a two-week ‘fire-break” national lockdown last night, which economists say will damage the Welsh economy to the tune of £500 million.” Ultimately there are strong indications that the tier system of regional lockdowns will not significantly lower the ‘R’ rate especially while Test and Trace remains so unreliable. This flawed policy is impoverishing already neglected northern communities for no good reason. This shambolic government continues to ignore the rising infection rates in schools where children are being used as the unwitting vectors to spread Covid to older relatives in cramped multigenerational living conditions; this is the motivation for not providing meals to children when they are not in school.

                                Meanwhile in the Morning Star Article entitled, “Test and trace privatisation is ‘dangerous,’ says Arthur Scargill,” they highlight this Tory Government’s grotesque misappropriation of public funds to channelled to profiteering Corporate entities for the shambolic mishandling of this critical service. They say that, “Arthur Scargill joined the chorus of criticism against the government’s failed coronavirus test and trace system today following calls for the Tory peer overseeing the mayhem to go. The former miners’ leader presented himself as an example of the system’s failure as MPs and ministers called for Dido Harding to be given the boot. Mr Scargill told the Star that he had to self-isolate for two weeks after being in contact with a person who had tested positive. But when he asked to be tested he was told he was not entitled to a test, even though he might have been the original source of the infection.” This is far from a rare occurrence in the abysmal response to tackling the virus.

                                The Morning Star say that, “Mr Scargill, who was president of the National Union of Mineworkers during the miners’ strike against pit closures of 1984-5, called the privatisation of the service ‘stupid’ and ‘dangerous.’ He said: ‘If the Chinese can test nine million people in a week in Qingdao, I have no doubt that our NHS surgeries and laboratories can test our entire population in eight weeks’.” They point out that, “The government has outsourced testing to a complex network of profiteering, mainly non-medical companies. Accountancy firm Deloitte was given the contract to set up and manage a network of 50 testing sites. Deloitte hired Serco, Sodexo, Mitie, G4S and Boots to staff and manage the sites.” Each time one clueless profit making giant subcontracts to another, often equally inept and inappropriate, private company to accomplish tasks our NHS has excelled in for decades, we lose out. The Tories have taking full advantage of this crisis to set up a profiteering gravy train for their cronies, donors and supporters.

                                The Morning Star report that, “Senior Tory backbencher Sir Bernard Jenkin, an ally of PM Boris Johnson, said: ‘The immediate priority is to fill the vacuum of leadership in test and trace’ and suggested that Baroness Harding ‘could be given a well-earned break.’ Labour’s shadow mental health minister Dr Rosena Allin-Khan said that Baroness Harding’s position as head of the test, track and trace system was ‘untenable.’ But the government is resisting pressure to sack the baroness, with Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis insisting that she was doing ‘a very good job’.” This is the serial failure Dido ‘Tally-ho’ Harding we are discussing here; the same woman who presided over the massive personal data theft at disgraced phone provider ‘Talk-Talk’. But despite her calamitous track record, the PM rewarded Ms Harding with this staggering responsibility for personal Health data on our entire population and now she is safely ensconced in post she is making an absolute ball-up of the responsibility placed on her.

                                The determination to keep throwing good money after bad, relying on dysfunctional centralized profiteering companies led by serial loser Dido Harding will effectively kill off whole swaths of the UK population, but that is part of Cummings warped eugenics plan: a ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple!’ We need no more proof of this ruthless Tory agenda, it’s time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid; no, the Tories have no intention of ‘levelling up’ they are “Decimating Down” with cruel avengeance. Their corrupt plundering of public funds paid for the Integrity Initiative to create defamatory propaganda targeting the opposition, but when that was not enough I believe they stole postal votes in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. The first act was crime enough, but a full Investigation would reveal the truth and hopefully delegitimize the fabricated Tory claim to power. The wilful damage being wrought by this corrupt Tory cabal is costing lives; we urgently need to derail this jugenaught of deception before they solidify decades of Dictatorship in the UK. DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                October 28, 2020 at 03:27#61803Reply

                                Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (16)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                  Still not quite getting that Tory ‘levelling up’ agenda? That’s completely understandable, because it is just a vile, deceitful Tory PR scam. In exactly the same way that the euphemistically named “peace keepers” were sold to the American people as a benign tool of protection while remaining deadly weapons capable of horrific carnage targeting innocent civilians; so too is the fake ‘levelling up’ agenda providing cover for an insidious program of targeted social deprivation that is set to rival Dickensian era Britain! While the BBC and Mainstream Media continues to promote the totally defunct fallacy of levelling up, the harsh reality of the pervasive extreme deprivation throughout already seriously deprived areas of the UK will rumble on, totally crippling the life chances of our brilliant young people. The next generation of political leaders requires a few of those intentionally oppressed to somehow survive this onslaught and win positions of influence on order to shape our future as a more progressive and equal society.

                                  When I was in school there was that compulsory bottle of milk one was expected to consume despite its frigid mid winter chill as you sat in a spartanly heated classroom; it was not universally popular. What I failed to comprehend at the time was that low blood sugar significantly contributed to my muddled thinking as a dyslexic pupil who was serious disadvantage in school. Much later in life I realized that I could not afford to risk dips in my blood sugar if I wanted to pass tests and I took proactive measures seriously. Impoverished hungry school children are not stupid, but they are rendered unable to think properly due to low blood sugar as the brain requires fuel to function. This is why programs like ‘Sure Start’ providing a good breakfast, have proven so effective and why Free School Meals for disadvantaged children make such an important difference. Those forced to self isolate at home or unable to attend school due to a Covid outbreak or lockdown should not be suddenly put at increased disadvantage learning at home.

                                  But this is not the only disadvantage inflicted on less affluent children trying to continue their studies at home. The Government loudly announced that it would be providing Laptops to children to enable remote learning, but as always with the Tories, it is the follow through that soon disintegrates into a token gesture following their bold televised PR presentations. After a well publicized announcement that sounded far too good to be Tory, the reality was that a token number of the Laptops promised to schools were actually provided. But realizing that their PR stunt had accomplished its goal it was time to quietly scale back while they hoped no one was paying attention. In the Canary Article entitled, “The government quietly U-turned on a key pandemic promise just before going on a week’s holiday,” they highlight the regressive backpedalling on a promise made to disadvantaged school children.

                                  The Canary report that, “Laptops were promised for all students in years 3 to 11 who had to self-isolate and needed access to a device.” But, “By 7 June, head teachers were worried that this promise was not going to be fulfilled with the Observer reporting: most heads say they haven’t received a single device yet for disadvantaged year 10 pupils. Then, on 23 October, head teachers across the country were told that the allocation of computers for disadvantaged pupils would be cut by around 80%. This comes despite knowledge that the poorest children are much less likely than their richer peers to have a digital device to access home learning.” Of course this massive scaling back with regard to an earlier Government commitment did not get picked up in the compliant Tory dominated Media or mentioned by the BBC, disadvantaged school children are an extremely low priority. The ‘handyfloss’ is still focused on the deprivation of the last hour of pub drinking time: who cares about poor kids!

                                  The Canary claims that this is “Emblematic of the government pandemic response.” They say that, “Independent Sage has urged the government to stop cuts to laptops given to schools to prevent increasing educational inequality. In a statement, it said:
                                  This episode is emblematic of the Government pandemic response which lays duties and requirements upon sectors (such as education) but without providing the support necessary to implement them. While it is clearly desirable that students unable to attend school should be provided with remote education, this is an empty aspiration without ensuring that all pupils have the necessary resources.”
                                  They say, “Meanwhile, people on Twitter expressed their anger and frustration with the decision.” According to the Canary, “As of 15 October, the Department for Education (DfE) reported that 21% of state-funded schools had at least one child self-isolating at home. All schools are required to have a remote learning plan in place for these students.”

                                  The Canary report that, “Without sufficient provision of laptops, many disadvantaged pupils are unlikely to be able to access learning while self-isolating. This adds to fears that missing school has significantly widened the educational attainment gap between the richest and poorest children. Combined with the vote against free school meals for children, concerns have been raised that the poorest children are being left further and further behind. This comes after a spokesperson for the DfE told The Canary earlier this month: Our focus is on levelling up the opportunities available to every young person in this country, and we will do everything possible to make sure no-one is left behind as a result of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The lack of concern shown for the education and wellbeing of poor children has become staggering. U-turns on both decisions are imperative to stop inequality growing even further.” This is clearly more evidence of the Tory Government’s “Decimating Down” agenda!

                                  The damage inflicted on the working poor of this country by this ruthless and incompetent Tory Government while they continue to make the fictitious claim of ‘levelling up’ is incalculable. It is occurring at speed and by stealth with scant mention and zero criticism from their shills in the right-wing media. Beyond the shocking headlines focused on their current most serious breach of duty to the citizens of this country over free school meals for the poorest children in our nation there are the constant assaults on city councils ability to cope financially with the impact of rising infection rates caused by Tory mismanagement of the Covid crisis. Schools kids are being used as vectors to drive the virus increasing the impact on multigenerational households in cramped homes; hence the hard line on meals during the holidays. But beneath deceptive propaganda radar even programs that have helped to workers to up-skill and earn higher wages have been targeted for removal to keep the working poor permanently oppressed in Tory Britain.

                                  A Left Foot Forward Article entitled, “Union learning provides around £1.4bn to the economy – but the Tories want to scrap it” Kevin Rowen, Head of Organising, Services and Learning at the TUC, highlights Gavin Williamson’s latest forcible restraint on upward mobility in the Government agenda of “Decimating Down.” Not content with trying to sabotage the future of students with a marking algorithm designed to wreck the life chances of bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds he has unleashed an equally incomprehensible restraint on learning. Left Foot Forward say of Union Learning that, “It boosts jobs, wages and productivity but Gavin Williamson wants it gone,” Why? It must be that dangerously disruptive word ‘Union’ that unleashed the Education Sectary’s mental tarantula! But beyond the Tory abhorrence of Union solidarity is the overall agenda of dumming down the working poor to keep them ignorant and slavishly compliant with the increased levels of exploitation that lie ahead.

                                  In the Left Foot Forward article Rowen identifies and presents the case of one typical positive example of the successful and well established Union Learning program. He says, “Jodie works at Tesco. After recently meeting a union learning rep, Sue, at a Checkout Learning Day, and asking about courses that might help her support her children with their homework, Jodie started some courses. She did the National Numeracy Challenge and Get Online via Usdaw courses, quickly catching the learning bug. Sue then encouraged Jodie to take a level 2 customer service course. Her confidence grew and soon she was embarking on a level 2 apprenticeship in IT, which helped her land a new job as admin clerk. The store manager said her commitment to raising her skills made her an excellent choice. All of Jodie’s opportunities were made possible through the Union Learning Fund, which supported 200,000 learners last year. Since its launch in 1998, it has supported a total of 2.5 million learners.”

                                  Despite this very obvious resounding success with the program, Rowen reports that, “earlier this month, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said he will scrap the £12 million annual fund at the end of the current funding year (March 2021). The TUC was stunned to receive this news. The Union Learning Fund is achieving its targets while also being supported by employers. It provides an estimated net contribution to the economy of more than £1.4 billion by boosting jobs, wages and productivity. From basic skills and helping people learn English, to retraining for the jobs of the future, union learning transforms lives. And it has received glowing endorsem*nts from a series of independent evaluations.” So why would a Tory Government whose loud public proclamation of wanting to ‘level up’ and create a more equal society not support this program? Why after the serious challenge of huge redundancies, businesses going under and people needing to re-skill not invest in a well established program like this?

                                  The Tory Government are outright lying to the British people and their real agenda is “Decimating Down” to reduce the working poor in this country to helpless slave labourers with no rights, working zero hours contracts and subsisting on pittance wages. Just the word ‘Union’ deeply unsettles the Tories as it implies workers banding together in solidarity to demand safe working conditions, fair wages and basic benefits for regular hours worked. Unions limit the potential for rampant Corporate exploitation of the entire workforce which in turn might reduce the obscene profits expected by the wealthy elite. The intentional dumming-down of minimum wage earners is imperative to keeping profit margins as high as possible; the price in human misery is totally acceptable to a Tory!

                                  Rowen list the known, “Benefits of the Union Learning Fund
                                  Skills growth
                                  • 68% of union learners with no previous qualifications got a qualification.
                                  • 47% with entry or level 1 qualifications got a higher qualification.
                                  • 80% said they gained skills that could transfer to a new job.

                                  Employer benefits
                                  • 53% of employers at union learning workplaces saw an increase in employees gaining qualifications.
                                  • 77% said that union learning had a positive effect on their workplaces.
                                  • 68% said unions could reach and inspire reluctant learners to engage in training.

                                  Value for money. For every £1 spent on the Union Learning Fund:
                                  • Workers gain £7.60 through better pay.
                                  • Employers gain £4.70 through higher productivity.
                                  • The Exchequer gains £3.57 from welfare savings and revenue gains.
                                  • Employers are stunned at the plans to scrap the fund too. They think union learning is ‘brilliant’”

                                  On a hopeful note, Rowen reports that employers are “Supporting the Fund,” the above benefits are tangible. They say, “That’s why several major employers are backing us today as we launch our #SaveUnionLearning campaign. Tesco, Heathrow, Tata Steel, Hinkley Point C and Arla Foods are among those signed up already, and we expect more to follow.” They quote industry leaders who have commented, “’It’s as disappointing as it is perplexing,’ said Paula Stannett, Heathrow Airport’s Chief People Officer. ‘The unprecedented impact that this pandemic is having on jobs across the UK means there has never been a more critical time to invest in upskilling. We urge the Government to rethink its decision.’ Tata Steel see union learning as a fantastic additional resource. HR Director Chris Jaques said: ‘This brilliant initiative allows us to raise the capability of our workforce. It makes us a more effective and productive organisation. The loss of the fund would certainly be detrimental.”

                                  According to Rowen, “SaveUnionLearning is also backed by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and other lifelong learning experts, including the Workers Educational Association and the Learning and Work Institute. CIPD Chief Executive, Peter Cheese, credits union learning with switching people on to learning who might not have done so otherwise. ‘The Union Learning Fund has demonstrated its success at reaching organisations and individuals who would not otherwise have engaged in learning,’ he explained. ‘It has never been more important to ensure that we are investing in the skills of our workforce. This fund should continue to be supported to play its part in this vital agenda’.”

                                  Rowen reports that, “So far, the only explanation given for the cut by the Department for Education is their wish to consolidate learning through further education. But this fails to appreciate the unique role it plays – especially with the potential learners who are never going to research or sign up for courses without support and encouragement. News of the cut comes at the time when participation in learning and skills continues to fall to an all-time low. Only union learning has been able to reach workers that so evidently need help right now to upskill and retrain. Union learning reps are trusted workmates.” That is without doubt the Tory Government’s primary reason for sabotaging the scheme as they say, “it’s this trust that make it the Heineken of adult learning – it gets to people other approaches cannot reach.”

                                  Rowen stresses the strong positive drive behind keeping the scheme in place, “We want to help more people understand why it is unique, why it is vital to ‘building back better’ after the pandemic, and why it must be central to the Prime Minister’s recent promise of a Lifetime Skills Guarantee. To do this, we will be putting learners and learning reps at the heart of our campaign. It’s hard not to be moved by the transformation stories they tell about what it has done for them.” Author of this piece, Kevin Rowan says, “You can sign the #SaveUnionLearn petition here and support the campaign on social media. You are encouraged to share you’re story if you’re a union learner.” Dean Dixon’s Petition is to the attention of: Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education calling on him to “Reverse the cuts to union learning, saying, The government’s plans to cut the Union Learning Fund in England means hundreds of thousands of workers will miss out on skills and training.”

                                  Dixon appeals for us to, Sign the Petition calling on the government to reverse cuts to union learning and ensure working people can access education and skills training.” He elaborates under the heading, “Why is this important?” In a heartfelt personal endorsem*nt he says, “I saw first-hand the difference union learning made for hundreds of my workmates and friends. So when I heard the news that the government planned to cut the Union Learning Fund, I was devastated. I thought of everyone I’d supported as a union learning rep and what they would have missed out on without this programme. I thought of the workers getting our country through this crisis, who deserve an opportunity to access education and learn new skills in the workplace. It’s impossible to list all of the benefits of union learning I’ve seen, but I can honestly say it’s changed lives.”

                                  In outlining another important aspect of the program Dixon says, “Our training around mental health helped normalise talking about it at work. People who missed out at school learned English and maths in union learning courses, skills they’ll have for life.” He says that, ‘those who came to learning centres and engaged in courses came back over and over again, earning apprenticeships and higher qualifications.’ He further adds that, ‘independent reviews have consistently found union learning to be effective and transformational for the workers who take part, their families, and communities’ and insists that, ‘The government must reverse its decision immediately’.” We must attack the Government over the sheer hypocrisy and brass neck of Tory Ministers when it comes to proven strategies that are genuinely doing a fine job of helping to ‘level up’ and re-skill the many people who have been forced into unemployment through no fault of their own due to Covid 19: we must embarrass the Tories into another U-turn on this issue.

                                  Sadly “Build Back Better” is just another one of Boris Johnson’s shallow sloganeering ploys to dupe the British people into thinking we are “all in this together” when in reality the Tories are milking the Covid cash cow dry and exploiting the crisis to plunder public finances hand over fist. We must disrupt the Tory propaganda by challenging their statements, demanding that their claims must amount to more than empty Tory promises. We have to change the narrative by debunking the ‘levelling up’ scam as a deceitful lie and exposing the truth of the underlying “Decimating Down” agenda. We must demand accountability for the eye-watering sums of money being squandered including the public funds used to pay a charity to create defamatory propaganda targeting the Labour Party. Even without a full Investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election such blatant corruption is sufficient to remove this Tory Government from office. This corruption has still not been dealt with, but we cannot give up or the Tories will drag us all under. DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                  October 29, 2020 at 03:09#61837Reply

                                  Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (17)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                    Fantisemitism is about to rear its ugly head with the imminent publication of the controversial EHRC Report. We already know that the EHRC Report is likely to be deeply biased and untruthful because one of those who stands falsely accused, Chris Williamson, was so incenses by the content that he has filed for a Judicial Review! Thankfully Craig Murray submitted the entire unredacted Labour Rebuttal Report into evidence that must be considered by EHRC. With damning documentation of internal sabotage by the anti-Corbyn faction of the Labour Party clearly apparent when it was leaked to the media the Captain of Capitulation, Keir Starmer, refused to submit it to EHRC and focused an internal inquiry not on the obvious misconduct of factional staff, but on finding out who had commissioned the report and who had leaked the document to the press. Starmer’s cowardly hope that this crucial piece of evidence requested by EHRC would be discredited, buried and forgotten may have been foiled by our intrepid champion of justice.

                                    Today I was just relieved not to feel compelled to watch Keir Starmer’s pathetic whining at Prime Minister’s Questions, where he always manages to obsess over just one oblique aspect of the most vital scrutiny question of the day. His approach, that is neither succinct nor ‘forensic,’ consistently fails to hold the most abysmal and corrupt PM in UK history to account and frequently functions as an invitation for Boris Johnson to embark on a Party political PR stunt where he reels off false statistics, spews blatant lies and announces more shallow promises of future equality and undeliverable prosperity after Brexit. Due to an archaic regulation of behaviour in the House of Commons MPs are not allowed to accuse another member of lying in the Chamber. Johnson has taken full advantage of this perverse freedom to be repeatedly, deliberately and outrageously untruthful in televised debates like PMQs, knowing that he cannot be directly challenged as a pathological liar! It’s time this quaint nicety was abolished to provide accountability.

                                    While it is often left to backbench opposition MPs to ask truly vital questions, they don’t take centre stage and fervent challenges are interspersed with non-questions as Tory MPs seek to curry favour by stroking’ Johnson with unwarranted complements and encouragement beginning with “does the PM agree with me…” We were spared the outrage of wading through yet another futile sparing match between point scoring fantasists at PMQs. I am sure Sir Keir Starmer will take the opportunity next week to indulge in inappropriate grovelling to thoroughly bed-in the concept of fantisemitism that was miraculously vanquished instantly as soon as he took over the Labour Leadership… As destructive centrist Labour MPs kowtow to emboldened Jewish Lobby groups who will seize this opportunity to overegg the disgrace they have falsely claimed Corbyn is responsible for; they will try to demand scalps, primarily Jeremy’s removal from the Labour Party. In his purge of Labour Left, Starmer could willingly capitulate to such demands.

                                    To offer a true perspective of the deception that has shrouded the Labour Party in the shame of false contrition for the entirety of Corbyn’s time as Labour Leader I offer this illustrative example. What if you had a dear friend or family member who had endured months of debilitating treatment for cancer and they appeared to be in remission. On a visit to their specialist they are told that they are more than 99% cancer free, but instead of telling you this fantastic news they report that they are now riddled with cancer! That is the honest equivalent of the deception being peddled in the Mainstream Media and wholeheartedly endorsed as fact by our now thoroughly corrupt right-biased BBC. Independent investigations into the incidence of Anti-Semitism in all political parties have determined that within the Labour membership it represents a miniscule 0.1% which would mean that the largest Socialist Party in Europe with over 500,000 members is not ‘institutionally Anti-Semitic’ or ‘riddled’ with ‘hard-Left’ Anti-Semites, but instead 99.9% Anti-Semitism free. This is a well documented fact that has remained hidden from the public, but which EHRC cannot just ignore.

