Home › Forums › Discussion Forum › Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 › Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019
The Russia Report exposed at last, but we didn’t learn much. We might not have a Foggy Bottom, but we sure have a wet arse! With the disgraceful enablement of Keir Starmer’s sickening own goal drowning out the headlines with another round of fake anti-Semitism smears, this corrupt Tory Government triumph in completely sidelining the Russia Report, but just what did we find out? The call from Starmer to shut down RT was another treacherous lurch in the wrong direction to eliminate free speech at a point where the Tories are getting set to criminalize an innocent Journalist Julian Assange, silencing a genuine Whistleblower and press freedom. The Labour Leader has deeply betrayed the membership by selling out to the “Poison Dartblowers” who will bleed the Labour Party dry for the radical Zionist cause to solidify the far-right Tory dictatorship of Boris Johnson. To get a totally balanced picture of what was presented I wanted to know what the demonized Russian broadcaster RT had to say about the Russia Report.
RT started into their News segment on the Russia Report by airing a number of the telling statements made by the two presenters, Labours Kevan Jones and the SNPs Stewart Hosie. They avoided the initial rebuke drummed home by Jones where he exposed the time line to emphasize the repeated lies over the delay in presenting it as “not true.” RT started with the question from Jones, “…Who is protecting the British public from interference in our democratic process? Well in a nutshell we found no one is.” At this point it would be fair to say that logically the UK shouldn’t be predetermining a presumed enemy to myopically focus all intelligence resources on combating that one perceived threat to the exclusion of all other potential malign influences not just foreign states, but rogue internal influences and the dodgy money that fuels them. Likewise we should not be zeroing in on just the corrupt funding supplied by Russian oligarchs, but cracking down on all political donations to eliminate undue influence across the board.
But I digress with my personal rant on getting dirty money out of politics. When Hosie was next up RT didn’t feature his lengthy diatribe against the Russian state and assumptions of hostility that, like the Skripal case, were credited as valid without much substantiating evidence. Choosing not to dignify such flimsy claims by airing them on RT they cut to Hosie’s comment that, “The UK Government took its eye off the ball, because of its focus on counter terrorism.” Jones remarked that, “We found the defence of the UK democratic process is a ‘hot potato’” While Hosie stated that, “The Government had badly underestimated the response required to the Russian threat and is still playing catch-up.” Jones said, “The outrage isn’t that there was interference; the outrage is that no one has wanted to know if there was interference.” A press questioner was featured asking, “What is the worst example you can give of Russian interference?” To which Jones answered, “Well that’s the question that we want to have answered.”
The RT News Anchor announced that, “The British Prime Minister is planning to boost funding for the Security Services and put forward a new espionage act in response to the Russia Report. The document’s publication was delayed by the Government for a year and a half before it was finally released this week.” Although the length of the delay did appear considerably stretched it didn’t materialy alter the point being made in her brief intro before handing over to RTs Daniel Hawkins, who she reported, “has been looking at what’s inside.” Hawkins cut to the chase saying, “To get a very brief summary of the long-awaited Russia Report we can go straight to page 13 of the document,” when text from the report appeared on screen documenting the finding that, “The written evidence provided to us appeared to suggest that HMG had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in the UK democratic process.” The subsequent style of the presentation flipped between direct quotes on screen and Hawkins comments.
Considering the serious implications of the Russia Report Hawkins appeared rather flippant when he said, “Seems to be enough, so if you’re short on time or don’t want to read heavily redacted intelligence and political spiel: stop watching now. Otherwise let’s go on.” Text reveals that, “Open source studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro Brexit or anti-EU stories on RT and Sputnik and the use of ‘bots’ and ‘trolls’ as evidence of Russian attempts to influence the process.” RT was not avoiding the direct attacks targeting their programming. There is no outraged denial attempted by the accused Russian broadcaster at this point as they doggedly stick to the evidence presented in the report with another segment of text quoting, “We have sought to establish whether there is secret intelligence which supported or built on these studies. In response MI5 initially provided just six lines of text.” The Russian Government, whatever their motives or intentions must have been amused by the lack of substance in this regard.
RT accurately identified, “Brexit and the failure of journalism” as if to point out that the British hardly needed RT, Sputnik or Russian interference to sway the public when their own state broadcaster and mainstream media was so persuasively feeding propaganda to the masses. However, Hawkins did not elaborate on that blatantly obvious own-goal and instead focused on what was or rather was not in the report itself. He said, “The reports also seemingly surprised by the limited response of the Intelligence services. But not because those agencies may have more important priorities such as protecting lives by preventing international or domestic terrorism or serious crime.” There is a list of the Agencies concerned on screen so that the viewer can freely evaluate if this task should have been within their remit: “Military Intelligence UK MI5 – Secret Intelligence Service MI6 – GCHQ”
Next to appear on screen was a newspaper headline, “The Guardian: BREXIT BIAS? BBC FACES A DIFFICULT BALANCING ACTIN POLARISED NATION.” If Hawkins was sounding distinctly cynical I can fully understand why as he revealed, “Apparently more resources are needed to keep track of Social Media and RTs editorial coverage; Brexit polarized millions with several broadcasters coming under fire, but it’s still Russia that poses the risk and the Security Services that aren’t doing their job.” It was a bold “put up or shut up challenge” that I agree with, given the exposed reality of our intelligence operations. The onscreen quote points out, “This is about the protection of [the UKs Democratic] process and mechanism from hostile state, which should fall to the Intelligence and Security Agencies.” I would add that perhaps this dearth of Intelligence Agency protection obscures a far deeper secret, that internal manipulation and the interference of both the US and Israel would be exposed by more stringent scrutiny.
Hawkins does not make such speculation which for me adds to the neutrality and objectivity of his reporting as he admits, “After all Moscow’s been waging information campaigns targeting UK politics through digital media, wealthy individuals, organizations and almost any other means.” A supporting quote appears on screen, “There has been credible open source commentary suggesting that Russia undertook influence campaigns in relation to the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014.” Hawkins said, “The Report warned the threat of Russian influence is a ‘hot potato’ that intelligence and other agencies shirking the responsibility of taking the lead in tackling it and reassuring the public amid widespread allegations.” Again Hawkins cleverly leaves us to draw our own conclusions as to why the Intelligence services should strategically avoid an essential element of their most important duty in defending UK democracy; I concluded that our democracy is under significant threat from within as well as malign foreign powers.
The next statement to appear on screen directly referred to Brexit, “There have been widespread public allegations that Russia sought to influence the 2