                                    The healing of this gaping wound that helped deprive the UK of a progressive Socialist Government is long overdue, but as heavily biased as the EHRC is now recognized to be, seriously stacked in favour of demonizing Labour, they will have to ignore a significant amount of hard evidence in Labours’ defence to conclude that Labour has a major problem with anti-Semitism. Aside from the factual statistics clearly demonstrating that anti-Semitism, as has always been the case, is more prevalent on the far-right and almost non-existent among all progressive left leaning political parties there is that internal Labour Report showing documented evidence of sabotage from within the Labour Party and there is other evidence of serious bias and smears. EHRC should question why an internal review in response to their own request for evidence, was suppressed by the incoming Labour Leader and had to be submitted by a third party? The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, (CAA) demand for EHRC to investigate Labour, a distinctly partisan attack from Gideon Falter, lacks any credibility or integrity as they are under investigation by the Charity Commission.

                                    Beyond the CAA’s naked attempt to falsely discredit Labour to protect the Zionist agenda there is the well documented history of deliberately fabricated propaganda from other quarters that provides strong evidence EHRC would be unwise to ignore. Towards the end of 2018 a story broke that then Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry demanded answers to. The World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) Article entitled “UK government’s role in anti-Corbyn campaign exposed,” was a scandal that in a properly functioning democracy should have brought down the Government, but, like so many other attempts to restore justice to UK politics, it failed and was conveniently forgotten by the Media in time for the Covert 2019 Rigged Election a year later. WSWS reported that, “The Integrity Initiative (II), funded by the UK, US governments and NATO, played a central role in efforts to discredit and remove Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.”

                                    WSWS revealed that, “Ostensibly based in a former mill in Fife, Scotland, the Integrity Initiative has all the hallmarks of a covert MI5/MI6 intelligence black ops. It was launched in 2015 by the Institute of Statecraft (IoS), a supposedly ‘independent’ think tank and charity. But after first being granted £296,500 in 2017-18 by the Foreign Office, this financial year the II will receive nearly seven times that amount—£1,961,000. The II also receives hundreds of thousands of pounds from NATO. One of its founder funders was Facebook. Last week, the CyberGuerilla.org web site published documents made available by the Anonymous group, revealing some of the misinformation operations carried out by the IoS/II, based around circulating fake news. The Anonymous leak disrupted plans by the II to keep the authors of their dirty work unknown to the public.”

                                    WSWS reported that, “The II’s website states, ‘We are a network of people and organizations from across Europe dedicated to revealing and combating propaganda and disinformation. Our broader aim is also to educate on how to spot disinformation and verify sources. This kind of work attracts the extremely hostile and aggressive attention of disinformation actors, like the Kremlin and its various proxies, so we hope you understand that our members mostly prefer to remain anonymous.’ Leading figures at the IoS utilise ‘clusters’ of politicians, high-ranking military officials, academics and journalists in countries around the world, ensuring that British imperialism’s aims are reinforced and justified with a constant barrage of propaganda, including influencing social media discussion—with the most obvious target being Russia.” When the long buried Russia Report was finally published it still demonstrated that the Government considered II a trusted source of information despite their highly dubious track record!

                                    Just how politically manipulative the so called ‘Charity’ were is evident from the WSWS reporting where they claim that, “In Spain, the II encouraged pliant journalists to write hatchet pieces—to prevent the nomination of a Spanish official to Director of National Security, one of Spain’s top advisory roles. It operates clusters from UK Embassies and High Commissions in nine European countries—France, Greece, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Serbia and Spain. It also plans clusters in Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland and Portugal. The latest leaked documents point to a massive operation aimed at subverting politics in the UK, with the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition a main target.” Where the corrupt influence of the Tory Party is strongly implicated is demonstrated in the multitude of direct connections and the fact that this Tory Government used public funds paying to support this organization in their corrupt political activities both here and overseas!

                                    WSWS said that, “An investigation by Daily Record/Sunday Mail revealed that the Twitter account of the II was used to spread lies and disinformation about Corbyn and his inner circle. This includes retweeting links to articles, including by two journalists from The Times—Edward Lucas, who is one of 22 individuals named as part of the II’s UK cluster’s ‘Inner Core’ assigned to monitor Russia, and Mark Edmonds, the associate editor of the Sunday Times magazine.” They claimed that, “The II’s role in the anti-Corbyn campaign confirms the insistence of the Socialist Equality Party and the World Socialist Web Site on the involvement of the highest echelons of the state in the UK, US and Israel in slandering the Labour leader as a dupe of the Eastern European intelligence agencies, an anti-Semite and threat to national security. This was aimed at curtailing the development of a leftward movement among workers and youth that found initial expression in support for Corbyn.”

                                    According to WSWS, “The Institute of Statecraft has close ties to Britain’s military and intelligence agencies. It’s senior manager, Chris Donnelly, was a reserve officer in the British Army Intelligence Corps and previously headed the British Army’s Soviet Studies Research Centre at Sandhurst. The Sunday Mail is in possession of documents that ‘suggest he was appointed an ‘Honorary Colonel in Military Intelligence’ in 2015—the year the Integrity Initiative was formed.’ The Institute of Statecraft’s spokesman, Stephen Dalziel, was a leading figure at the BBC’s World Service, having spent 16 years there from 1988. But before this, according to an online biography, he ‘joined the Soviet Studies Research Centre at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. Using unclassified primary Soviet sources, the Centre worked closely with the Armed Forces to give an accurate picture of the situation in the Soviet Armed Forces by way of lectures and research papers … [and Dalziel] continued to travel to the USSR, as well as making frequent visits to Berlin—West and East’.”

                                    WSWS reported that, “The document detailing the UK ‘cluster’ of II’s operation lists 108 individuals, including personnel from the Foreign Office, Ministry of Defence, the Henry Jackson Society, Royal United Services Institute, the Demos think tank, leading Blairite Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, as well as parliamentary staff at the Defence Committee, David Nicholas and Eleanor Scarnell. The names of at least nine journalists include four from Rupert Murdoch’s Times/Sunday Times, which has played a central role in the anti-Corbyn smear campaign—Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch, Dominic Kennedy and Edward Lucas. Also named is leading Guardian columnist and leader writer, Natalie Nougayrede, who was previously the executive editor and managing editor of French daily Le Monde. The other journalists named are the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus, Neil Buckley of the Financial Times and a freelancer, Bruce Jones.”

                                    WSWS say that, “In its article, the Sunday Mail notes that II tweeted an excerpt from an article stating, ‘Mr Corbyn was a ‘useful idiot’, in the phrase apocryphally attributed to Lenin. His open, visceral anti-westernism helped the Kremlin cause, as surely as if he had been secretly peddling Westminster tittle-tattle for money…’ This refers to a comment headlined, ‘Jeremy Corbyn’s sickening support of Soviet empire,’ originally published on February 22 in the Times by II cluster member Edward Lucas. Lucas is named in the UK Cluster document as a member of the ‘Inner Core—Russia’ team, along with US neo-con journalist Anne Applebaum. II also retweeted excepts from four other anti-Corbyn articles. One of these from a blogger, Connor P, was headlined, ‘Novichok for the Soul. Jeremy Corbyn and the murder of the Russian spy’ and was retweeted by Blairite Guardian journalist and leading anti-Corbyn fanatic, Nick Cohen.”

                                    Again referring to the Skripal False Flag incident, the WSWS reported back in December 2018 that, “The last attack on Corbyn retweeted by the II was less than three months ago, on September 20, just three days before the opening of Labour’s annual conference. It was an article published by politics.co.uk and headlined, ‘Skripal poisoning: It’s time for the Corbyn left to confront its Putin problem.’ Corbyn’s main adviser and director of communications, Seamus Milne, was also singled out for attack by II, which retweeted another Times article, by Mark Edmonds. In an extensive profile of Milne, it cited a statement from Conservative MP Bob Seely, described as a ‘Russia expert and member of the foreign-affairs select committee.’ Seely said Milne is ‘not a ‘spy’… That would be … beneath him. But what he has done, wittingly or unwittingly, is to work with the Kremlin’s agenda against the interests of western liberal democracies. I have little doubt they see him as an ally against the UK, the US, Nato’.”

                                    In describing the litany of lies back in 2018 WSWS stated that, “The Murdoch empire has spent much of this year organising a series of hatchet jobs on Corbyn. Earlier this year, as Lucas was publishing his article, Murdoch’s Sun made scurrilous claims that Corbyn was a paid informer for the Czech secret service in the 1980s as it editorialised that Corbyn ‘cannot be allowed the keys to No 10.’ In September, the Times regurgitated long discredited assertions that former left Labour leader Michael Foot was a Kremlin agent. It once again referred to Lucas’ statement that Corbyn and others on the left of the Labour Party historically were ‘useful idiots’ and, in a clear reference to Corbyn, said the claim that Foot was paid by Moscow had ‘topicality as well as historical significance’.” The disinformation should have ended there and then, but the continuous stream of propaganda persisted unabated right up to the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and beyond. If EHRC ignore this evidence it will be a truly shocking breach of their public duty that will not survive the scrutiny of a Judicial Review.

                                    Chris Williamson is determined to hold EHRC to account if they fail to act with integrity to quash these false allegations discrediting the Labour Party and a growing number of its most outspoken Left wing supporters. Starmer tried to suppress evidence requested by EHRC, attempting to obscure an obvious conspiracy of sabotage despite credible documentation: not a good look! He drove many members away from the party in disgust with his deeply flawed decision to squander membership dues; ignoring the advice of Labour’s Legal team to reward John Ware’s ‘poison dart blowers’ for committing perjury! If the brazen deceit of Keir Starmer is not uncovered by EHRC it will be completely exposed in any subsequent Judicial Review; hopefully his days are numbered and he will be forced to step down in disgrace. His appalling record of injustice, cover-up and misogynistic rulings as well as his racist policy decisions while Head of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service should have barred him from running for the Labour Leadership.

                                    Starmer has dug himself into a deep hole with his lies and his cowardly capitulation, but his unjustified payment to Ware might provide one last gasp of fake credibility for Ware and his cohorts. However, if EHRC have the brass neck to support these false allegations they must know they will be in really deep trouble when this issue is decided on solid evidence in a Court of law at Judicial Review. Hopefully this SLAPP scam will expose the thoroughly corrupt system of Government appointed stooges installed within agencies missguidedly trusted to provide full accountability. It could see multiple Tory Government stacked agencies in serious trouble as the public finally wise up to this Conservative con trick.

                                    I know that Williamson has already filed his case for Judicial Review and I sincerely doubt he will back down. Now that Jeremy Corbyn has such overwhelming funding support for legal action many people are hoping he will countersue John Ware. This is really important because it could prove that the fake Whistleblowers committed perjury with their statements to the Court in their SLAPP Suit against Labour, for which they could then face jail time! This would create a significant deterrent for those seeking a quick risk-free payout by filling a SLAPP suit in future. These suits are against the public interest and they gag important investigative journalism. The fantisemitism lies were used to validate the ‘borrowed votes’ lie to lend desperately needed legitimacy to the unfathomable Tory ‘landslide victory’ scam in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. It was all a big fat lie; we need to question more and demand a full Investigation of the unbelievable result that never made any sense. We must demand proper accountability for this corruption and remove the Tory Party from office ASAP! DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                    October 30, 2020 at 03:12#61872Reply

                                    Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (18)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                      Many are in a state of shock tonight after hearing the news of Corbyn’s suspension from the Labour Party, but it will not mark the end of foreign intervention in the manipulation of UK politics if we do not take extreme action to combat this Zionist intervention. The CAA Campaign Against Antisemitism are now attacking a long list of progressive Left MPs they now want Starmer to remove! Bracing for the smear onslaught ahead, yesterday the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Exclusive: Corbyn’s chief of staff ‘sets record straight’ on Labour, antisemitism and EHRC – the FULL version, publishes the facts according to Karie Murphy.” They say that, “The Guardian has published an article by Jeremy Corbyn’s former chief of staff, Karie Murphy, along with a separate piece by its chief political correspondent Jessica Elgot. Below is Murphy’s full article, which may differ from the paper’s edited version.” Without repeating the content I have looked at all three articles and the apologist commentary of Jon Ainsworth in a forth Guardian piece.

                                      In the Skwawkbox Murphy states that, “In the coming weeks, we can expect to hear more about the handling of antisemitism complaints in the Labour Party. That’s because the investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, launched last year, is due to be published. Dealing with the EHRC, and getting input into the investigation process, has not always been easy. So, as someone who was at the centre of dealing with these issues, in parliament and Labour HQ, I want to set the record straight. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, antisemites were removed from the Labour Party more quickly, transparently and effectively than ever before. As his former chief of staff, I’m proud of that record. It wasn’t easy to deliver – not because Jeremy and our team weren’t absolutely committed to protecting Jewish members and communities. Far from it. Every action we took was aimed at creating a process that got antisemites out of the Labour Party swiftly and fairly.”

                                      Murphy says that, “In February 2016, I joined Corbyn’s office and soon afterwards became his chief of staff. Frankly, the party machine was dysfunctional. The open civil war against the new leadership is well documented. But there was a deeper problem, at least as it related to proper processes for complaints and discrimination: there weren’t any. Local parties often languished in suspended animation, banned from meeting or holding votes for years on end, without any way to restart members’ democracy. What common factor did these local parties usually have? Large minority ethnic memberships. The individual complaints system was a mess, with the unit meant to oversee it operating more often as a factional weapon than anything approaching a fair and rigorous process.”

                                      Murphy reports that, “This ugly backdrop informed the first flare-up of the antisemitism controversy in the Labour Party as a major media story. That took place in April 2016, when old Facebook comments by the Labour MP Naz Shah and pro-Corbyn activist Jackie Walker surfaced, along with Ken Livingstone’s thoroughly offensive attempted defence of Shah’s former online activity. Action was taken immediately and Naz worked hard to rebuild relations with the Jewish community. ‘From an audit of over 300 antisemitism complaints received by the party [before Jennie Formby became general secretary], only 34 had been investigated, and of them only 10 were suspended at the time.’ Jeremy made strong public statements condemning antisemitism and demanded action be taken in the party. He also commissioned a report from the leading human rights lawyer Shami Chakrabarti. The Board of Deputies of British Jews called for her recommendations to be implemented in a ‘rigorous and swift’ manner.”

                                      According to Murphy, “despite assurances from the party HQ and the then General Secretary Iain McNicol, they weren’t, and the system continued not to function. The figures are stark. From an audit of over 300 antisemitism complaints received by the party from November 2016 to February 2018, only 34 had been investigated, and of them only 10 were suspended at the time. This shocking failure of basic processes only began to be fully uncovered after Jennie Formby became General Secretary in March 2018. ‘Whenever we were asked for our view, we almost always suggested stronger and swifter action. In 2019, I felt we were getting on top of the process problems in the party. The results are clear. In 2017, 28 cases brought to the National Executive Committee led to just one expulsion, while in 2019 274 cases led to 45, a more than four-fold increase in expulsions per case. We had a weekly, cross-departmental antisemitism working group of party officials, forcing through the necessary changes to the system.”

                                      Murphy claims, “We didn’t deal with individual cases at the leadership level – and nor should we have done – but we did act to improve the overall process. Apart from one brief period in early 2018 between Iain McNicol leaving and Jennie Formby taking over, we were only consulted on cases involving MPs or other elected leaders, as has always been the case in the Labour Party with all types of complaints. And whenever we were asked for our view, we almost always suggested stronger and swifter action. ‘There has been an extremely successful campaign to obscure the facts.’ Throughout the whole period, Jeremy asked me as his chief of staff to improve the process, get antisemites out of our party and begin to rebuild trust with Jewish communities. Jeremy is an anti-racist in every cell in his body and he wanted robust action following due process.”

                                      Murphy understands that, “Many readers will find this all surprising given the dominant media narrative about antisemitism in the Labour Party, but it is the truth. While many victims of antisemitism and their allies rightly demanded action from the party, there has been an extremely successful campaign to obscure the facts. That was primarily driven by political opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s socialist, internationalist politics. Last summer’s BBC Panorama programme about Labour and antisemitism, based on testimonies from some of those responsible for the system that only investigated 10% of antisemitism complaints from November 2016 to February 2018, claimed that there was political meddling from Corbyn’s team to protect antisemites. There wasn’t.”

                                      Murphy States that, “Between McNicol leaving and Jennie Formby taking over as general secretary, those running the governance and legal unit began asking Corbyn’s team for their views on individual cases. Not only did we not ask for this oversight of individual cases, I thought it was a factional trap and I put a stop to it.” Speaking out for the first time she said, “I’m not speaking out for the first time to run away from the fact that antisemitism reared its head among a small minority in the Labour Party. It did. It was wrong and the party as a whole was slow to deal with it effectively. That failure, combined with a relentless and highly politicised media campaign had a serious impact: it hurt Jewish people and disturbed and confused many in our movement. Could more have been done earlier? Yes, of course. But what was done unquestionably made it easier and swifter to remove antisemites from the Party.”

                                      Murphy concludes by offering an expectation of the new Labour Party Leader, despite the fact that he appears determined to weaponize anti-Semitism to discredit his high principled predecessor. She says, “I hope Keir Starmer and his team builds on the hugely improved system we instituted and uses the space afforded to him by the dialing down of the politicised media campaign on this issue to rebuild relations and trust with Jewish communities. It deeply saddens me that we were unable to do so. But it wasn’t for want of trying, let alone any toleration for antisemitism.” It is important to understand that ‘Under New Leadership’ it would not have been possible to get what was falsely portrayed as a massive problem completely under control the second Corbyn stepped down. The robust mechanisms that Corbyn’s team put in place are continuing to eradicate the small number of cases within the extensive Labour Party membership, but Keir Starmer is now trying to take full credit while deceitfully continuing t demonize his predecessor.

                                      In the Guardian Article entitled, “Ex-Corbyn aide Karie Murphy says she is proud of record on antisemitism,” they report, “Murphy says she wants to set record straight, but Jewish group dismisses her claims as smearing. Jeremy Corbyn’s former chief of staff has said she is proud of Labour’s record on antisemitism, days before the equalities watchdog is expected to publish its report on the issue.” As if it were heresy, they describe Karie Murphy as, “one of Corbyn’s fiercely protective inner circle, whom several former party staffers have accused of meddling in antisemitism cases, said she had been moved to speak out ‘for the first time … [to] set the record straight,’ about the party’s handling of cases, claiming that it improved during Corbyn’s tenure.” They quote Murphy, “Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, antisemites were removed from the Labour party more quickly, transparently and effectively than ever before. As his former chief of staff, I’m proud of that record,” she has written in a piece for the Guardian.

                                      The Guardian report that, “The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is expected to publish its long-awaited report on Labour this week. It launched the review after whistleblowers alleged that the party was institutionally antisemitic in its handling of complaints and within local party structures. Any key figures who are criticised in the report, who could include Murphy, are likely to have been given some limited sight of its findings in advance. Murphy said there had been an ‘extremely successful campaign to obscure the facts’ about how the party handled complaints, claiming it was ‘primarily driven by political opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s socialist, internationalist politics’ and procedural failings.”

                                      The Guardian quote Murphy as saying, “I’m not speaking out for the first time to dismiss the fact that antisemitism reared its head among a small minority in the Labour party. It did. It was wrong and the party as a whole was slow to deal with it effectively.” But they say that, “in comments that were fiercely opposed by the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), Murphy said a ‘relentless and highly politicised media campaign’ was also to blame. It ‘hurt Jewish people and disturbed and confused many in our movement,” Murphy had said. “Could more have been done earlier? Yes, of course. But what was done – including changes to the party’s rules and instituting detailed guidance on antisemitism for an expanded complaints team – unquestionably made it easier and swifter to remove antisemites from the party.” She added that she was “’deeply sad; that relations with the Jewish community were at such a low ebb during Corbyn’s tenure. ‘But it wasn’t for want of trying, let alone because of any tolerance of antisemitism’.”

                                      The Guardian rushed to the unwarranted defence of John Ware’s so called, “Whistleblowers,” who they said, “worked in Labour’s governance and legal unit, several of whom went public to speak to the BBC Panorama programme, have previously said senior party staff fatally undermined their attempts to tackle antisemitism, alleging consistent interference in complaints, which Murphy denies. Several staff described experiencing breakdowns as a result of the atmosphere.” Sadly the disgusting ‘Fake News’ of the Panorama hatchet job was not challenged in Court as the Labour Legal team had recommended, but reinforced and endorsed by Keir Starmer’s shocking cowardly capitulation. To the horror of huge swaths of the Labour membership Starmer rewarded those who had committed perjury in their statements to the Court by awarding them a substantial out-of-Court settlement paid for by Labour Membership dues. The extent of this perjury could be exposed by EHRC or by the Williamsons Judicial Review of EHRC.

                                      The Guardian reported that, “Murphy cited an audit of more than 300 antisemitism complaints received by the party from November 2016 to February 2018, which found that only 34 had been investigated.” They say, “She alleged that changes brought about by Jennie Formby as general secretary – Formby has since left the role – led to a fourfold increase in expulsions per case. Murphy said she and other staff members in the Labour leader’s office did not meddle in cases involving party members, saying she saw it as ‘a factional trap’ when she was asked for advice – a claim strongly disputed by former staff members, who have claimed they were put under inappropriate pressure in prominent cases.”

                                      But the Guardian gave the final judgement to the rabidly anti-Corbyn Jewish Labour Movement. They reported that, “Mike Katz, chair of the JLM, said Murphy’s claims were a smear of Jewish members. ‘JLM referred Labour to the EHRC because our efforts to engage constructively with the party from 2015 onwards had been rebuffed constantly and our members faced continued discrimination, harassment and victimisation’,” According to Katz, “At no point was there genuine remorse, improvements to the system, or any real progress in the number of cases handled or outcomes. Their only success on antisemitism was the rigour with which they protected their political allies, downplayed the issue and gaslit those who spoke up against it. Smearing the pain of our members and the wider Jewish community as part of a ‘highly politicised media campaign’ is shameful.” It would be inappropriate to show remorse for alleged inaction over a serious grievance that was deliberately blown out of all proportion for political reasons.

                                      In another guilty until proven innocent take on the as yet unpublished EHRC Report the Guardian Article entitled, “Antisemitism inquiry is Labour’s most shameful moment, says senior MP,” they have relied on the familiar tactic of getting a compliant Labour Centrist to admit guilt over unproven accusations. This was the exact same tactic used to convince the country that the Tories had won a ‘landslide victory’ in the Covert2019 Rigged Election; instead of getting Johnson to explain his unfathomable win they forced Labour MPs to endorse the validity of their fabricated defeat! In this case they chose Jonathan Ashworth whose former wife, Emilie Oldknow, was mired hip deep in the conspiracy to sabotage Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. They just say, “Jonathan Ashworth’s comments come day before publication of EHRC report on issue. An investigation by the equality watchdog into antisemitism in the Labour party is the most shameful moment in the party’s history, a leading frontbench Labour MP has said.”

                                      The Guardian report that, “The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report is due to be published on Thursday after an 18-month investigation into claims of anti-Jewish racism in the party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Asked if the investigation was the most shameful moment in the party’s history, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, agreed that ‘it probably was, yes’. Speaking on Times Radio on Wednesday morning, Ashworth said: ‘A lot of this was about the fact that there was just a refusal to acknowledge the issue. I obviously don’t know what’s in the report, because it’s confidential, but that was a shameful period in our history, and we have to be clear that we are never going back to that, and we will do everything we can to repair relations with the Jewish community who are understandably and quite rightly hurt by the Labour party’s failure to deal with this in recent years’.”

                                      The Guardian report that, “The EHRC launched the review after whistleblowers alleged that the party was institutionally antisemitic in its handling of complaints and within local party structures. The referral came from a number of Jewish groups including the Campaign Against Antisemitism and the Jewish Labour Movement.” Both lobby groups were firmly committed to Corbyn’s removal due to his support for the Palestinian cause. They say, “Key allies of Corbyn are expected to launch a staunch defence of their record when the report is published. Karie Murphy, Corbyn’s former chief of staff, whom several former party staffers have accused of meddling in antisemitism cases, has said the handling of antisemitism disciplinary cases improved during Corbyn’s tenure. ‘Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, antisemites were removed from the Labour party more quickly, transparently and effectively than ever before. As his former chief of staff, I’m proud of that record,’ she wrote in a piece for the Guardian on Monday.”

                                      The Guardian feature the comments of hateful arch Zionist, “Gideon Falter,” saying that, “the chief executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, said there must be consequences for Labour staffers if the report is highly critical.” H expresses his determination to continue the destructive work of his lobbying group by saying that, “’The party must be forever changed after this episode so this can never happen again,’ he said. “Those responsible remain in the party and must be held to account if Sir Keir Starmer is to tear antisemitism ‘out by its roots’, as he has promised. The EHRC’s report is a pivotal moment in this corrective process, which is why we called in the EHRC and were the originating complainant in its investigation.” Falter is convinced that under Starmer’s weak and compliant leadership he can force the expulsion of Corbyn and all other champions of the Palestinian cause. Falter claimed that, “The EHRC has considered a great deal of evidence from us and we will have more to say when the report is published.”

                                      Gideon Falter and the so called Charity ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ are a poorly disguised front for a Zionist Lobby group dedicated to eliminating all criticism of Israel’s ongoing cruel, blatantly racist oppression of the Palestinian people. They have been reported to the Charity Commission for their political bias targeting the Labour Party so they approached the EHRC with a serious axe to grind. Now CAA are demanding that their compliant stooge Starmer launch investigations into dozens of the progressive Labour MPs on spurious grounds of fantisemitism, a move that will effectively gut the Labour Party. We cannot allow UK politics to be dictated by the Israeli Government, but that is what is taking place right now due to totally spineless Labour Leadership under Keir Starmer. The Tories are just thankful that the heat is off their shambolic handling of the Covid 10 crisis and no one is taking much notice of their crazy plan for crash=out Brexit that will plunge the working poor of this country into years of misery.

                                      It may take a few days for the left to fully react, but I certainly hope Labour Party members will not passively allow the Zionist lobby to gut the Labour Party. EHRC totally failed to recognize CAA’’s relentless political agenda, but this heavily biased organization will hopefully face a tough legal battle under Judicial Review initiated by Chris Williamson. The compliant BBC and rightwing press are trying to sell this travesty as a major victory for Starmer and his centrist followers, but this injustice could spark a significant Labour revolt. The grotesquely unfair treatment of Jeremy Corbyn could be the final straw where the Unions turn against Starmer and cut off Union funding. It might be time for the Socialists, including Corbyn, to find a truly 100% progressive Socialist party to join: the Green Party! If Corbyn joined the Greens Labour Party members would follow him in droves. The only hope for Labour is to expose the corruption of fantisemitism, Investigate the result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, ditch Starmer and install Corbyn as PM. DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                      October 31, 2020 at 03:13#61909Reply

                                      Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (19)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                        I was too nauseated by the parade of vile accusers presented in propaganda news segments to watch the televised betrayal; I am still in shock! In an Electronic Intifada, (ei) Article entitled, “UK ‘Labour anti-Semitism’ probe finds only two ‘unlawful acts’,” they highlight the truly pathetic outcome of the EHRC’s lengthy ‘fantisemitism fishing expedition.’ They say, “The EHRC has accused former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s office of ‘political interference’ in anti-Semitism allegations. The UK’s official equality watchdog has failed to find the Labour Party guilty of ‘institutional anti-Semitism,’ after a 17-month investigation. But the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) made a veiled swipe at former party leader Jeremy Corbyn in a much anticipated new report on Thursday.” In reality, the actual conclusion of the report was drowned out by Media spin as the corrupted BBC and Right-wing press ramped-up and reinvented charges against a sworn socially progressive enemy of the establishment: Jeremy Corbyn.

                                        ei say of EHRC that, “It accuses the party of a ‘failure of leadership’ during Corbyn’s tenure as well as “political interference’ by his office over complaints of anti-Semitism. It accuses two Labour figures – including former mayor of London Ken Livingstone – of ‘unlawful harassment’ against unspecified Jewish people. ‘Our investigation has identified serious failings in leadership and an inadequate process for handling anti-Semitism complaints across the Labour Party,’ the report states. But it makes no recommendation of any disciplinary action against individuals. The current Labour leader Keir Starmer said months ago he would implement all its recommendations. The Campaign Against Antisemitism – one of the two pro-Israel lobby groups that referred Labour to the EHRC in the first place – demanded on Wednesday that heads should roll. ‘Those responsible remain in the party and must be held to account,’ their chief executive told The Guardian.” The CAA want to gut the Labour Party with their demands.

                                        ei point out that, “The EHRC’s impartiality has been widely called into question. Its critics – including Corbyn – say it is too close to the ruling Conservatives and point to senior EHRC figures with close ties to the government and of the body’s refusal to act against anti-Black racism. Former Labour lawmaker Chris Williamson told The Electronic Intifada that the report was ‘a major climb-down’ and that he had been vindicated. In its referral of Labour to the EHRC last year, pro-Israel group the Jewish Labour Movement had insisted that the body had a duty ‘to force the Labour Party to acknowledge that it has become institutionally anti-Semitic.’ But the final report published today notably makes no mention of that key allegation – a common smear made by pro-Israel lobby groups in the years since Corbyn became leader in 2015. “The stitch-up had no legs,” said Williamson. “The serious accusations against me could not be sustained and the EHRC had to back down. I’ve been vindicated as a longstanding anti-racist campaigner.”

                                        ei say, “Williamson was suspended from the party in 2019 over false anti-Semitism allegations and later resigned in protest. The Electronic Intifada understands that an earlier draft of the report contained findings against Williamson. But after representations from Williamson’s lawyers, the EHRC wrote back that they would subsequently remove the findings before publication. My prediction – The EHRC report will be a disappointment for Zionists etc but they will attempt not show it too much – and make the most of it. Starmer will do exactly that and use it to attempt to change Party rules, which will cover flag waving… — Jackie walker (@Jackiew80333500) October 27, 2020 Second prediction for EHRC – those who have been duped will stay duped. Those who were complicit will use what they can. The rest? – it will make more angry. As for most minorities…. they will get the message loud and clear. The hierarchy is official policy, sod the rest. — Jackie walker (@Jackiew80333500) October 27, 2020″

                                        ei document that, “The report claims that ‘the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment through the actions of its agent, Ken Livingstone’ (at the time a member of the ruling National Executive Committee) because in April 2016 he pointed to a ‘smear campaign by ‘the Israel lobby’ to stigmatize critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, as well as being aimed at undermining and disrupting the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn’. This claim was validated by credible undercover video footage of Israeli Embassy and Zionist Lobby involvement in the Israeli Government funded smear campaign. ei say, “Livingstone did this, the report says, by defending Labour lawmaker Naz Shah, who had posted an image to Facebook ‘suggesting that Israel should be relocated to the United States’ and a second post ‘in which she appeared to liken Israeli policies to those of Hitler.’ Livingstone has always denied saying anything anti-Semitic. He told The Electronic Intifada that the draft EHRC report had not been sent to him before publication.”

                                        ei report that, “In a fuller statement after the report was published on Thursday, he defended his record, saying, ‘As a life-long anti-racist, I am deeply hurt by – and fully reject – the accusations again being circulated across parts of the media.’ Livingstone’s defence of Shah led to a subsequent BBC radio interview in which he (accurately) pointed out that in the early 1930s when he first came to power, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler ‘was supporting Zionism.’ But the report does not mention the long-running controversy over this comment, which led to Livingstone twice being suspended by the party and ultimately forced to resign. Instead it asserts that Shah’s posts were ‘anti-Semitic social media posts’ and that merely by denying they were anti-Semitic, Livingstone was guilty of ‘unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity,’ which ‘had the effect of harassing members of the Labour Party’.”

                                        ei say that, “The EHRC has the power under British law to force a body such as the Labour Party to come up with an ‘action plan’ to address its rulings. The report recommends Labour should commission an ‘independent process to handle and determine anti-Semitism complaints’ for an unspecified period ‘until trust and confidence in the process is restored.’ Long a demand of the Jewish Labour Movement, Starmer has already committed to establishing an independent complaints procedure for anti-Semitism. The EHRC does not have any power to sanction individuals. But James Libson, a lawyer acting for the Jewish Labour Movement, said during a JLM public meeting held on Zoom in June that an EHRC ruling naming individuals could open the way to legal action against them. ‘There may be avenues for individual people to bring [legal] proceedings themselves’ against Labour figures, Libson said, ‘if the EHRC says that this person was subject to harassment, unlawful acts, or something of that nature’.”

                                        ei warn us that, “Having already played a major part in removing him as leader, the manufactured ‘anti-Semitism crisis’ campaign which has been seeking to remove Corbyn from Labour altogether may yet achieve its maximal goal.” We should fully anticipate the total evisceration of the Labour Party to remove the progressive Left faction for a more Corporate compliant non-opposition. We must also brace for a tsunami of SLAPP Lawsuits as all of the shallow opportunists seek to exact their pound of flesh from the rotting carcass of the dismembered political entity that was Labour. While no personal affront justifies the brutal attacks in France, Macron is defending the free speech right to be as utterly debasing of a venerated religious figure as one can possibly imagine. But here in the UK free speech is totally banished, as just daring to criticize or condemn Israel for the ruthless persecution of the cruelly oppressed Palestinians is now fully rebranded as racist and anti-Semitic hate speech! I am deeply ashamed to be British!

                                        The false accusations of fantisemitism will now stop even with the Labour Party brought to its knees due to their appeasem*nt of the toxic Zionist movement. Other progressive Socialist parties who have tried to criticize the racist policies of apartheid Israel have come under attack too, but their push-back has been strident and successful. In a Morning Star Article entitled, “Jewish Chronicle rapped by press regulator after misleading readers over alleged anti-semitism in the Green Party,” it is obvious that Zionist Lobby groups are trying to spread their cancerous defamation. They say, “ISPO upholds complaint by the Greens’ home-affairs spokesman Shahrar Ali. PRESS regulators have ruled that the Jewish Chronicle printed inaccuracies and misled its readers in a story about alleged anti-semitism in the Green Party. The newspaper was forced to publish a full correction yesterday after the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint by the Greens’ home-affairs spokesman, Shahrar Ali.”

                                        The Morning Star report that, “The complaint centred on claims published by the paper on December 6 2019 that Mr Ali had compared Israel’s 2009 attack on Gaza with the holocaust on Holocaust Memorial Day, in a speech given that same year. But the regulator found this both misleading and inaccurate, upholding that Mr Ali had not compared the two and had also not given the speech on Holocaust Memorial Day. IPSO ruled on Thursday that the Jewish Chronicle had breached the editorial code of conduct by presenting an allegation as fact, printing inaccuracies and failing to properly address its errors. The regulator also concluded that the inaccuracy of the timing was ‘significant’ given the ‘sensitivity of the occasion’.”

                                        The Morning Star reported that, “The speech Mr Ali made in 2009 during the bombardment of Gaza had called for former PM Tony Blair, former US president George W Bush and then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to face a war-crimes tribunal. In a video of the speech, Mr Ali is heard to say: ‘Listen up warmongers. Just because you observe the niceties of Holocaust Memorial Day does not mean that you have learned the lessons of history.’ Mr Ali hailed IPSO’s ruling as an ‘important win’ that will ‘help embolden all those life-long anti-racists who want to continue to speak out against Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people’.”

                                        “Unfortunately, I’ve seen an inability, even in our own party and across politics in general, for people who have spoken out before against injustice [against Palestinians] to continue to do so,” he told the Morning Star. “Not only are human-rights injustices being neglected because of these fears of being stigmatised and castigated unjustly as anti-semitic, but in addition real xenophobia, true racism whether against Jews or against Muslims is not being properly addressed.” The article also accused several other Green candidates who were running in the 2019 general election of breaching the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism, which the party has not signed up to. Campaigners argue that the IHRA definition is being used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel and the ability to speak up for the Palestinian cause.” Sadly the Labour Leadership fell head long into this bear trap and they have been unable to extricate themselves ever since.

                                        The Morning Star remind us that, “It is not the first time that the Jewish Chronicle has been rapped by the press regulator over articles about alleged anti-semitism on the left and in the Palestinian solidarity movement. Several people have successfully sued the paper. Earlier this year the Jewish Chronicle was ordered to publish a 1,300-word adjudication after printing a series of false allegations of bullying and anti-semitism against Labour activist Audrey White, who also won ‘substantial damages,’ over the issue. The Jewish Chronicle was approached for comment.” It will require a serious proactive fight-back to eliminate this scourge, but the lesson here is that fantisemitism accusations are easily unravelled and debunked when the false accusers are challenged in a Court of Law. Sadly this response was never adopted by the Labour Party as they chose the path of appeasem*nt fooled into believing the attacks would stop; the never will stop without robust Legal challenge and that is the path forward in solidarity.

                                        In the Morning Star Article entitled, “Charity faces election bias investigation,” they highlight how, “Green Party spokesman reports the Campaign Against Antisemitism to Charity Commission over anti-Corbyn smear campaign.” Why did it take another Socialist Party to stand up to this toxic organization that is dedicated to furthering the cause of eliminating all criticism of Israel’s racist policies. No so called ‘Charity’ should exist to expressly promote the cause of racism, obscuring gross Human Rights abuses and war crimes by falsely accusing those fighting for justice of fantisemitism! But this is the perversely warped reality in which we now live where evil is the new good to be protected by weak politicians bought off by well funded lobby groups.

                                        The Morning Star report on, “A Charity that responded to Jeremy Corbyn’s election defeat by saying that ‘the beast is slain’ is reportedly under investigation by the third-sector watchdog. Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) has been reported to the Charity Commission for heading a number of anti-Labour campaigns. The complaint, made by Green Party home-affairs spokesman Shahrar Ali, accused the group of failing to be independent of party politics — a requirement under law for charities. Mr Ali’s complaint centres on comments made by CAA’s head of political investigations, Joe Glasman, in a video published shortly after the 2019 election result. Mr Glasman comments on Labour’s election defeat by saying that ‘the beast is slain,’ also using the word ‘slaughtered.’ The bizarre video appears to show Mr Glasman admitting to co-ordinating a campaign using ‘spies and intel’ against the party.” We can only hope thart this vital piece of evidence was submitted to the EHRC.

                                        “Mr Ali, a former deputy head of the Green Party, described the language used by Mr Glasman as ‘unconscionable’.” He told the Morning Star: “I think it is imperative that politicians from across the political spectrum call out and condemn negative campaigning which would incite hatred and goes well beyond the bounds of common decency. ‘Following Jo Cox’s murder, it is even more pressing that we do so. The fact that Corbyn is a lifelong anti-racist campaigner makes such unjust vilification by CAA especially troubling and unconscionable. This is not the kind of misconduct that a registered charity should be engaging in with impunity. We must clean up our political culture and these kinds of negative campaigns must be rooted out, exposed and combatted.’ Mr Ali submitted the complaint earlier this month. He claimed that the commission will now investigate the matter after having made an initial assessment of the concerns raised.”

                                        The Morning Star report that, “A Charity Commission spokesperson said: ‘We have been made aware of concern regarding comments made by an employee of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which is being assessed in line with our usual processes. By law, charitable organisations must not support or oppose a particular political party. It also states that particular care must be taken during an election campaign to not indicate to its supporters which party or person to vote for. Mr Ali argues that CAA is in breach of these regulations given its heavy campaign against Mr Corbyn. Asked whether this might have played a part in the election result, Mr Ali said: ‘Unfortunately the unrelenting campaign against Mr Corbyn, which persisted for years and was stepped up during the election, must have had a negative impact on his election. The greatest victims from our failing to challenge and correct lies in politics are the oppressed themselves, including the Palestinians who suffer daily violence, and the fight against anti-Jewish racism itself.”

                                        According to the Morning Star, “The complaint is not the first to be made to the Charity Commission concerning CAA’s conduct. In 2018, the group was reported to the commission over its petition entitled “Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite and must go. The charity watchdog asked the group to reword the title ‘to ensure it complied with our guidance on campaigning and political activity,’ suggesting it has been in breach of demonstrating political party balance. CAA also reported the party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, prompting the body to open a probe into the party. Jewish socialist group Jewish Voice for Labour has accused the group of disproportionately targeting Labour over other political parties. The group’s spokesman, Mike Cushman, said: ‘The activities of the CAA in its focus on the Labour Party have been of great concern for some time, as it does not appear to have been anything like as inquisitive about anti-semitism in the Conservative, UKIP or Brexit Parties’.”

                                        The Morning Star say that, “This has led to many suspicions of political bias inappropriate to a charity. The fight against anti-semitism is too important for it to get submerged in partisan manoeuvring,” he said. “CAA was founded in 2014 and describes itself as ‘a volunteer-led charity dedicated to exposing and countering anti-semitism through education and zero-tolerance enforcement of the law.’ The group did not respond to requests for comment by the time the Star went to print.” This highly toxic organization, formed to obscure and distract public attention from Israeli war crimes in the bombing of Gaza, has a ruthlessly aggressive anti-Palestinian political agenda that violates the Human Rights of this oppressed people and is not in the interests of British citizens. CAA is not a legitimate ‘Charity’ and should be stripped of their charitable status; their politically motivated attacks on Labour should never have been entertained by the EHRC, but now they will try to force Starmer to purge Labour’s progressive Left.

                                        Many people who have retained their Labour membership despite Keir Starmer reengaging on all of his campaign promises, his sacking of Rebecca Long Bailey, his cowardly capitulation, against the advice of the Labour Legal team, to squander party funds on an unwarranted pay out to John Ware with a grovelling apology that disgraced the party: is Corbyn’s removal the last straw? If they are still in possession of a Labour membership card they should certainly use it to vote for Left slate candidates on the NEC, but after that it may be time to go. In response to the ei article I posted: “There already exists a 100% Socialist, fully democratic, fair, just political party, so totally committed to tackling the Climate Crisis we created the Green New Deal: this is of course the Green Party. If, instead of remaining as an Independent MP or trying to form an entirely new party, Jeremy Corbyn aligned with the Green Party a massive swath of committed Socialists would flock to join him as would other progressive Left Labour MPs.”

                                        I wrote, “It is possible within the Green Party to declare as Green and another unique affiliation, so Corbyn and any other like-minded breakaway MPs could renounce the Labour whip, or wait for the public disgrace of the Starmer purge, and then declare as ‘Progressive Socialist and Green’ Candidates. The Unions would have a new party to consider backing with their funding and this, on top of a sizable exodus of Labour MPs, could mean that the Captain of Capitulation, our Tory Trojan horse, Keir Starmer will lose his legitimacy as Leader. Political Parties are now recognizing the importance of the global Climate Crisis; for the Green Party it was always a major priority, but equality, peace and the Socialist agenda is just as important to the Greens.”

                                        I concluded my comment by writing that, “However, the first past the post voting system kept the party down to a solitary very well respected MP, Caroline Lucas. A new infusion of already elected MPs could mean that the Green Party would finally gain the recognition and momentum it needs to surge in popularity among voters weary of austerity, inequality and injustice. Greens reject Zionist intervention: we have always supported the poor, the oppressed and the Palestinian cause. For MPs hounded out of Labour, the Green Party already has a well defined progressive political agenda and a fully organized party structure in place, so they could ‘hit the ground running.’ The Greens rapidly growing international membership stands ready to accept tolerant, peace loving, environmentally conscious, Socialist MPs and new members: join!” Can you imagine another 33 Green MPs in Parliament!

                                        I do not believe it is any longer possible for the progressive Left MPs within the Labour Party to survive the imminent purge of their ranks and I think it would be foolish for them to wait for the inevitable as Keir Starmer fulfils his role as traitor to the Socialist cause. New political parties have a tough road to hoe and most do not survive; the public will go back to expecting little more than a choise between Tory and Tory lite. It has never been more important to challenge the fake ‘landslide victory’ of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and demand a full Investigation of the result. If the truth exposes a stolen election then not only could we remove this corrupt Tory Government from office we could challenge the premise that Jeremy Corbyn should have felt obliged to relinquish the leadership. Only a complete exposure of the data leading to the total upheaval of both Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer no longer legitimately in post and forced out will expunge the damage to Labour; a “Progressive Socialist and Green Party” might just work. DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                        November 1, 2020 at 04:14#61945Reply

                                        Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (20)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                          One could be forgiven for describing the EHRC Report into the Labour Party’s crimes of ‘fantisemitism’ a “Storm in a Teacup,” but that would be the understatement of the century; this travesty of injustice is more like a “Typhoon in a Teaspoon!” This extreme, highly politicized, overreaction cannot be accepted from the EHRC, the public body whose remit is combating racism and Human Rights abuse, but remains totally devoid of ethnic minority representation. The EHRC have systematically ignored the Windrush scandal, the Grenfell Tower disaster, Racial Profiling, Stop and Search, Police violence, migrant incarceration and the Black Lives Matter grievances totally aside from obscenely blatant racism and Islamophobia in the Tory Party. Once again the Tory Party are relying on compliant BBC stooges to pepper Labour MPs with aggressive questioning demanding admissions of guilt and grovelling contrition. After I was too sickened to keep watching, Newsnight’s Kirsty Wark was trounced by a courageously honest respondent!

                                          Jewish Voice for Labour have not raced to fulfil any arbitrary publication pressure deadline, stating that they are deliberately taking their time to fully respond with carefully considered judgement regarding all of the report material presented. Given their standing representing Labour’s unbiased Jewish community I believe this is a wise decision. They have linked to other assessments already posted on the internet and I have been wading through all of the material I can find which I will share with you here. According to Tony Greenstein’s assessment of the EHRC Report jvl will discover very little substance that might constitute any really significant violations beyond poor management before Corbyn replaced Iain McNicol. Responses are all the more valid when they emanate from a member of the Jewish community, sadly one who has been targeted as “the wrong kind of Jew” and labelled anti-Semitic. Greenstein’s Video Presentation is a must watch as it lays out why he feels so strongly about the Weaponization of anti-Semitism.

                                          On his website Tony Greenstein’s Post entitled, “Starmer Declares War on the Left – Its About Time to Declare War on Him” he adds, “We Demand the Reinstatement of Jeremy Corbyn.” Targeting his venerated predecessor, the Labour Leader’s response to the EHRC Report is truly shocking. He insists that, “The EHRC Report Should Be Rejected along with the Myth of Labour Anti-Semitism. Jeremy Corbyn was absolutely right in the comments that got him suspended: ‘One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents’. It is a real shame that he did not say so when he could have made a real difference to the civil war in the Labour Party. Unfortunately, it was the Corbyn leadership’s silence and complicity in the witch-hunt that made his suspension possible in the first place. Hundreds of socialists and Corbyn supporters have been suspended and expelled for comments that often do not amount to much more than what Corbyn said.”

                                          With reference to the Labour Party, Greenstein rightly claims that, “We need to understand that the campaign by the right inside and outside the party was never about fighting antisemitism. It was always a campaign designed to get rid of Corbyn and make sure that the Labour Party becomes once again a safe ‘second eleven’ that could run Britain on behalf of capitalism, and follow the US into any new military adventure. Sadly, it appears as if Corbyn and his allies still do not understand this basic reality. The six candidates supported by the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance in the current NEC elections have made sure not to mention the word ‘witch-hunt’, or propose any actions on how to stop it. In a tweet following his suspension, Corbyn writes that, ‘I’ve made absolutely clear those who deny there has been an antisemitism problem in the Labour Party are wrong. I will continue to support a zero tolerance policy towards all forms of racism’.”

                                          Greenstein explains how, “Corbyn himself has now become a victim of this ‘zero tolerance’ approach he champions. The fight for socialism is intrinsically linked to a culture of free speech and open debate on all issues – including, importantly, the question of Israel/Palestine. Please click here to sign and share the excellent petition/open letter by the LLA Anyone who believes that Jeremy Corbyn was suspended on the basis of what he actually said today needs their head examining. It was planned long ago. Back in July there were rumours emanating from Starmer’s office that Corbyn would be suspended when the EHRC Report was released. The Canary reported on 22nd July that ‘According to a few Labour sources this morning, it’s ‘very possible’ and ‘highly likely’ that Jeremy Corbyn will have the whip removed very soon, as a result of some of the recommendations in the EHRC report.’ #LabourAntisemitism.”

                                          According to Greenstein, “Starmer is using the recommendations of the EHRC in order to purge the Left by removing the presence of a former leader. The question is whether or not the Left responds by declaring war on Starmer or, like Momentum makes a pathetic plea for unity with those trying to destroy it. Some of thought that when Lansman’s cronies were defeated earlier this year by Momentum Forward that its politics might change. Unfortunately Momentum Forward has continued where Lansman left off. Yesterday they put out an appalling statement in reaction to Corbyn’s suspension in which they protested that ‘This suspension risks politicising Labour’s response to antisemitism.’ Perhaps someone should tell Scatterbrain that anti-Semitism has been weaponised for over 5 years now. Starmer wants to destroy the left not unite with it! McDonnell symbolises the political weakness of the Labour Left and Momentum, he defends Corbyn in the name of the fight against ‘antisemitism,’ the very thing used to get rid of Corbyn.”

                                          Greenstein exclaims, “Who do Momentum think Margaret Hodge, Tom Watson, Lucian Berger et al represent? The anti-racist left? Momentum pathetically plead that the suspension ‘should be immediately lifted in the interests of party unity.’ Where have these dunderheads been living? Starmer isn’t interested in party unity. He’s interested in driving out the left from the Labour Party. If Momentum don’t recognise this it’s because they are wedded to the same reformist illusions as Lansman. Momentum’s co-chairs then go on to describe the EHRC Report in completely uncritical terms. Scatterbrain says that: “for many it will make for difficult reading. It concludes that the Labour Party complaints process for antisemitism is inadequate, and expresses concern that the current process does not ensure fair and transparent sanctioning of antisemitism complaints. It also finds unlawful acts to have been committed by former Labour Party agents. It is clear that whatever this year’s Momentum elections were about they were not about politics.”

                                          Greenstein asserts that, “The EHRC is not an anti-racist body. Its Commissioners are taken from the corporate and banking world with the odd lawyer thrown in. It is an organisation of the liberal Establishment that has been mobilised to drive a wedge into the Labour Party using identity politics to disguise its purpose. It is a body that has said next to nothing about the Windrush scandal, done nothing about the ‘hostile environment’ policy of the Tories, it has said nothing about stop and search, refugees or institutional racism. Why? Because it is itself an institutionally racist body. As Simon Woolley, a former Commissioner wrote the EHRC doesn’t have one single Black or Muslim Commissioner. It is stuffed with liberal and corporate do gooders. Woolley wrote ‘I’ve been particularly stuck by the huge gulf between the EHRC and the new generation of young Black Lives Matter activists’.”

                                          According to Greenstein, “The EHRC is utterly irrelevant to the victims of racism in Britain today. It is a body whose sole purpose is in incorporating and blunting the anti-racist message. It is as much our enemy as Boris Johnson. Whilst we must oppose Corbyn’s suspension he is the author of his own misfortune.” This view is strongly felt by many of Jeremy Corbyn’s most ardent supporters; why was he so eager to appease those who were exaggerating and exploiting such a relatively insignificant problem among a very small number of members? His determination to just “turn the other cheek” resulted in him getting repeatedly pummelled in the press when possibly a single defamation Lawsuit would have sent the wolves packing. Greenstein says that, “When the EHRC first proposed its investigation it should have been vigorously opposed as an intrusion by a State body into a democratic political party. What has happened is the kind of tactic used in police states. The State has effectively sought to neutralise a radical political party.”

                                          Greenstein justifiably describes Boris Johnson as “a genuine racist” and points out that the EHRC is dependent on his Government for its funding. The EHRC aversion to taking on issues that might expose Tory failures or wrongdoing is obvious: ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you!’ “According to a Yougov poll for Hope not Hate, nearly half of Tory Party members oppose having a Muslim Prime Minister and more than two-thirds of Tory members believe the myth that parts of the UK are under Sharia law. 45% think some areas are not safe for non-Muslims.” He stresses, “if that is not enough nearly two-thirds of Tory members believe that Islam is a threat to western civilisation. Yet the EHRC has fought shy of doing anything about an openly racist party led by someone who believes that Black people are ‘picanninies’ with ‘water melon smiles.’ Unlike ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party Islamaphobia in the Tory Party is part of its DNA. Yet this useless body has kept its mouth shut for fear of losing what’s left of its grant.”

                                          Greenstein rants about how Corbyn should have acted, but where were all these people of wise council when it could have made a difference right in the very beginning? Despite Tory immunity from criticism and the relentless onslaught of vilification that Corbyn suffered in the Media, his enemies were stunned by the 2017 Election result. False confidence perhaps, but smears alone were not enough; the Covert 2019 Rigged Election required industrial scale fraud still to be Investigated. Greenstein says, “Corbyn, whose stupidity is beyond doubt, said nothing when what he should have done was to refuse all co-operation. When 2 openly Zionist organisations, both of which are effectively extensions of the Israeli state, the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, made their complaints to the EHRC, Corbyn should have launched legal action to stop it in its tracks. This is state interference in a legal party and a breach of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights on freedom of association.”

                                          Greenstein reports that, “Realising that its previous statement was hopelessly inadequate Momentum issued another statement after a meeting tonight. The statement was equally useless. It read: ‘The suspension of Jeremy Corbyn by the Labour Party leadership is a factional attack on the left that inevitably undermines the fight against anti-semitism and makes a mockery of Keir Starmer’s pledge to unite the Party. Tonight our Party is more divided than ever’.” The Article includes a picture stating the harsh reality that: “Apartheid was legal – The Holocaust was legal – Slavery was legal – Colonialism was legal.” However he says, “This perfectly reasonable meme was part of the Notice of Investigation which led to the expulsion of Simon Hindmarsh – it made a political point that all the world’s worst atrocities were legal – in the eyes of Labour’s witchhunters it was ‘antisemitic’ – go figure.”

                                          Of the Momentum leadership Greenstein says, “When will the Scatterbrain and Sriskanthan get it into their heads that there has never been a fight against ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party? It has always been an attack on anti-Zionism and the Palestinians. Every Letter of Investigation I have seen accuses people of anti-Semitism based on their comments about Israel, the world’s only apartheid state. Phil Woolas, Labour MP for Oldham & Saddleworth ran a nakedly anti-Muslim campaign trying to stir up the racist White vote – and Tom Watson ‘lost sleep’ over the injustice of the High Court removing this racist Does Scatterbrain really think that Tom Watson, Hodge and co. were really interested in fighting anti-Semitism? The same Hodge who was praised by the BNP for her housing policies? Or the same Tom Watson who ‘lost sleep’ thinking about the injustice of the High Court removing racist Labour MP Phil Woolas from the Parliament after running a campaign that aimed to ‘make the White folk angry’?”

                                          Greenstein claims that, “The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign waged for the past 5 years was not about anti-Semitism. If it was then isn’t it strange that so many Jewish members have been expelled or suspended.” He questions, “why should Labour MPs who voted to legalise torture be concerned about anti-Semitism anyway? We know Starmer’s attitude to racism. Black Lives Matter is just a moment whose time has gone. He believes in more funding for the racist Metropolitan Police. At a time of Black Lives Matter, stop and search, Windrush etc. the only form of racism that matters is ‘antisemitism’.” As a Jewish person himself he asserts, “Jews in Britain are a privileged White community. To prioritise ‘anti-Semitism’ over racism against Black and Muslim people is itself racist.”

                                          Greenstein acknowledges, “Sure there is some antisemitic prejudice if you look hard enough but as the EHRC Report concedes most of it is in social media. No one has ever died from a tweet but plenty of Black youth have died in Police custody yet Starmer has nothing but praise for the Police. Growing up as a Jewish person in non-Jewish communities I never had to fear being attacked in the street. I didn’t have to hide from the deportation squads. My father wasn’t stopped when driving for being Jewish and handcuffed. Jews in Britain are not oppressed. They are, for the most part, a prosperous middle class community. The days of working class Jewish communities are gone. The Jews of the East End have moved to London’s suburbs. My favourite restaurant, Blooms in Whitechapel closed years ago. In short Jews do not experience state racism. They are the kept pets of Britain’s ruling class for whom it is a safe form of anti-racism.”

                                          Greenstein says, “The ‘antisemitism’ campaign was always about attacking Corbyn. Yet Momentum’s Scattergood/Sriskanthan believes that a campaign which only arose when Corbyn became leader is somehow being jeopardized by Corbyn’s suspension! Momentum Forward and Lansman’s Momentum Renewal are peas in a pod. If you want to read a decent statement on the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn then you can do worse than read the Morning Star’s Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension is a declaration of war.” He proposes activism, stating, “you don’t win a war by asking someone trying to kill you to hold your hand! What Can We Do? This Saturday Labour Against the Witchhunt is organising a public meeting with Ken Livingstone, Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and Tony Greenstein speaking. The following Saturday there is a similar line-up being organised with Asa Winstanley, Chris Williamson and Tony Greenstein speaking, chaired by Miko Peled, the ‘wrong sort of Israeli Jew’ chairing.”

                                          Greenstein announces other events, “On Friday Brighton & Hove LLA will be organising a local anti-witchhunt meeting. Starmer’s suspension of his predecessor is unprecedented. We should be clear about why we oppose it and where it came from. Corbyn himself laid the basis for what has happened. His opposition to Open Selection at the 2018 Labour Party Conference and then his decision at the 2019 Party Conference to support ‘fast track’ expulsions which we were assured were only for ‘egregious’ cases but which have since been used in EVERY ‘anti-Semitism’ case laid the basis for his own suspension. Corbyn has literally fashioned his own noose. However just because someone is an idiot or a coward doesn’t mean one should not support them! The Labour Left Alliance have launched an Open Letter: Reinstate Jeremy Corbyn please sign it. Labour Against the Witchhunt has also issued a statement ‘Reinstate Jeremy Corbyn’ as well as a model motion Reinstate Jeremy Corbyn! Stop the witch-hunt!”

                                          Greenstein says, “The gloves are off and anyone who thinks that by conceding to the lie that there was an ‘anti-Semitism’ problem in Labour that they are then going to gain a tactical advantage is seriously mistaken. ‘Anti-Semitism’ was the Right’s chosen weapon. It was never about anti-Jewish racism, hence why the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism was foisted upon the Labour Party. In fact I am incorrect. It was Corbyn himself at the end of 2016 who unilaterally adopted the 38 word IHRA. Having spent his whole political life supporting the Palestinians, having been called an ‘antisemite’ countless times, he voluntarily adopted a definition whose only purpose was to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and define him as an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism was chosen as the method of attack precisely because it was not a form of racism but a means of denigrating opposition to the Israeli state and giving the Right some moral stature. It fitted in well to the Left’s addiction to Identity Politics rather than Class Politics.”

                                          Greenstein is heavily critical of, “Those like Momentum’s Scatterbrain and the rest of the NCG who think they can gain Corbyn’s reinstatement on the basis of adhering to the EHRC Report are fooling themselves and no one else.” He states, “Free Speech has been abolished by Starmer’s new General Secretary David Evans. As part of the new democratic order David Evans, Labour’s General Secretary has issued another warning to local parties not to discuss the EHRC Report. It is clear that far from being a democratic party, the Labour Party has now become a tyranny. It is of prime importance to democrats in the party that Evans is defied and told where to go. It is crucial that local parties defy Evans and go ahead and condemn the report and Starmer with it. That is what Momentum should be calling for not unity with the evil.” There was a similar prohibition issued by David Evans trying to curtail any debate among party members over the misuse of party funds to pay off a huge unwarranted legal settlement.

                                          Greenstein has written what he claims is just a “Brief Summation” of the EHRC Report, or rather his well considered response to it. Since it is actually quite lengthy I will feature it in its entirety in a post tomorrow. Referring to the report Greenstein says, “I spent two weeks compiling a 2 part summary of the 851 page Leaked Labour Report. The EHRC Report is an insubstantial tract. At 130 pages is remarkable for the fact that it is shallow and superficial, lacking in substance. Its main focus is the alleged failure of Labour’s disciplinary and complaints processes. Whereas it took me 3 days to read Labour’s Leaked Report on Anti-Semitism the EHRC Report was a breeze. There is nothing in it apart from procedure. The EHRC has produced a mouse and yet Starmer willed it on as a means of attacking the Left. Its failures are manifest to anyone who isn’t cerebrally challenged.” I can only hope that this EHRC wrecking ball embraced by Keir Starmer to vilify his predecessor will prove his downfall and fascinate Corbyn’s vindication. DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                          November 2, 2020 at 04:40#61975Reply

                                          Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (21)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                            Here in full and without comment from me is Tony Greenstein’s detailed Assessment of the failing of the EHRC Report:
                                            1. Quite amazingly for a report on anti-Semitism it doesn’t once try to define what it means by anti-Semitism. The EHRC know better than to define anti-Semitism concretely as hostility to or prejudice or discrimination against Jews. Instead they rely on things that are ‘offensive’ to Jews, regardless of whether they are true. It is an old trick.
                                            2. There is no attempt to ask who the 2 complainants, the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism actually are. The fact that the JLM describes itself as the ‘sister party’ of the almost extinct Israeli Labour Party is not even mentioned. Ha’aretz, Israel’s liberal daily describes its former leader Avi Gabbay as a Likudnik. It is a party that supported Netanyahu’s attempt to deport Israel’s 40,000 Black African refugees because, in Netanyahu’s words, they threatened Israel’s racial ‘Jewish identity.’

                                            ‘More likely to be : Male – In Social Housing – Older than 35 – Working – Living in Scotland or in England, south of the Midlands – First Generation Immigrant – Sympathetic to Terrorism, Exreemism and Violence;’ This delightful figure illustrated the CAA’s ‘Muslims and Antisemitism’ Report
                                            3. The CAA is a virulently Islamaphobic organisation, racist to its root, which works with Zionist supporters of Tommy Robinson. In other words the complainants to the EHRC are themselves deeply racist. It published a coloured graphic of the typical Muslim male as part of an attack on Muslims. If a similar graphic on Jews had been produced we would have never heard the end of it. The Jewish Labour Movement’s ‘sister party’ in Israel supported Netanyahu’s racist policy of deporting Black refugees because they are neither Jewish nor White – the JLM has never once condemned their racist sisters

                                            4. Not once did the EHRC entertain the idea that accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ have been the staple of Zionist attacks on critics of Israel for decades. No less than the French President Macron has declared that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. So if one opposes the Jewish nature of the Israeli state then that is anti-Semitic. Today Ha’aretz published an article about how Israel is seeking to expand the boundaries of the Jewish town of Harish because Arabs, at 44% are already nearly a majority. It wants to expand it to dilute the Arab presence. Yet to call this what it is is ‘anti-Semitism’. Since when was it anti-Semitic to oppose racism?
                                            5. The Report singles out two people in particular, Ken Livingstone, who pioneered anti-racism in local government and Pam Bromley, a councillor in Rossendale. The attack on Livingstone is particularly egregious but what the Report doesn’t mention is that it also singled out Chris Williamson. However Chris immediately instructed solicitors and the EHRC backed off. You won’t read that in the Report!

                                            6. There was no mention of the fact, and it is a fact, that the anti-Semitism campaign began as a completely confected campaign led by that well known opponent of racism, the Daily Mail, which alleged that Corbyn had links with Holocaust deniers Paul Eisen. Not once does it ask why the racist tabloids suddenly became so concerned with ‘anti-Semitism’. In short the Report completely decontextualises the allegations whilst insinuating that anyone denying that there was an anti-Semitism problem was themselves anti-Semitic! This is called ‘denialism’ which is the logic of the Salem Witchhunt when women and men were hanged for witchcraft in Massachusetts. As Elizabeth Purdy wrote: Those who publicly questioned the guilt of a defendant were likely to be accused of witchcraft themselves.
                                            7. The logic of ‘denialism’ is the ‘logic’ of the 17th Century witch-hunters yet Corbyn in his idiocy gave his backing to this nonsense. The idea that denying a crime is to admit it is the stuff of Kafka.

                                            8. The Report talks of ‘zero tolerance’ of anti-Semitism yet the EHRC has indulged the racism of the Tory Party without even the slightest comment. It has done nothing about the hostile environment policy or Windrush where Black British citizens were illegally deported. The idea that the EHRC is an anti-racist body is for the birds.
                                            9. Strangely enough for a report concerned with procedural irregularities it has nothing to say about Labour’s fast track expulsions where the accused are denied a hearing.
                                            10. There is repeated talk of ‘Jewish community stakeholders’. It never once explains who these might be but we can assume it means the Trump Tory supporting Board of Deputies. A body which cheered on the Israeli army as they mowed down unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza. They blamed the death of medics and children on the victims and they then profess to be concerned about anti-Semitism.
                                            11. Nearly all their examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ consist of social media posts. This simply trivializes anti-Semitism. Racism is about what people do not what they post on Twitter. Noone has ever died from a tweet but plenty have died from Israeli bullets.

                                            12. Despite saying that they took evidence from Jewish Voices for Labour there is no evidence of this. The EHRC comprehensively disregarded the voice of anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews.
                                            13. I wrote to the EHRC’s Investigation repeatedly offering to give evidence. They were not interested. When I pointed out their disinterest in Conservative Party racism they responded. With reference to your submission of 13 July 2019 and your specific observation relating to the Conservative Party, we can confirm that we are actively considering what, if any, action we may take in relation to the handling of Islamophobia and other discrimination within the Conservative Party. Further, we have made the following statement in relation to Windrush and the Government’s hostile environment policies.

                                            14. And that was it. After having ‘actively considered’ my submissions the decided to do absolutely nothing!
                                            15. Clearly there were some Jews who were more important than others. I told them that as the first Jewish person to be expelled I might have a different perspective on the fake anti-Semitism affair. They made it clear that they weren’t interested.
                                            15. The EHRC said they launched their ‘investigation’ because of ‘serious public concern about allegations of anti-Semitism’. It is strange that serious public concern about Police stop and search, the Windrush deportations and other acts of state racism merited no such concern. In fact there was no public concern about Labour anti-Semitism. It was a narrative of the Tory press and the Labour right-wing.

                                            16. Its main obsession was ‘political interference in the handling of anti-Semitism complaints.’ (p.7) Perhaps that was because the complaints themselves were politically motivated.
                                            17. It talks of ‘anti-Semitic conduct’ but never mentions what that conduct is. Everything is inferred.
                                            18. It mentions (p.17) that ‘over 20 elected representatives (including MPs, peers and councillors) resigned from the Party in 2018 and 2019 citing a failure to tackle anti-Semitism in their reasons.’ It was of course no coincidence that these people were all on the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party and people who had never objected to for example New Labour’s hostile environment policy towards ‘illegal’ immigrants i.e. refugees.
                                            19. The Report quotes uncritically the Community Security Trust reports on anti-Semitic incidents but these are not value free. The CST is another pro-Zionist organisation.

                                            20. The legal basis of its inquiry, that the Labour Party was an association under the Equality Act 2010 omits the fact that it is a political party and allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ were weaponised, e.g. the allegations at Oxford University which had been made by Alex Chalmers, a former intern of the Israel Lobby organisation BICOM. See How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis. By definition a political party is not a sports club or other voluntary association. The EHRC is an organ of the state. It had no right to interfere and in essence take sides in a political dispute inside the Labour Party. It was Corbyn and Formby’s stupidity which prevented them telling the EHRC to mind their own business. Corbyn has literally dug his own grave.

                                            21. The Report suggests as an example of indirect discrimination that a party that holds its meetings on the Sabbath is discriminating against Jewish members. Bollocks. The Labour Party is a secular not a religious body. It is under no obligation to take into account superstitious religious beliefs. The only time that this could possibly be relevant is if the Labour Party held meetings on Saturday but had a rule stipulating that it should not hold meetings on Fridays or Sundays. Secularism is perfectly legal. (p.22)
                                            22. The Report hangs its argument on the basis that councillors, MPs and NEC members are ‘agents’ of the party. This is extremely dubious. They are elected representatives not agents. A political party is a free association of its members based on shared beliefs. It is no business of the State to interfere in its running as long as it abides by its own constitution.

                                            23. Quite outrageously the Report describes ‘allegations that complaints of anti-Semitism are fake or smears.’ as themselves anti-Semitic (p. 28) yet this is a regular practice of Zionists who even call Jews who are not Zionists ‘self haters’ ‘traitors’ ‘kapos’ etc. It is a fact that Zionists, Jewish or other do, as a regular practice allege anti-Semitism where there is none. The CAA, one of the complainants is a regular practitioner in making false allegations of anti-Semitism. It particularly targets Jews. Even the person who drafted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, Kenneth Stern gave testimony to the US Congress about the ‘egregious’ behaviour of the CAA in targeting a University Professor Rachel Gould as anti-Semitic for having written an article on the use of the holocaust to protect Israel. He also wrote an article ‘I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it’. The Report deliberately ignored the context which is that racist regimes allege racism against their opponents as a matter of course.

                                            24. To give but one example in Israel there are hundreds of Jewish only communities. In one city Afula, when houses under construction were due to be sold to Arabs hundreds of Jews took to the streets in protest. But if you allege Israel is a racist state then this is anti-Semitic. This Report is a racist report and it is a disgrace that Momentum refuses to call it out for what it is.
                                            25. The Report makes the insinuation that Ken Livingstone’s defence of Naz Shah MP’s meme about relocating Israel inside the United States was anti-Semitic and that his references to the Israel Lobby were anti-Semitic. Perhaps these dishonest scribes would care to look at Wikipedia’s entry Israel lobby in the United States. (p.29) AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee openly proclaims it is a lobby group. What the EHRC is saying is that the truth is now anti-Semitic. This is anti-Semitic.

                                            26. Absurdly it described Pam Bromley’s comment ‘looks like fake accusations of anti-Semitism to undermine Labour aren’t working, so let’s have Chris Williamson reinstated.’ That is a statement of fact but even facts can be anti-Semitic apparently!
                                            27. Ken Livingstone’s comments about Nazi support for the Zionists in Germany, which is a fact documented by Zionist historians such as David Cesarani and Francis Nicosia ‘caused shock and anger among Jewish Labour Party members.’ Well it didn’t shock Steven Kapos, a survivor of the Hungarian holocaust who I met because he understood the treacherous role of the Zionist organisation in Hungary. Even the Jerusalem District Court in 1955 found that Kasztner had collaborated with the Nazis. No doubt this would cause great shock too for these naïve racist Zionists. So what? The truth often offends. (p.30)
                                            28. Even more ludicrously ‘Pam Bromley’s conduct… contributed to a hostile environment in the Labour Party for Jewish and non Jewish members.’ Well in that case everyone on the Right was offended. How is that anti-Semitic? (p.30)

                                            29. Among the examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ were people who:
                                            • Compared Israelis to Hitler or the Nazis
                                            • Described a ‘witchhunt’ in the Labour Party or said that complaints had been manufactured by the ‘Israel lobby’. (why the scare quotes?)
                                            • Blamed Jewish people for the ‘anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party’ (clearly the Report couldn’t distinguish between Jews and Zionists, which is itself anti-Semitic)
                                            • Blamed Jewish people generally for the actions of the State of Israel. (where could people have got this idea? Could it be that Israel describes itself as a Jewish state?)
                                            • Used ‘zio’ as an anti-Semitic term. ‘zio’ is short for ‘Zionist’. If you think all Zionists are Jews then you are anti-Semitic.
                                            • Accused British Jews of greater loyalty to Israel than Britain. I have been called a traitor many times by Zionists who demand that Jews are loyal to Israel first and foremost. The Israeli Absorption Ministry even conducted a poll in the United States to find out what Jews would do if there was a crisis in relations between the USA and Israel! Now why would that be?! (p.31)

                                            30. The Report makes great play of ‘interference’ by the Leader of the Opposition’s office in disciplinary matters. Why should it not have interfered given the racist bias of the Disputes Team under John Stolliday and Sam Matthews? (p.45)
                                            31. Because of legal action the Report was forced to concede that the only unlawful interference in disciplinary processes was Tom Watson’s petition calling for Chris Williamson’s resuspension. Jennie Formby and Corbyn disgracefully acceded to this pressure. Corbyn has been hoist by his own petard.
                                            32. Even if LOTO should not have interfered in the disciplinary process what business is it of the EHRC?
                                            33. A good example of the circular logic of the geniuses who wrote the report was the statement that ‘Jewish members are proportionately more likely than non-Jewish members to make a complaint about anti-Semitism.’ Err yes!! Consequently the practice of interference in anti-Semitism complaints put Jewish members at a particular disadvantage compared to non-Jewish members. This is absolute nonsense. Obviously more Jews than non-Jews make complaints about anti-Semitism. It is an absurd comparison. How can it put Jews at a particular disadvantage when non-Jews don’t complain of anti-Semitism? (p.55) There is no comparator. The authors of the report don’t even understand the concept of indirect discrimination!

                                            34. The Report also mentions that I was suspended yet given no details of the allegations against me, despite requesting information on several occasions. It reports that I successfully obtained an injunction. However what the report does not do is mention that I am Jewish (it didn’t mention me by name).
                                            35. Even more relevant is the fact that the Labour Party expelled and suspended Jewish members regularly. What has this to do with anti-Semitism? The Report doesn’t mention this because it would have been inconvenient to its narrative. (p.63)
                                            36. Some of the Report’s observations such as that the NEC and NCC do not give reasons for their decisions are true, but what business is it of the EHRC?

                                            37. The Report says that Jennie Formby suggests that ‘these systemic issues affected all complaints of all kinds, not just anti-Semitism complaints’ and it then comments that ‘If correct, this means that an even wider pool of members was treated very poorly by their political party.’ Possibly true but what business is it of the EHRC? Have they investigated how the Tories treat their members? (p. 73)
                                            38. The Report notes that the Labour Party ‘has recently introduced reforms that improve the ability of the National Executive Committee (NEC) and the NCC to decide cases and to expel members when appropriate.’ What they fail to mention is the inherent unfairness of people being expelled on the whim of a staff member without even a hearing.
                                            39. The Report refers to the ‘outcry from CAA, Board of Deputies and Labour MPs and peers’ when Chris Williamson was reinstated. Yet strangely there is no censure by the EHRC for this interference with the disciplinary process. Strange that!

                                            40. Another example of ‘anti-Semitism’ was that ‘a member shared a meme in March 2018, which expressed that ‘an anti-Semite is now someone Jews hate.’ Here you have stupidity mixed with malevolence. The person who coined this meme was Hajo Meyer, an anti-Zionist survivor of the Auschwitz death camp. His actual quote was that ‘it used to be the case that an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews, now it’s someone who the Jews hate’. An amusing observation. Jeremy Corbyn chaired a meeting at the House of Commons with Hajo in 2010 and when the Zionists publicised it the idiot apologised. Is it any wonder that Corbyn lost credibility? The more you apologise the more they go for you. Why the hell did Corbyn apologise for chairing a meeting addressed by a holocaust survivor? The BBC reported that Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn apologised for appearing on platforms with people whose views he “completely rejects“. (p.86)

                                            41. There are repeated complaints that ‘anti-Semitism’ was not given the same priority that sexual harassment allegations were. (p.93) Perhaps that was because sexual harassment claims tend to be genuine!
                                            42. Apparently the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment because its conduct ‘included suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears’. But I was accused of anti-Semitism and I’m Jewish. Who am I harassing by denying this nonsense? Utterly absurd.
                                            43. It was suggested that Ken Livingstone’s comments that Zionist Jews were acting on behalf of a foreign power were ‘clearly anti-Semitic’. But the definition of a Zionist is that their loyalty is to Israel. How is that anti-Semitic? (p. 106)
                                            44. The moron(s) who wrote this Report therefore find ‘agent Ken Livingstone’ caused the Labour Party to indulge in harassment. It is no wonder that Keir Sturmer bought off Labour’s racist former staff.

                                            45. The Report found that the comments by Naz Shah ‘went beyond legitimate criticism of the Israeli government’ and that Ken Livingstone’s support for these comments and his suggestion that scrutiny of them was part of a smear campaign are not protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. Absolute rubbish and unsurprisingly the Report doesn’t explain why this is so. ( p. 108) The EHRC is simply wrong on this. Of course Ken’s comments are protected, despite the Zionists wishing to clamp down on free speech as they do in Israel.
                                            46. Likewise Pam Bromley’s comment that a ‘huge sigh of relief’ went up when an Israeli spacecraft crashed on the moon. This is garbage. If someone shouted ‘hurray’ when the Chinese spacecraft crashed would that also be racist?
                                            47. The fools who wrote this hatchet job concluded that ‘Pam Bromley’s comments were unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity.’ Except that she didn’t mention Jews! That was the anti-Semitic inference of the authors of this report. (110)
                                            48. The Report finds that the unwanted conduct it identified was contrary to the Equality Act but equally breached the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Again that proves that its conclusions are junk.”

                                            At the culmination of his detailed assessment Tony Greenstein concludes, “The only fitting place for this shoddy report is in a wastepaper basket. Indeed that would be a good place to deposit Labour’s racist leader, Sir Keir Sturmer.” The value of this piece of carefully considered work from a member of the Jewish community is that it forms the basis of a grievance that should now be handed to a Legal Team in preparation for a Judicial Review. I hope that despite personal vindication Chris Williamson will do this. we must challenge this judgement just as we must challenge the Covert 2-19 Rigged Election result and demand an Investigation. We need to remove the Tory Party from office befoe they do any more harm. DO NOT MOVE ON.

                                            November 3, 2020 at 03:02#62008Reply

                                            Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (22)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                              Stating, “I Lost 39 Members of My Family in the Holocaust, Jeremy Corbyn is No Antisemite” Andrew Feinstein’s Video makes a passionate statement in Corbyn’s defence. In the Counterfire Article entitled, “Defend Corbyn: Counterfire statement on Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension,” they try to rally, “The whole of the left must unite to defend Jeremy Corbyn from this outrageous attack.” They insisted “We strongly condemn the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party pending investigation. This is an outrageous attack on the whole left. The EHRC report published today does not uphold claims that Labour under his leadership was institutionally antisemitic and provides no justification for this action taken against him. Jeremy Corbyn’s statement in response to the report which is being used as the justification for his suspension clearly acknowledges that there is antisemitism in the Labour Party but that ‘the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents’.” This is backed up by solid evidence.

                                              Counterfire contend that, “The decision to suspend him only clarifies further that allegations of antisemitism have been weaponised to attack Jeremy Corbyn and the left, and that Keir Starmer’s leadership is trying to bury the legacy of Corbynism and the left in the party. The whole of the left must unite to defend Jeremy Corbyn, a life-long anti-racist, from this witch-hunt. The task is obviously to organise and defend the Corbyn movement. But equally obviously it cannot limit itself to an internal Labour Party operation. It has to be the whole progressive social movement and trade union movement. This is where Corbynism came from, this is its best defence.”

                                              In the Counterfire Article entitled, “EHRC report: a green light for further attacks on Corbyn and the left which must be resisted,” there was a sence of bracing for the coming onslaught. In Lindsey German’s statement, posted ahead of the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party, he warned, “We will know shortly the results of the report by the EHRC into antisemitism in the Labour Party. The rumour is that it will not be too critical of individuals but will use ‘strong language’ in its conclusions. Keir Starmer has already said he will accept its conclusions – which may include complaints being dealt with by a body outside of the party, an incredible concession for any organisation to make. We should examine these claims closely before accepting them. Whatever the exact phrasing of the report, we all know that criticisms will focus on one man, Jeremy Corbyn, and some of his closest advisers. This will be a green light for further attacks on Corbyn and the left which must be resisted.”

                                              In a move that is classically against procedural norms regarding Corbyn’s right of rebuttal Counterfire say that, “Already he has been refused early sight of the report, which is almost unprecedented (those named in the Chilcot report had weeks to digest it and prepare their defences). Jeremy Corbyn will find out about it at the same time as the rest of us. This is only one small aspect of a process which has been utterly unedifying from start to finish.” They say that, “The EHRC itself has the power to investigate especially where equality law has been broken, but to the best of my knowledge has never investigated a political party. Indeed it decided earlier this year not to investigate the Tories over Islamophobia, despite numerous instances of remarks by elected representatives and a poll which showed widespread Islamophobia among Tory members.” ‘One rule for them’ protects the Tories from scrutiny’ they control the funding of EHRC so it would be unwise to bite the hand that feeds…

                                              In the day EHRC published the report Counterfire stated that, “Today is about giving official imprimatur to the idea that Labour under Corbyn was antisemitic. It is a lie, but one which has been established through constant repetition, highlighted in a mainstream media which routinely perpetrates racist myths, including about Jews, and viciously weaponised by Labour’s right. Antisemitism in Labour existed and still exists, but it was a problem with a small minority of members. Much of the complaints concerned individuals who weren’t members of the Labour Party, and over whom it had no control. Dealing with it was often slow, but improved when Jenny Formby became general secretary, and was, I know, taken seriously by those in and around the leadership. Shami Chakrabati produced a serious report to try to deal with it.”

                                              Counterfire point out the mistakes the progressive Left should have seen coming saying, “The issue was used as a political attack from the beginning, and the Labour left’s mistake was not always to see this or to deal with it. The adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism was a mistake, and was used to further attack the left and raise many charges against them which were found to be without foundation. The left is further constrained from speaking out about this report as it may lead to their expulsion from Labour.” Once again all discussion of a very contentious issue has been prohibited by threats of discipline just as it was when Starmer squandered Party funds making an unwarranted legal settlement with liars! But they say, “We should be clear on what the whole process was about. The very real fear of and opposition to antisemitism was used to weaken the left in general and to prevent speaking out in solidarity with the Palestinians. It is not the left which has equated criticism of Israel with antisemitism, it is the right.”

                                              Counterfire say that, “Opposition to antisemitism, an awareness of the devastating scale of the Holocaust and its impact on Jewish people worldwide, and a recognition of the importance of the Jewish political and cultural contribution to our society are essential for any socialist. Such views do not prevent us from showing solidarity with the Palestinians or criticising the state of Israel. Indeed we have to be able to do all these things. This issue has been weaponised by some to prevent that solidarity and that criticism, but they will not succeed. They will not succeed in silencing Jeremy Corbyn either.” Lindsey German unequivocally proclaims, “My solidarity with him today. He has always been against all racism and in support of Palestinian rights. It shows what a twisted world we live in that someone with such a record should be calumnied in this way. The left needs to stand up and be counted here.”

                                              Other prominent figures are voicing their outrage, rushing to Corbyn’s defence and impressing on us the danger now faced by the progressive Left movement that he led. Today former Labour MP Chris Williamson, a victim of the Labour fantisemitism witch-hunt who was targeted in the EHRC Report, has posted his response to EHRC’s investigation into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Williamson reports that, “Last year, the so-called Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced it was investigating the Labour Party’s handling of anti-Semitism, and they subsequently decided to name me in their draft report. Today, I am pleased to say that, despite an intense campaign of vilification against me, the EHRC has determined that I did not contribute towards ‘unlawful harassment related to Jewish ethnicity’ by the Labour Party. This is despite the fact that the Commission desperately attempted to cobble together such a finding, and initially included an assortment of risible and offensive comments about me.”

                                              Williamson says that, “Although the EHRC still includes some references to me, it is obvious that they have failed in their attempted witch-hunt, even though they had huge establishment backing. Thanks to the incredible support of our grassroots movement, I was able to assemble a top legal team, which exposed the draft report’s monumental flaws. The revised report acknowledges that I ‘successfully challenged’ my unlawful re-suspension from the Labour Party in the High Court last year. The Commission was also compelled to find that the Party’s disciplinary process against me was ‘influenced by external events’ and subject to ‘political interference’.” These statements from EHRC clearly show that those who vigorously fight-back and robustly defend themselves against unjust claims will force spurious accusations to be dropped because they are indefensible in a Court of law. This has been the single greatest failure of Jeremy Corbyn ‘turn the other cheek’ appeasem*nt does not halt those intent on your destruction.

                                              Williamson proudly states that, “This outcome is a vindication of my longstanding record of standing up to racism, which stretches all the way back to the 1970s when I joined the Anti-Nazi League. And as a young apprentice bricklayer, I regularly risked my own personal safety by confronting casual racism on building sites. Furthermore, under my leadership, Derby City Council became one of the first local authorities in the country to formally commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. I am therefore pleased that my commitment to anti-racism could not be impugned, despite the EHRC’s efforts.” His protestations serve to emphasize the massive injustice of vile defamation that Corbyn, Jackie Walker and so many other anti-racists have suffered defamatory persecution in the witch-hunt targeting the progressive Labour Left. This was at the behest of the racist apartheid Government of Israel’s aggressive campaign to eliminate all criticism of their targeted ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as they seek to steal and settle their land.

                                              Williamson states that, “Nevertheless, the justification behind this report is a travesty, and it is essential to understand the function it serves. The EHRC launched its investigation following ceaseless lobbying efforts by two anti-Corbyn and pro-Israel outfits, the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). To many of us, the motivations were clear: this was an attempt by Zionists and other racists to weaponise anti-Semitism in order to criminalise anti-Zionists and left-wing Jews. It also served another purpose, which was to help derail the Party’s pro-Palestinian leadership, after it had rocked the British establishment when it came tantalisingly close to winning office in 2017. These cynical motivations were facilitated by the EHRC, which itself has been the subject of repeated controversy.”

                                              Williamson correctly claims that, “The Commission has allegedly discriminated against its Black, Muslim, and disabled staff, and many of its Commissioners have links to the Conservative Party (as well as being affected by seemingly endless other conflicts of interest). I had, therefore, anticipated the EHRC would include me in their investigation. After all, I had been a wholehearted supporter of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, and had already been subjected to a vociferous smear campaign by the Conservatives, the Israel lobby, and opponents of greater democracy in the Labour Party.”

                                              Williamson points to his, “…opposition to the anti-Palestinian IHRA ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism – and my support for anti-Zionists and left-wing Jews who had been hounded out of the Party – had brought down an avalanche of smears on me. This smear campaign was not merely an attempt to damage my reputation and unseat me from office, it was also designed to make an example out of me to anti-Zionists everywhere. This Zionist strategy, which takes a maximalist and belligerent approach in its defence of the State of Israel, has largely worked. Many people have been paralysed by the fear of being labelled an ‘anti-Semite’, and deterred from speaking up for Palestinians or even voicing the most basic truths about the ‘anti-Semitism crisis’. It is important to understand the Commission’s investigation in the context of this wider Zionist strategy which, in this instance, saw an arm of the state – the EHRC – being co-opted to serve their perverse aims.”

                                              Williamson asserts that, “The EHRC’s report is an astonishing document, and is flawed in several ways. Firstly, it fails to even consider the approach and motivations of the CAA as a complainant, and the resultant impact on the credibility of the material submitted on its behalf. The CAA has not been shy about making its political motivations clear, and their conduct has been suspect to say the least. In 2018, the Charity Commission required the CAA to amend a petition calling for Jeremy Corbyn to resign. They responded to this by amending the petition title to ‘Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite and is unfit to hold any public office’. The Charity Commission is also investigating the CAA about its campaigning during the 2019 general election and comments made afterwards.” Legitimate Registered Charities are expected to remain apolitical so any publically declared support of a political party or appeal to dissuade voting for a political party violates their charter.

                                              Williamson elaborates regarding their most rabid protagonist, “Joe Glasman, Head of Political and Government Investigations at the CAA, posted a https://www.facebook.com/electronicintifada/videos/524507598192800/ message after the 2019 general election. He offered his personal thanks to ‘every single person out there who actively resisted the anti-Semitism of Corbyn and the Labour Party and say well done – mazel tov – […] the beast is slain’. He also described Corbyn as being ‘slaughtered’. Moreover, the CAA may have committed data protection breaches through its evidence-gathering measures, but all these facts appear to have been disregarded by the Commission.” For EHRC to have openly accepted the accusations of an individual with such clearly professed political motivations to defame and destroy a despised opponent, demonstrates appallingly bad judgement with an investigation built on hate speech. Not exactly a shining example of ‘Equality’ or the protection of ‘Human Rights’ which is why the EHRC must be robustly challenged.

                                              Williamson points out how EHRC have strayed well beyond their remit to define issues that are not within their purview to define. He says, “Throughout the report, the EHRC has drawn conclusions on what is and is not anti-Semitic, in circ*mstances where it has no legal power to do so. In addition, the Commission fails to give a definition of anti-Semitism in the report itself, and seems to proceed from the assumption that anything it considers to be anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. This attempt by the Commission to go beyond its own statutory powers illustrates the McCarthyite nature of the report, which has seemingly twisted established legal norms in order to reach predetermined conclusions.” This overreach would be impossible to defend in a Court of law and EHRC must be hoping that they have discreetly averted Chris Williamson’s threatened Judicial Review. I certainly hope that he proceeds or is at least instrumental in persuading other targeted Labour members to do so, as this is urgently needed to restore justice.

                                              Williamson highlights the fact that, “The EHRC also omits one of the most crucial factors in how anti-Semitism complaints have been dealt with in the Party: internal factionalism. The report speaks about ‘a failure of leadership’ but does not properly explore the systematic attacks levelled from within the Party against Jeremy Corbyn. The leaked Labour report from earlier this year laid bare, for all to see, the extent of duplicity and scheming against the Corbyn leadership, including the weaponisation of anti-Semitism. Yet, the Commission does not factor this into its conclusions.” Although Captain of Capitulation, Labour’s new Leader Keir Starmer refused to submit the internal report, as commissioned in direct response to a request from EHRC, they received a full unredacted copy from Craig Murray. Aside from the factional sabotage documented in the leaked report, Starmer’s dire reluctance to include this evidence should have aroused extreme suspicion; although submitted by a third party it was still valid evidence.

                                              Considering the huge membership of the Labour Party, the largest Socialist Party in Europe, Williamson also questions the tiny sample of cases as not representational. He says, “On top of this – despite cries about ‘institutional anti-Semitism’, a ‘crisis’, and a supposed ‘existential threat to British Jews’ – the EHRC bases its report on a miniscule sample of 70 complaint investigation files made over a three-year period. The Commission’s unlawful act notice is based on tenuous examples of ‘indirect discrimination’, as well as the comments of a retired and elderly politician and four other individuals occupying low-level roles whose existence is probably unknown to most of the general public. Whilst I imagine this report will in many ways be a disappointment to the Israel lobby, and anticlimactic for everyone else, it has ultimately served its purpose. It has played a vital role in delegitimizing socialists in the Party, and will now function to encourage the permanent Zionist assault on all those who oppose them.”

                                              In the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “So which is it, Keir? Was suspending Corbyn Evans’s decision – or YOUR ‘difficult decision’ and ‘leadership’?” It is a fair question and one that requires answering honestly as they say, “Keir Starmer can’t seem to make his mind up. On the BBC’s Marr show this morning, he insisted that the decision to suspend Jeremy Corbyn last week was made by general secretary David Evans – and that the EHRC report forbids Labour’s political leadership from interfering. But on the radio, while he repeated the Evans line initially, when he was offered a chance to boast about how the suspension would be a defining moment (he likes moments) in his tenure, he couldn’t resist, claiming that: ‘I’m not going to shy away from difficult decisions. That’s what leadership is, difficult decisions. We made a very difficult decision.’ So which was it, Keir? Was it you? Was it Evans? Was it ‘we’? Didn’t you really just do what the EHRC says is forbidden and influence a disciplinary decision?“ The public demand to know!

                                              Skwawkbox also point out another really inconvenient fact, that, “the EHRC say that Corbyn has a legally-protected right to say what he said anyway?” Starmer is too cowardly to admit that he had been plotting Corbyn’s shameful demise since the second he managed to con Labour members into voting for him as the ‘unity candidate!’ Just like Boris Johnson he will make false promises, lie and throw anyone who stands in the way of his naked ambition under the bus. Tories chose wisely when were seeking a Trojan horse to destroy the Labour Party from within on their behalf! The progressive Left Labour movement has been forced into retreat, coerced into bit just accepting but endorsing the Tory propaganda that has enabled the Tories to cling to power since the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. The result was not just dubious but totally unfathomable, but it has remained unchallenged emboldening those who used industrial scale fraud to steal the vote. Enough is enough, we must demand a Investigation into the stolen Election. As Williamson says, “Now is the time to fight back.” DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                              November 4, 2020 at 03:07#62033Reply

                                              Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (23)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                                In his recent post, “Time to Stand up and be Counted” Craig Murray’s response to the EHRC Report and the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn directly homed in on the real target being sidelined by all the political grandstanding of Sir Keir Starmer: the Palestinian people. He wrote, “Today, nothing is more important than to say that we will not be silent on the dreadful oppression of the Palestinian people; the daily beatings, killings, humiliations, demolitions, expropriations and destruction of groves that are the concomitant of Israeli illegal occupation. We will never be browbeaten into silence on the slow genocide of the Palestinian people. Nobody with any grasp on the location of their right mind believes Jeremy Corbyn to be an anti-Semite. Nobody with any grasp on their right mind believes the Labour Party is now anything but the substitutes’ bench for the Neoconservative team.” Starmer has pledged the unquestioning commitment of the Labour Party to the ruthless genocidal goals and expansionist plans of Zionist Israel!

                                                On their website the beleaguered and suppressed Palestinian Solidarity Campaign battle for recognition of their most basic Human Rights. In the reasonable and measured, “PSC’s Response to the Publication of the EHRC Report” they understandably stress the “Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s work for the rights and freedoms of the Palestinian people is rooted in opposition to all forms of racism. This involves not only challenging and opposing individual prejudice but any belief or ideology that suggests people have superiority over others based on race, ethnicity, culture or religion, and any laws and policies that might flow from such thinking. Our commitment to tackling racism in all its forms has led us to make a number of statements and interventions on the question of how antisemitism should be tackled.”

                                                The PSC assert that, “We have been driven to do so because of our specific concern about the conflation of antisemitism with legitimate criticisms of the oppression of the Palestinian people by the laws, policies, and acts of successive Israeli governments. The public debate around these issues, as conducted through the media, particularly in relation to the question of antisemitism in the Labour Party has become toxic in a way that not only degrades political discourse but seriously disrupts a coherent response to racism. These issues have now again come to the fore in the aftermath of the publication of the EHRC report. We will not comment on the detail of the report nor on the broader issues of the investigation. This is not the gate speech of radical Islam, but the genuine concerns of ordinary very tolerant British citizens seeking acceptable of their right to protest the persecution of their people under authoritarian Israeli occupation and the right for Labour Party members to champion their cause without facing persecutiom.”

                                                The PSC state that, “We do believe that simply dismissing all allegations of antisemitism within the Labour Party as a smear is a form of denial that contributes to the problem. Such denial may represent a form of antisemitism in itself in so far as it is motivated by a desire to minimise and denigrate the real and lived experiences of Jewish people. However, we also challenge any notion that it is unacceptable to highlight media reporting that has served to mislead public opinion on the number of cases of antisemitism in the Labour Party. People should not be censured for such legitimate commentary, as has happened with Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn has been a consistent voice advocating for the rights of Palestinians and other oppressed people for many years and we are proud to have him as one of PSC’s Patrons.”

                                                But in an entirely reasonable qualification of that statement the PSC say, “We also believe that it is a demonstrable truth that the real existence of antisemitism within the Labour Party has been used by some groups and individuals within the Party as part of a factional battle and by some outside of it for political gain. It is wrong to seek to proscribe the stating of such truths or to define them as inherently antisemitic.” They say that, “PSC’s central concern remains the conflation of antisemitism with legitimate criticism of the acts, policies, laws and constitutional order of the state of Israel. We note that the Labour Party is now required by the EHRC to draw up an action plan that includes the need to make clear precisely how it will define and understand antisemitism.”

                                                They assert that, “PSC has addressed many times its concerns regarding the examples attached to the IHRA definition that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. These concerns are shared by the Institute of Race Relations; eminent legal experts including ex-Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley; Liberty; leading academic experts on anti-Semitism Anthony Lerman and Brian Klug; 40 global Jewish social justice organisations, and more than 80 UK-based BAME groups. We note that in its report, the EHRC made specific references to the concerns that have been expressed about the examples attached to the IHRA definition, and the view of the Home Affairs Select Committee of the need for caveats to protect freedom of expression.”

                                                PSC state that, “Recently, UK based Palestinians wrote an open letter to the Labour Party that highlighted concerns about how the examples within the IHRA have been used to suppress the ability of Palestinians to express the truths of their own history and their ongoing oppression. They reiterated the call for “the right of Palestinians to accurately describe our experiences of dispossession and oppression, to criticise the nature and structure of the state that continues to oppress us and to openly criticise the ideology of Zionism which informs the actions, policies and laws of that state, be upheld both as a right of a people under oppression and as a right of freedom of expression respected and supported by the Labour Party leadership. Furthermore, the rights of other British citizens to respond to calls for action including via the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement to address that oppression, should also be supported and upheld.”

                                                PSC assert that, “In order to uphold this right, the Labour Party must make clear in its response to the EHRC recommendations that it will take action to ensure that these core rights, as recognised in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, will be protected. Without such action, Palestinians in the Labour Party will not feel they have a safe space to articulate the truths of their lived experiences of injustice, and supporters of justice for the Palestinian people will not feel protected in their right to freely express the need for the Party to take action to ensure that these injustices are addressed. The support offered to the Palestinian people by the UK labour movement has been crucial. PSC welcomed the motion recently passed by the TUC which committed it to ongoing action to oppose Israel’s plans for annexation of further areas of the West Bank which the TUC defined as ‘another significant step in the creation of a system of apartheid’.”

                                                PSC say that, “We stand ready to support the Labour Party and all other political parties, institutions, and public bodies in taking the necessary action in support of the core rights of the Palestinian people as an oppressed people, rooted in international law, and the rights of those advocating on their behalf in the UK.” Sadly this is just one of several oppressed people being ignored by this hard right war-mongering Tory Government and their centrist enablers who have tried to seize control of the Labour Party. Their ideals do not represent the majority opinion among the membership of the Labour Party, not on the Palestinian issue, supplying arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen, or the oppression of other minority people globally. From Israel to Iran to Venezuela the Government is getting foreign policy wrong and we desperately need a change of direction that will not be led by Keir Starmer! Realistically we need to go beyond the goal of ousting this Tory Government to removing destructive elements in the Labour Party.

                                                In his no holes bared Interview with RT Posted on Facebook, outspoken former Labour MP and strident activist Chris Williamson blurts out the disgraceful truth about fantisemitism and the EHRC Report. Williamson boldly asserts that, “This is about stopping free speech on Israel’ | Former MP Chris Williamson on EHRC report.” As one of the Labour members targeted and driven out of the Labour Party during the ongoing witch-hunt, Williamson did not go quietly; when falsely accused by EHRC he was determined to robustly challenge defamatory accusations. The EHRC backed down because they knew their flimsy ‘smoke and mirrors’ case would not hold up in Court. He proved that fighting back is the only option and in all probability the Labour Party can no longer be salvaged; we cannot afford to be overly sentimental about ditching a Labour Party that no longer espouses true Socialist values.

                                                EHRC’s ruling will cruelly imperil Palestinian rights; back in mid September a group of influential Palestinians living in the UK wrote an “Open Letter to the Labour Party” on behalf of British Palestinians that Jewish Voice for Labour (jvl) posted on their website. Jvl included the following introductory comment: “British Palestinians write to the Labour Party, expressing their fears about the closing political space for talking both about Palestinian history and about their ongoing dispossession. In the face of the IHRA definition and more, they assert their right ‘to accurately describe our experiences of dispossession and oppression, to criticise the nature and structure of the state that continues to oppress us and to openly criticise the ideology of Zionism which informs the actions, policies and laws of that state’.” They call for “solidarity with Palestinians fighting their oppression, including support for action via the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement.” This article was originally published by Medium on Wed 16 Sep 2020.

                                                In the “Open Letter to the Labour Party by British Palestinians,” printed by Medium they present their case: “We write as British Palestinians. Many of us are members of the Labour Party, some are not. We have previously expressed our fears of how the space to publicly bring the facts of the Palestinian people’s history and ongoing dispossession into the public domain was under severe threat. Then, as now, our concerns were rooted in a clear opposition to antisemitism believing that, alongside all forms of racism, it should not be tolerated within the Labour Party, the Palestinian solidarity movement, nor broader society. We write now to address our specific concerns relating to developments within the Labour party since that time.

                                                We believe that an internationalist Labour Party has a special responsibility to redress the ongoing injustices against the Palestinian people, denied their right to self-determination during the British Mandate because of the role Britain played as a colonial power leading up to the 1948 Nakba, when Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homes. We welcome commitments made by the party, at recent party Conferences, including rejection of Trump’s so-called “deal of the century” and any proposed solution not based on recognition of the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and to return to their homes as enshrined in international law. We welcome the call by the Leadership team for a ban on settlement goods in response to Israel’s proposals to annex further swathes of Palestinian lands, including illegal settlements.

                                                However, we remain deeply concerned about steps being taken which will only serve to shrink the space in the Labour party for British Palestinians and other members to assert their rights to campaign for an end to the oppression of the Palestinian people.
                                                We respectfully but unequivocally reject any assertion that dealing with antisemitism must necessarily reverse policy commitments to protect Palestinian rights. Respect for Palestinian rights is not incompatible with the struggle against racism and antisemitism; in fact, it is integral to that struggle. We are extremely concerned by any conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Zionism is a political ideology and movement that has led to our dispossession and that sustains a state that discriminates against us and denies us our collective rights whether as victims of military occupation, unequal citizens of the Israeli state or living in exile as refugees denied the right of return to our homeland.

                                                Benjamin Netanyahu recently described the proposed annexation of further swathes of the West Bank, a proposal rightly condemned by the Labour Party, as “ another glorious chapter in the history of Zionism”. We cannot but reject this ideology and to deny us the right to do so is a form of anti Palestinian racism. We note with concern statements made by the Labour leadership affirming support for the usage of the IHRA definition and examples, including within Labour Party disciplinary procedures, without reference to the concerns regarding the threat those examples pose to the rights of Palestinians and to party members advocating for justice for the Palestinian people. We are alarmed to note the stated intention of the Shadow Communities Secretary to urge all Labour-run councils who have not adopted the IHRA to do so, ignoring the evidence of how councils have previously used the IHRA to limit the rights of Palestinians, and of others advocating on their behalf.

                                                In 2018 the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the British Palestinian Policy Council made submissions to the NEC that called upon the Labour party to confirm its unequivocal commitment to the principles of freedom of expression as outlined in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. They called upon the party to recognise the right of Palestinians to legitimately describe their experiences of oppression including by reference to terms such as settler-colonialism or apartheid. These submissions joined warnings of the threats posed by the IHRA examples to core Palestinian rights and to freedom of expression from Palestinian civil society as well as over 80 BAME organisations, including Black Lives Matter UK, prominent members of the Jewish community, leading lawyers and academic experts on antisemitism and the Institute for Race Relations.

                                                We reiterate our call that the right of Palestinians to accurately describe our experiences of dispossession and oppression, to criticise the nature and structure of the state that continues to oppress us and to openly criticise the ideology of Zionism which informs the actions, policies and laws of that state, be upheld both as a right of a people under oppression and as a right of freedom of expression respected and supported by the Labour Party leadership. Furthermore, the rights of other British citizens to respond to calls for action including via the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement to address that oppression, should also be supported and upheld.” This letter was signed by the following members of the Palestinian community.

                                                “Dr Hafiz Alkarmi, Chairman of the Palestinian Forum in Britain; Iyas Alqasem, Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) exec and founder and trustee of Hope and Play charity for Palestinian children; Omar Al-Qattan, Businessman and Philanthropist; Sawsan Asfari, Executive director of the Galilee Foundation; Tamara Ben-Halim, Human Rights Advocate; Zaher Birawi Chairman, Europal Forum; Selma Dabbagh, Author; Professor Izzat Darwazeh, UCL; Professor Kamel; Hawwash, University of Birmingham; Feras Abu Helal, Editor-in-chief, Journalist; Nadia Hijab, President, Palestinian think tank; Ben Jamal, Director PSC; Dr Ghada Karmi, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter; Dr Ahmad Khalidi — St Antony’s College, Oxford; Chris Khamis, Labour International; Omar Mofeed, Ealing central and Acton constituency Labour Party ( CLP); Adnan Sabbah, Lawyer; Atallah Said OBE, Former Chair, British Palestinian Policy Council; Ali Saleh, President of the (Association of the Palestinian Community in the UK (APCUK); Kareem Samara, Composer/Musician; Aimee Shalan, Humanitarian and human rights advocate; Professor Suleiman Sharkh, University of Southampton.”

                                                On the Website RS21 “Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st. Century” they also express their courageous solidarity support on the 19th of September by publishing the same letter of appeal in a post entitled, “Open letter: Palestinians in Britain demand freedom of speech. They report that, ‘The Labour Party’s willingness to censor criticism of Israel gives license to a broader crackdown on anti-racist, anti-Zionist speech across society. Palestinians in Britain are the first victims of this censorship, and are leading the fightback against it. We republish below an open letter from a number of Palestinians in Britain. The letter was originally written to protest the Labour Party’s ongoing moves to silence and suppress criticism of Israel within the party, including the party’s support for the discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism’.”

                                                RS21 state that, “Since it was written the letter has itself been effectively embargoed and marginalised by several Labour Party-aligned publications who were approached to publish it, despite the letter’s careful language and moderate political tenor.” They call out publications that should have demonstrated fairness and impartiality, but failed in their duty, saying, “LabourList and the New Statesman refused to publish the piece; Tribune, a publication associated with the left wing of Labour, has ignored the piece for two months, despite repeated inquiries by its own former editor, Mark Seddon. We republish this letter here in solidarity with all Palestinians and in defence of the right to oppose Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism. As the letter-writers comment: ‘Zionism is a political ideology and movement that has led to our dispossession and that sustains a state that discriminates against us and denies us our collective rights…We cannot but reject this ideology and to deny us the right to do so is a form of anti Palestinian racism’.”

                                                For the Labour Party to abandon support of the Palestinian cause would represent a severe betrayal of not just the Palestinian people, but also an abandonment of the consensus opinions of the Labour Party membership regarding the Party stance on Middle East policy. It would represent the unambiguous acceptance of global Corporate expansion and exploitation of developing nations to the detriment of local and indigenous people worldwide. This represents a complete capitulation of Labour values. A genuinely committed Socialist Party cannot simply decide to abandon one sector of its population and maintain credibility as a movement; so we must judge the Labour Party accordingly. But the majority are the instrument of change and we must fight to eradicate policies that do not reflect the Socialist ideal. We cannot accept the propaganda that our radical Left agenda lost the Covert 2019 Rigged Election; we must challenge the industrial scale fraud with a full Investigation to force the Tory Party and their enablers out of office! DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                                November 6, 2020 at 03:21#62074Reply

                                                Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (24)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                                  The ‘Wild West’ stand–off continues as the US Election remains undecided with the counting continuing in several states despite Trump’s desperate attempts to end the process in realization that the numbers are moving in the wrong direction that will likely prevent him from remaining in power. The Democrats cannot possibly be thrilled with this result even if they manage to shoehorn their thoroughly unpopular Biden/Harris team into the White House. But they brought this dismal result on themselves, deliberately sabotaging Bernie Sanders and selecting the worst possible substitute to ditch voter priorities for Corporate cash. If Biden crawls over the finish line barely ahead of the most vilified President in US history he will do so with an albatross of shame hung around his neck, the US Senate controlled by the Republicans and the Supreme Court dominated by right wing Trump appointees. Biden is too flattered by the illusion of DNC support to realize he’s no more to them than a hopelessly inept temporary place-holder!

                                                  The DNC are looking straight past Biden’s pathetic grasp on reality, that’s dwindling by the day, and banking on their choice for VP who, despite ticking the right gender and ethnicity boxes, has still managed to gain their confidence based on her despicably harsh prosecution record. She has convinced them that they can rely on her to become the perfectly compliant neo-con stooge ready to replace Biden when they are ready to declare him unfit for office or if he should conveniently pop his clogs before they need to oust him. As is the case with other female leaders, ruthlessly ambitious and totally devoid of human empathy, just like the last DNC pick, Hilary Clinton, Harris can be persuaded to go to war when the Military Industrial Complex require a new ‘foreign intervention!’ She will be unflinching in her stubborn resistance to any increase in Social programs, even those that might benefit ethnic minorities or vulnerable women. Harris isn’t governed by conscience, sentimentality, justice or equality: she is determined to be number one!

                                                  The challenge from Bernie Sanders was seen off once again after humouring him for a while in the US Primaries; he can be relied upon as a useful generator of youth support and enthusiasm until it’s time for the DNC to take control of the voting just as they have done before. Bernie Sanders should have joined the Greens last time instead of trying to rescue DNC disaster candidate Hilary Clinton, but he fell for the exact same trick yet again with false promises of Presidential support for the progressive agenda that America is so desperate for. Just as this would never have materialized under Clinton it is just as doomed under Biden and Harris when she is shoved to the fore. The group of progressive young women now nicknamed “the Squad” remain an annoying embarrassment to the centrist Democrats, but just like Sanders they draw in young voters and idealistic minorities ready to get shafted by the DNC at the next election. Craig Murray was right to see both US candidates as equally toxic to genuine democracy!

                                                  In essence we have followed a very similar model here in the UK, suppressing the progressive Socialist candidate Jeremy Corbyn, who was such a popular and inspirational leader of the Labour Party that it was invigorated to become the largest Socialist Party in Europe. Now there will be a dramatic retraction as the now thoroughly discredited Labour Party shrivels down to become the Tory lite, weak centrist, non-alternative under the Captain of Capitulation Keir Starmer’s enabling opposition. The Tories faithful Trojan horse will relentlessly purge this disgusting incarnation of ‘New Labour’ of all the progressive left leaning MPs using the favoured weapon of fantisemitism to remove them from the Party. Despite a massive lurch to the right Starmer can expect little more than to enter an election as the ‘not as bad as Johnson/Cummings and the Tories’ option he thinks will be enough after five years more Tory austerity under some deceptive new name as they will undoubtedly continue their ‘Decimating Down’ agenda of exploitation.

                                                  This assumption that there will be a free and fair election after we have endured another four years of needless Tory misery, is in itself totally delusional. The Tory manifesto pledged to abolish the Fixed Term Parliament Act, but conveniently failed to elaborate on what might replace it. After the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, the stolen Tory majority in Parliament, now with a stranglehold on power, can vote to break the law or condone criminality exactly as they see fit! In order to retain the Tory whip, allegiance to our newly anointed Dictator must be absolute; Tory MPs are completely devoid of independent, conscientious decision making. The same Tory Government who ran into resistance proroguing Parliament for their own devious ends now seek to severely curtail the nuisance of Judicial Review and hand pick Justices who will support their agenda: what else did we expect from this new Tory Dictatorship? If any elections are allowed they will be purely cosmetic and timed to boost Tory support under a warped set of rules.

                                                  We cannot afford to ignore the troubling shifts in UK demographics and how the Tory Party is responding to such changes. You might have thought the Tories would want to continue protecting their most reliable voting demographic: the elderly. Sadly for those in this age range we are the most costly and consistent benefit recipients after paying into the system for decades. If you consider how Covid 19 has been appallingly mishandled it appears to represent the intentional annihilation of those unfortunate enough to be residing in care homes the ‘’holocaust in care’ in the UK. There has been an intentional extermination of the elderly and most vulnerable in general during the Covid crisis, a systematic cull that I call the ‘Slaughter if the Sheeple.’ This is the single strongest indicator that the Tory Party no longer needs their votes because they fully intend to rig the system. Yes but… surely you want to attract young, highly motivated voters from ethnically diverse communities? They too are surplus to requirement in a Dictatorship!

                                                  We must not allow fabricated accusations of fantisemitism to decimate the only significantly numerous opposition to the Tories in Parliament. This has been deliberately weaponized to eviscerate the progressive Labour Left through manipulation of the media on behalf of the Tory Party. There is no point transforming Labour into what the media insist will be a more electable political Party if there is no realistic prospect of a meaningful election possible for decades; it is far better to robustly challenge the Tories before they are able to solidify this coup. That starts with changing the narrative, calling out the ‘borrowed votes’ lie and the fake ‘landslide victory’ claimed by the Tory Party in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Unfortunately we do not yet have a champion Investigative reporter like Greg Palast actively working our case, but we must try to bring one onboard. Meanwhile we cannot give up ranting about the need for a full Investigation of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to overturn this disastrous vote and oust the Tories. ;

                                                  The US Election has clearly shown that even in the largest and most respected democracy in the world, serious corruption is a distinct possibility; the stakes were a lot higher in America, but they were really considerable here given the chaos that this Tory Government has precipitated with crash-out Brexit. Undermining the commercial viability of the EU as a trading block is significant motivation for malign foreign entities to push the UK towards a catastrophic Brexit disaster. If the British public are too stupid to avert this disastrous act of self-harm we will suffer the consequences for decades. We can still derail this disaster, but the window of opportunity for acting decisively will soon close. The dire corruption we have witnessed in the US that removed the Presidential choice that would have restored equality and justice for ordinary American citizens should function as a wake-up call; we do not have to accept similar tyranny here. Biden will endorse more Corporate exploitation just as Starmer will promote here in the UK. DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                                  November 7, 2020 at 03:20#62107Reply

                                                  Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (25)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                                    In the UK we are still looking on, baffled by the protracted process of counting votes to determine the US Presidency, but why should we be concerned? The so called battle-ground States still in contention share a dirty secret that is not much talked of in the news reports, but it represents a style of corruption that could soon be emulated by Tories desperate to cling to power despite the damage they have caused. Trump is actually right in saying the US election is rigged, but in reality it has been Republicans doing the rigging; they might not have fully succeeded in their efforts to keep Trump in power. The count continues in Georgia with Biden edging into a slim lead, but why was this count so heavily pro-Trump in the first place? An OpenDemocracy Article entitled, “How the Republicans are stealing Georgia,” examines key extracts from the Greg Palast Book, “How Trump stole 2020.” They report how, “Hundreds of thousands of people of colour have had their names erased from the voter list in this vital state.”

                                                    Palast wrote, “It was raining that day in Atlanta. But I could see the large tears tracking down the face of Christine Jordan’s niece. ‘It’s horrible,’ she said. Ms. Jordan, 92 years old, had dressed elegantly for the occasion, her 50th year at the same polling station, ‘voting right here since 1968,” Ms Jordan said, the year her cousin Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down. But she would not vote this time. They threw her out of the polling station. ‘It’s horrible,’ repeated her niece, Jessica. ‘It’s horrible to come out and not be able to vote and no one can give you an explanation. She held civil rights meetings in her home and they had no record of her. She was here in the West End community when we couldn’t…’ She choked on the word ‘vote.’ ‘It’s extremely emotional. And it bothers me. Bothers me to my core. I’m sorry.’ She apologized for crying. ‘I’m sorry’.” He wrote, “I’m an investigative reporter. I don’t cry. But it bothered me, too. Because I knew I was witnessing more than the ugly Jim Crow blockade of an elderly Black woman from the ballot box.”

                                                    “I knew I was witnessing the successful test run in Georgia of a new vote-snatching game designed to re-elect Donald Trump no matter the will of America’s voters.” Palast recalled, “I’ve seen this movie before. In November 2000, when I got my hands on two computer discs from inside the offices of Katherine Harris, chair of the Bush for President campaign, and crucially, the Secretary of State of Florida, the person in charge of the voting. I cracked the codes, and discovered that Harris had flushed 97,000 voters from registration rolls, most of them Black, tagging them as felons, ex-cons, who can’t vote. In fact, the number of illegal ex-con voters? Zero. Their only crime was VWB, Voting While Black. Harris announced George W. Bush had won Florida, and therefore the presidency of the United States, by just 537 votes. That is, ‘won’ by excluding the tens of thousands of African-Americans she’d secretly, illegally, barred from voting.” That was Bush who got Tony Blair to drag us into an illegal foreign war so don’t just shrug!

                                                    Palast wrote, “Here I was in Georgia, 18 years later, and it’s déjàvu all over again. Again. Raheim Shabazz was at the same polling station as Ms Jordan. He’d also been given the heave-ho. He got no ballot, but they did give him a lapel sticker that said, ‘I’m a Georgia voter!’ printed on a peach, the state fruit. At the next polling station, Ashlee Jones, a Latina, brought her three cute daughters to watch her get bounced from the poll as well. Bounced along with Yasmine Bakhtiari, daughter of Iranian immigrants, whose name had also vanished from voter rolls. Dark-hued voters, by the tens of thousands, flushed from voter registries. The Purged. They didn’t accuse Ms. Jordan of being a felon, an ex-con. So what was this new game?”

                                                    Palast vividly describes, “The Purge’n General, Brian Kemp stood next to his pick-up truck. ‘Ah like to blow up…’ Ka-blamm! A dynamite cap spews a part of his lawn into his hedges. ‘…government spending!’ Next we see Kemp with a shotgun pointed at a nervous young man to ensure the kid has ‘a healthy respect for the Second Amendment’.” For those not so familiar with the US Constitution, that’s the right to ‘bear arms’ carry guns. Palast notes, “He adds in his brand-new Dawg Patch accent, ‘I got a Big Truck just in case I have to round up some criminal illegal’s and take’m in myself! I just said that!’ Brian Kemp isn’t some redneck goober. He just plays one on TV. Until recently, he dressed as what he is, landed gentry, with that soft Jimmy Carter New South accent, Brooks Brothers blue suit and tie. But, running for governor of the Peach State, he went full hayseed: old jeans, plaid shirts, pick-up truck and shotgun, and the yokels ate it up.”

                                                    But Palast reports, “Kemp had a problem: Stacey Abrams, his opponent, a super-popular legislator, Harvard Law grad, both parents Baptist ministers, the daughter every parent dreams of, the nice lady next door, the kind that will help your kid with their homework. No visible shotgun, no chainsaw, just a plan for expanding health care. In the polls, Abrams was passing Kemp’s alien laden pick-up truck.” Palast added, “Kemp had another problem: demographics. A lack of Good Ol’ Boys. The census is about to list Georgia as the first ‘minority majority’ state in the Deep South, whites outnumbered by non-whites. He wrote, “As the first African-American woman in history to run for governor of any state in the USA, the Black turn-out would be crushing and decisive.” I have to note that, Stacy Abrams was on the list of Biden’s potential VP picks, but while her gender and ethnicity would have garnered minority votes her track record of conscience and integrity would have presented a problem for the Corporate paymasters of the DNC.

                                                    Palast wrote, “Bluntly, there simply weren’t enough white people to make Kemp governor. But Kemp wielded a dark weapon more powerful than mere voters. As Secretary of State, Kemp had complete authority over the election. Kemp could say where people vote, how they vote and, most importantly, who gets to vote. There’s a cable TV show, The Purge, in which Americans in the future get one day a year when they can kill anyone they want to kill. It’s based on a true story. Once a year, since the beginning of this century, a group of political hitmen, ‘Secretaries of State,’ are allowed to wipe out the voting rights of Americans by ‘purging’ them from the voter rolls. As the Purge’n General of Georgia, Kemp used his power like a chainsaw. In the lead-up to his run for governor, Kemp purged 665,677, two-thirds of a million registrations. The Purge erased the voting rights of one in eight Georgians. Including Ms Jordan, Mr Shabazz, Ms Jones and Ms Bakhtiari.”

                                                    Consider aggressive US attacks on Venezuela’s election as corrupt despite experts like former President Jimmy Carter hailing it as one of the safest voting systems in the world. I’m shocked by this corruption, but Palast says, “If you’re thinking, ‘How can this guy run for governor and be in charge of his own election?,’ you’ve never been to Georgia.” He says, “I admit, I’m a suspicious man. I’d been trailing Kemp, for Al Jazeera and Rolling Stone, for six years. His trick-bag of vote suppression tools, including prior purges that smelled of Jim Crow, kept drawing me back to Georgia. But this Purge was breathtaking, something new. Surely, there must be a law to prevent someone like Kemp from just taking away your registration? Yes: the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, known as the Motor Voter law because it requires states to give out registration forms with your driver’s license applications. Every DMV becomes a safe voter registration center. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 won African-Americans the right to vote in the South”

                                                    But Palast points out, “you can’t vote if you aren’t registered, so the NVRA jammed registration right down the throats of states that still made voting for Black people a cruel obstacle course. Not that the Good Ol’ Boys hadn’t come up with a way around the Motor Voter law. I’d just returned from a visit to the DMV in Lowndes County, Alabama. The door was locked, midday. The DMV had been closed by order of the state, as was virtually every single DMV in the ‘Black Belt’ counties of Alabama, the African-American counties. Kemp himself was even less subtle. When a registration drive sent Georgia officials 86,419 registration forms of new voters, mostly young students of color, Kemp simply did not add 40,000 of them to the voter rolls. In 2016, I flew to Atlanta to find out what the hell was going on.”

                                                    Palast reports, “I met attorney Nse Ufot: ‘You know what [Kemp’s office] told us? ‘We don’t know what you’re talking about. What forms?’ They did not disappear. We intentionally registered voters on paper forms so that we could make copies. We knew who they were. They were not on the voter rolls.’ Kemp responded by threatening to arrest the voter registration leaders, including the founder, Stacey Abrams, for alleged criminal tampering of voter registration forms. That is, they copied the forms so Kemp couldn’t disappear them. Ufot saw the registrations sitting in government offices, piled high and dusty, ‘with my own four eyes’ (she wears glasses). Once the forms were ‘discovered,’ Kemp’s office then claimed the government simply had no time to review the voter applications. That was 2014. In 2018, four years later, and running against Abrams, Kemp still had not found time to add her voters.”

                                                    Palast cynically refers to it as “Lynched by Laptop,” but questions, “How’d he get away with it? Pull off the caper? How did Mr. ‘I-got-a-big-truck’ remove way over half a million voters, a nuclear hit on the registration rolls that somehow targeted Black, Hispanic and young voters with a laser-like precision? And how did he do it and stay on this side of prison bars? Palast asks, “how, with this giant voter eraser, did Kemp snatch the governorship of Georgia, and, potentially, re-elect Donald Trump? His excuse was so benign, so innocent, so simple. The excuse the Purge’n General used to eliminate the registrations? Kemp kept the info locked up – but a federal judge unlocked them for me. Some Georgia voters had died (64,446 of them), some were imprisoned for felonies (14,021) and there were a few other smatterings of legit removals.” Palast and his team diligently sifted through the legitimate deletions, but a massive discrepancy remained unacounted for.

                                                    Palast documented, “that left 534,510, over half a million purged, for a reason identified only as ‘System Cancels.’ They were cancelled by the system because they had failed to vote in two elections and hadn’t returned a postcard mailed to their registration address. On the basis of the missed elections and a missed postcard, Kemp concluded that every one of these half million voters had moved away: they had moved out of their county, or out of state or out of the country. Who can argue with that? Only a fool would say that someone who’s left Georgia for Ohio should stay on Georgia’s voter rolls. But something was missing. U-Haul trucks. I’d traveled to Georgia a number of times during The Big Purge. With half a million voters leaving – and that means hundreds of thousands of families moving in two years – Interstate Highway 85 out of Atlanta should have been filled with U-Haul trucks, mini-vans, rickshaws, anything that could carry the households of this mass exodus.”

                                                    So what was the upshot of this alarming revelation? Palast reported that, “The press wrung their hands over this terrible mass purge but wrote it was legit. But no one asked, ‘Where are the U-Hauls?’ Riddle me this: The US Census says less than 3% of Southerners move out of their county in any year, or 200,000 of Georgia’s 6.8 million voters. You don’t have to be a math whiz to see the numbers don’t add up. I’m not Sherlock Holmes. I didn’t figure out the con in a flash of inductive reasoning after injecting a 7% solution of cocaine.” But Palast was not giving up. He said, “I started with Kemp’s office, with a formal Freedom of Information request. However, in Georgia, information has not yet been emancipated. ‘Please, sir, could you give me the names of the voters you purged and their former addresses?’ just didn’t cut it. Kemp’s office told me to fly’.”

                                                    Palast reminds us of the resources at his disposal, “Now, as an investigative reporter, I have a few (legal) tricks and a team of experienced tricksters. The best, Zach D. Roberts, who, conveniently, has other legal names, had gotten a purge list from Kemp four years earlier. ZD told one of Kemp’s flunkies, a leader of the Young Republicans, that he was gathering info for a Fox radio show to run a glowing story about Kemp’s worthy purge operation. ZD did in fact do some work for Fox, but the lists would go first to a Rolling Stone reporter: me. You can’t pull that off twice. So, I wheeled out big guns: the New York law firm of Mirer, Mazzocchi and Julien. They filed an unprecedented lawsuit in federal court based on rarely used powers in the National Voter Registration Act. Kemp’s crew came out with their hands up and files open: turning over the names and addresses of half a million Georgians who had supposedly moved. The Purged.”

                                                    There was a huge logistical problem ahead. Palast asks, “What could we do with half a million names? Start calling. We wanted to know, had they really left the state? There was Gladys Bonner, in an assisted living home, who had indeed moved – but from one room in her building to another. Under the law, she should never have lost her vote. And there were a whole lot of people like ML King’s cousin, who hadn’t moved at all.” Palast notes that, “Almost every one we reached was… well, not white. Hmmm. But this was anecdotal, a sample. I didn’t like the smell of Kemp’s purge, but a few cases do not an indictment make. So my investigations team created a computer program at GregPalast.com which allowed Georgians to see whether they were on Kemp’s purge list. We added a request at the site: contact us.”

                                                    He says, “Within days 1,900 did, angry, upset that they lost their right to vote without so much as a posting on their Facebook page. Dawan Mitchell, returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, wrote us, telling us he did move… but into the state.” Palast wrote with disgust, “The smell of mendacity rose, but this still was not the scientific gotcha evidence I needed. How could I find out exactly how many on the list had actually moved, versus how many were simply re-moved by Kemp? Ask yourself, ‘Who knows exactly where every American lives, with 100% accuracy?’ And you know the answer: Amazon. eBay. Amazon never sends John Jackson another John Jackson’s pimple remover. Who else knows where you live, with certainty? American Express. Your friendly credit card company will find you in the far corners of North Korea if you try to skip out on your bill. So I turned to Mark Swedlund, a legend in the ‘direct marketing’ business, do not call it ‘junk mail’.”

                                                    Palast adds an interesting anecdote regarding a previous collaboration with Swedlund saying that he, “had helped me out over the years, including setting up an elaborate false front for The Guardian. (We pretended to be fixers for a company called Enron and set out to buy the British government. It was surprisingly cheap. We were invited into prime minister Tony Blair’s residence at 10 Downing Street before we splashed the headline in The Guardian about the government’s flea market for favors.)” That must have been an embarrassing ‘egg on face’ moment for B liar so I’m really sorry I missed that one as I was living in the States back then. Palast wrote, “Swedlund’s clients included Amazon, eBay and American Express and he confirmed that ‘they know exactly where you were last Thursday, and if you ordered Chinese food and then downloaded a Kevin Costner movie.’ He added, ‘I think that’s creepy,’ but suggested we could use their tracking systems to go through Kemp’s purge list.”

                                                    The investigative plot thickened as Palast recalls that, “For that, he said, you need to retain the services of someone called an ‘advanced address list hygiene expert.’ I’d never heard of ‘advanced address list hygiene.’ But Swedlund hooked me up with the best in the field, John Lenser, the CEO of the advanced address list hygiene company CohereOne, used by the industry big boys. Lenser and Swedlund put together a hell of a team, including a ‘de-concatenation’ specialist who picked apart the pile of computer mush Kemp’s flunkies had given us. What the Lenser/Swedlund team found was eye-popping. They went through Kemp’s purge list of half a million voters name by name, and the registration addresses of every person Kemp said had moved their residence. Lenser looked at tax bills, where someone last had pizza delivered, phone bills, your alimony checks… accessing two hundred and forty databases that can confirm where you reside with stone-cold accuracy.”

                                                    Palast remarks how, “Notably, Mr. Kemp hadn’t bothered to ask why thousands of people had supposedly moved out of Georgia but were still paying Georgia income taxes. I lost the office pool. I expected about 15% inaccuracy in Kemp’s purge. I was wrong, big wrong. Lenser’s first report blew me away: 340,134 Georgians that had been purged for moving were, in fact, still living in the home in which they’d registered. Lenser told me, 340,000 of those voters remained at their original address. They should have never been removed from the voter registration rolls. More than a third of a million wrongly purged, in this one state. The list was more than 74% wrong. Three out of four.”

                                                    Palast accurately documents that, “This was not a statistical sample, not an algorithm nor an estimate. This was a name-by-name investigation of those disappeared in plain sight. We were using Amazon’s method and Amazon, unlike the Pope, is infallible. (Actually, 96% accurate, according to Lenser. He told me his figures had a 4% error rate because, between gathering data and reporting it, people do pass on to another county or further: the Lenser team found that the state purged 19,118 folks who “moved,” but had, in fact, died.) After two decades on this beat, I knew what would come next. The Georgia vote purge game, spread to a dozen key states, would stealthily bleach the voter rolls whiter than white. The Purge, not the voters, could re-elect Donald Trump.” OpenDemocracy say they tried to “contact Brian Kemp for comment on the allegations on this piece.” if you think rigged elections are confined to tin-pot Dictatorships, Palast’s Book exposes democracy under siege in the US: our last vote was totally corrupt!

                                                    Look at the horrendous consequences of the stolen US Presidential Election in 2000 with a usurper President that dragged us into the Iraq war and you can see why the integrity of voting is so important. The Republican tactics of disenfranchisem*nt got Trump into the White House to wreck mayhem on world order, but Clinton could easily have launched another conflict. Here in the UK the Covert 2019 Rigged Election has had disastrous ramifications, notable with the shambolic mishandling of Covid, but there was no challenge to that vote, no Investigation and Johnson/Cummings are still taking a wrecking ball to our democracy. That Investigation needs to happen ASAP before it is too late as we hurtle towards crash-out Brexit. Such a profound economic shock to the UK will compound the extreme negative impact of Covid; this damage constitutes unsustainable self-harm especially to the working poor. Driven by ego, power and greed, electoral fraud will inevitably always lead to serious harm, we must correct this injustice now. DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                                    November 8, 2020 at 03:34#62120Reply

                                                    Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (26)Kim Sanders-Fisher

                                                      Boris Johnson sheepishly admitted that, “The whole House is talking about the result of a heavily contested election,” but instead of admitting his regret that his mate Trump was not in the lead the PM veered away from the issue to congratulate the Speaker on his one year anniversary; he needed to keep Hoyle on side. Making it clear who he was still routing for in the States he emulated that corny Trumpian chant by saying, “thank you, Mr Speaker, for making the speakership great again?” In reality things are not looking good for the hard-core Brexiteers ready to trash the Good Friday Agreement; now their planned crash-out Brexit might just scupper a US Trade deal with opposition from the White House as well as the Democratic Congress. But then Tory Andrew Jones started into the familiar pattern of ‘stroking’ by praising the Liverpool City wide testing trial; a PR red herring to placate the masses. How soon would it become a nationwide success? After two weeks we will know if this is just another costly Tory failure; I can’t wait…

                                                      Keir Starmer began by focusing on the US Elections, warning, “Whatever the results, will the Prime Minister join me in saying that it is not for a candidate to decide which votes do and do not count or when to stop counting? The next President must be the free and fair choice of the American people.” By expressing his revulsion at the terrorist attacks in Nice and Vienna and sympathies for those affected he highlighted the PM neglecting to mention the incidents. He too congratulated the Speaker before reverting to a futile attempt to solicit contrition: “Turning now, if I may, to covid-19, on 21 September, when the Government’s scientific advisers indicated that a circuit break would bring the virus back under control, the number of people that day who tragically lost their lives to covid-19 was 11. The Prime Minister ignored that advice. On Monday, 42 days later, the number of people who tragically lost their lives to covid-19 was 397 – that is a staggering 35-fold increase. Does the Prime Minister understand the human cost of his delay in acting?”

                                                      The PM’s defence was, “In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s opening question, of course we do not comment, as a UK Government, on the democratic processes of our friends and allies, and I do not think, in all seriousness, he would expect otherwise. Turning to the point about covid and the decision, the difficult decision, that this House has to face tonight, I think I speak for many hon. Members across the House when I say that I do not think any Government or any Parliament would want to impose these measures lightly on the people of this country. It was always right to pursue a local and regional approach, as our scientific advisers said. I will tell you why, Mr Speaker: because that regional approach was showing signs of working and still is showing signs of working. It did get the R, the transmission rate, down lower than it would otherwise have been.” The PM again failed to consider that allowing schools to remain open guaranteed the ultimate failure of this strategy just as it will in a National lockdown.

                                                      Johnson continued excusing his shambolic policy decisions by saying, “But we have to face the reality that, in common with many other countries in this part of the world, we are facing a surge in the virus, which this House must now tackle with the measures we have outlined. They will, as hon. Members know, expire on 2 December, and I hope very much that Opposition Members will support them tonight.” Starmer finally hinted at the elephant in the room as he replied, “I am sure that nobody wants a lockdown, but it is a question of timing. Had the decision been taken a few weeks ago to put in place a circuit break, it could have been done for two to three weeks and taken advantage of schools being closed over half term. Now the Prime Minister’s proposed lockdown will be for at least four weeks, which means that businesses will be closed for longer and in the critical run-up to Christmas. Does the Prime Minister understand the economic cost of his delay in acting?” Knowing that schools pose a major infection risk, why fail to demand their closure?

                                                      The PM hit back, “It is precisely because we understand the economic cost and the social and psychological damage of lockdowns that it was right to go for the local and regional solution, which was supported by many Members, indeed, it was supported by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as long as it was useful to him for a while. That was the right approach. By the expiry of this period on 2 December, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), we will be rolling out across this country new types of testing on a scale never seen before, beginning this week in Liverpool, enabling us to detect asymptomatic cases. That is crucial, because as the House knows, 70% of transmission is taking place between people who have no symptoms. That will enable us to find new ways on a mass scale to break the chains of transmission. I want to particularly the Labour leadership of Liverpool for their co-operation, a manner of co-operation that I commend to those on the Opposition Benches.”

                                                      Starmer wanted contrition and a pat on the back, “The Prime Minister’s delay in acting is a huge failure of leadership, and it is no good saying that there was support for the tier system. As he well knows, I looked at the evidence and made a decision three weeks ago that the right thing was a circuit break. I do not buy the argument, I do not think anybody does, that the facts suddenly changed this weekend. The direction of travel and the number of infections, hospital admissions and, tragically, deaths have been clear for weeks. But we are where we are. Millions of people across the country are really concerned about the restrictions that will come into force at midnight tonight.” Then he managed to pose a question, “I accept that we all have a duty to pull together and try to make this lockdown work, so I just want to ask some basic and direct questions on behalf of those millions of people. First, will the lockdown end on 2 December come what may, or will it depend on the circ*mstances at the time? People need to know that.”

                                                      The PM in a patronizing tone replied, “I am grateful for the support that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now offering, and I can answer him very simply. As the House knows, and as I informed him repeatedly on Monday, these autumn measures to combat the surge will expire automatically on 2 December, and we will then, I hope very much, be able to get this country going again and get businesses and shops open again in the run-up to Christmas. But that depends on us all doing our bit now to make sure that we get the R down. I have no doubt that we can and that we will be able to go forward from 2 December with a very different approach, but of course, it will be up to the House of Commons to decide thereafter what to do.” It was Johnson’s classic ‘not me Gov’ evasion of responsibility; failure would be blamed on non-compliance and extension of restrictions on Parliament!

                                                      In a crude attempt at ‘forensic’ questioning Starmer said, “I accept that there will be a vote in the House. That does not tell us anything; that is the process. I want to press the Prime Minister. Is he saying that if, by 2 December, the R rate has not come below 1 and is still rising, we will come out of lockdown come what may, with infection rates going up on 2 December? That does not seem sensible to me.” But Johnson was determined to spread the blame for his shambolic scattergun approach and refusal to close schools to reduce infections onto the wider populous by responding with, “It is thanks to the efforts of the British people that the R is now currently only just above 1 as it is. We are doing the right and the prudent thing at the right time to get that infection rate down, and these measures, as I have said repeatedly to the House, will expire on 2 December. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying he wants to protract them beyond 2 December, then perhaps he should make his position clear.”

                                                      Starmer resisted being portrayed as the Grinch getting set to steal Christmas saying, “I just want some basic honesty, and this is serious. If the infection rate. We have to look the public in the eye. If the infection rate is still going up on 2 December, it is madness to come out of the system back to the tiered system, when we know the one thing the tiered system cannot cope with is an R rate above 1. That is the basic point. We can come back to it on 2 December, as we always do, but that is the point I am making.” With the minutia of ‘R’ details, eyes were glassing over in the Chamber and this was unlikely to keep TV audiences riveted!

                                                      It was time for Starmer to go for the jugular and demand that this corrupt Tory Government stop using Test and Trace as an obscenely lucrative gravy train for their wealthy Tory donors. He stated that, “The one thing we know a circuit break or lockdown does is buy time, and the Prime Minister needs to use that time to fix Test and Trace. I know he will talk about the capacity of 500,000, what is going on in Liverpool, how it is world beating, etc., but we have been going round and round in circles on this. The latest figures show that 113,000 contacts were not even reached, and that is just in one week. Only 20% of those who should be isolating are doing so, and the majority of people still do not get results in 24 hours. So can the Prime Minister give a straight answer: what is he going to do in the next four weeks to fix this, because if he does not, we will be back here again?” Why spare the damsel of disaster? ‘Tally ho Harding’ must ride off into the sunset, enabling efficient local control to be re-established ASAP!

                                                      The PM didn’t dare mention Harding, “With greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has stood up and said that I will brag about NHS Test and Trace and its achievement of a target of capacity of 500,000, I am perfectly willing to accept the failings of NHS Test and Trace. Of course I am, and of course I take full responsibility for the frustrations people have experienced with that system, but to go from 3,000 tests a day, 2,000 tests a day to 500,000 is a quite remarkable feat.” There was more PR Spin: “It is the biggest diagnostics exercise this country has ever carried out, and they are helping to drive down the R. They are doing, in my view, an absolutely invaluable job, whatever the difficulties they face. What we now need to do is to come together as a nation, briefly, if we can, put aside party political wrangling and point scoring, and work together, as I think he will tonight, to support this package to get the R down and allow us to go forward in a different way, with the mass testing that I have outlined from 2 December.”

                                                      Sir Keir was unimpressed as he kept needling Johnson, “The Prime Minister must see that if four out of 10 of those who should be contacted are not being contacted, we have a problem in the system that needs to be fixed in the next four weeks. Finally, I want to ask about care homes, which of course were hit so badly in the first wave of this pandemic. Can I pay tribute to all those working in care homes, who have given such dedication and commitment in the toughest of circ*mstances? We owe it to them not to repeat the mistakes of the first wave, but, Prime Minister, as we face the second wave, there is an increasing concern about the emotional wellbeing of those in care homes and their families if all visits are stopped. It must be possible to find a way, perhaps a dedicated family member scheme of some sort, to allow some safe visits to alleviate the huge fears of isolation and despair across the coming months. Will the Prime Minister work cross-party to find a scheme that will work for those in care and their families?”

                                                      The PM said, “New guidance on care homes and visiting relatives safely, because the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes is incredibly important, is going to be announced today to try to strike the right balance between people’s real, real need to see their loved ones and obviously the risk of spreading the disease in care homes. We are going to be publishing some guidance about how that can be done today.” Johnson had not anticipated Starmer asking more than one mealy-mouthed question; he did not expect scrutiny at PMQs so he needed to discredit and shut down such ‘aggression.’ “I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s offer to work collaboratively, but I have to say that the House will generally have noted that he has used this crisis as an opportunity to make political capital and to have what I think a shadow spokesman called a ‘good crisis’ – ‘good crisis’.” As if the Trojan horse, Captain of Capitulation, Starmer had not worked tirelessly to enable his Tory masters and destroy Labour opposition!

                                                      Johnson hit a raw nerve when he invoked Labour’s shameful war criminal, saying, “Can I commend a different approach, because he has attacked the Government’s strategy? Can I commend a different approach? The former Labour leader, the right hon. former Member for Sedgefield, who is not as fashionable on those Benches as he once was or should be. Not with all of them; perhaps on the Front Bench, but not all of them. He had written a good piece in today’s Daily Mail, in which he supports, broadly supports, this Government’s strategy: praising UK drugs companies for what they are doing; supporting our search for a vaccine; and supporting mass testing in Liverpool, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman deprecates. I think what he should do is actually take a leaf out of the Blair book, and by the way, I can tell him that Tony Blair would not have spent four years in the same shadow Cabinet as Jeremy Corbyn, standing shoulder to shoulder with him.” It was enough to induce vomiting among progressive Labour MPs!

                                                      Johnson always saves his most disgustingly insulting and devious responses till last so that the opposition have no opportunity to repudiate the damaging vilification, target false promises or call out his Johnson’s incessant lies. Tory Nick Fletcher ‘stroked’ the PM by boosting ‘levelling up’ lie, saying, “I understand the position that the Government are in today, and although it is desperately hard for people and businesses, I agree that these measures are the right decision. However, once we are through this period, it is business that will restore the economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that easing congestion in the south- east with the border control point in Don Valley will help trade to flow through the country and level-up the north, following the transition period?” The PM beamed as he said, “My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Department for Transport is already engaged on that matter, and I am sure it would be happy to meet him and representatives from the iPort that he describes.”

                                                      SNP Ian Blackford also attempted to get the PM to distance himself from Trump’s attack on democracy. He said, “Let me take this opportunity to send my best wishes to our friends in the US during this anxious time. Donald Trump claimed an unsupported victory and major fraud, with millions of legitimate ballots left to count. I hope that the Prime Minister will join me in condemning his actions this morning. On Monday, the Prime Minister agreed access to the furlough scheme for Scotland, at 80%, if lockdown restrictions require it. Subsequently, a number of his Ministers have rolled back on that promise, and the Scottish Government have not received any detail about what the commitment means in practice. Today is the Prime Minister’s opportunity to clear up this mess of his Government’s making. Will Scotland receive full 80% furlough and payments for the self-employed under current eligibility criteria, whenever that is requested by the Scottish Government in the months ahead?”

                                                      The PM ignored Blackford’s warning and said, “I hesitate to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of failing to listen to what I said on Monday, I think he heard exactly what I said. I gave a commitment then, and I in no way budge from that. Furlough is a UK-wide scheme and it has helped to save about 10 million jobs in this country, including about 1 million in Scotland.” Blackford responded,
                                                      “What the Prime Minister said on Monday was that if the devolved Administrations asked for furlough, it would be granted. That was the direct answer that he gave to the question. The Scottish Government have been waiting for clarity on whether Scotland will receive additional money as a result of increased spending from English local government, and there is also no clarity about whether the unlimited payments for business support in England will be made available on a similar demand-led basis.”

                                                      Blackford demanded clarity which the PM never delivers, but he asked, “Will the Prime Minister clarify those two points now, and commit to confirming in writing to the Scottish Government today, that access to the furlough scheme will be there if they need it?” Johnson dodged responsibility saying, “Perhaps the most efficient thing I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be making a general statement about all the support and provisions that we are making for this latest phase to tackle the autumn surge of coronavirus. I repeat the points that I have made about Barnett consequentials—£7.2 billion has already gone to help Scotland, and we will support people in Scotland and throughout the UK during this crisis.”

                                                      Alliance MP Stephen Farry reiterated US/UK diplomacy concerns asking, “If every vote is counted in the US election, it is likely that Joe Biden will be the victor. The Prime Minister has a major challenge to build relationships with any incoming Administration. Therefore, in the light of Joe Biden’s entirely correct analysis of the impact on the Good Friday agreement of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, how quickly will the Prime Minister recognise the inevitable and remove those clauses from the Bill?” The PM was devious in his reply, saying, “The UK Internal Market Bill, which has cross-party support, is a vital part of the armature, the skeletal structure, of the whole UK economy as we leave the European Union, and it ensures that goods and services placed on the market are available throughout the UK on the same terms. It is vital for our country and the hon. Gentleman should support it.”

                                                      Labour MP Mary Kelly Foy challenged Tory zero accountability saying, “In my short time as MP for the City of Durham, Dominic Cummings has fatally undermined public health messaging, has had historical planning violations exposed, and has short-changed us with an unpaid council tax bill of up to £50,000. Will the Prime Minister condemn this continued flouting of the rules, or does he have a blind spot that even a trip to Barnard Castle cannot fix?” Ignoring criticism with a typical indefensible response, the PM said, “What has possibly undermined people’s confidence in, and understanding of, what the Government are trying to do is the constant party political point-scoring, and the attempts by the Labour party and the hon. Lady to obscure what we are trying to do. The best thing would be to advise her constituents on what to do: follow the guidance, and get the virus down and let us all do it together.” What a sick joke!

                                                      But when Tory Karl MᶜCartney launched into a typical rant over Labour fantisemitism by embellishing the EHRC Report with zero regard to the obscene level of full on racism in the conservative party it was open season on abuse aimed at the current leader who had hoped his grovelling unwarranted apologies would end the abuse. Instead this intervention was hailed by the PM as a terrific excuse for unsubstantiated factional mud-slinging aimed at the total evisceration of the Labour Party. Johnson was now demanding that the Labour Party should ditch Unison funding for daring to daring to defend Corbyn! The utter hypocrisy of Tory MPs extends beyond vilifying a lifelong anti-racist while stoking a sick racist divide with their hate speech. Criticism of neglecting hungry children: they boasted as if those rescuing the impoverished were a Tory triumph! But there was no shame over the public money squandered on Test and Trace costing just £32 a head in Wales compared to ‘Tally ho Harding’s £1,700 a head in England!

                                                      This Tory Government have no shame; they are getting away with breaking the law and plundering the public purse while taunting opposition MP over meaningless trivialities. This is only possible because the British public have allowed this injustice to continue unabated after conceding the stolen, fabricated ‘landslide victory’ of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. PMQs has always been a sham, but it is getting worse now that the is no Labour opposition under the pathetic leadership of Captain of Capitulation Sir Keir Starmer. We must challenge the legitimacy of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and fully Investigate the corrupt postal voting scam in order to remove this incompetent Tory Government from office. This haemorrhaging of public funds at the expense of an efficient functioning localized Test and Trace system is costing lives as the Tories continue pursuing their inhumane ruthless cull of all our most vulnerable citizens. To derail the Tory ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple’ we must throw them out of office or jail them for corruption! DO NOT MOVE ON!

                                                    • Author

                                                      Posts

                                                    Viewing 25 posts - 351 through 375 (of 518 total)

                                                    123141516192021

                                                    Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 - Craig Murray (2024)

                                                    References

                                                    Top Articles
                                                    Latest Posts
                                                    Article information

                                                    Author: Madonna Wisozk

                                                    Last Updated:

                                                    Views: 6296

                                                    Rating: 4.8 / 5 (68 voted)

                                                    Reviews: 91% of readers found this page helpful

                                                    Author information

                                                    Name: Madonna Wisozk

                                                    Birthday: 2001-02-23

                                                    Address: 656 Gerhold Summit, Sidneyberg, FL 78179-2512

                                                    Phone: +6742282696652

                                                    Job: Customer Banking Liaison

                                                    Hobby: Flower arranging, Yo-yoing, Tai chi, Rowing, Macrame, Urban exploration, Knife making

                                                    Introduction: My name is Madonna Wisozk, I am a attractive, healthy, thoughtful, faithful, open, vivacious, zany person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.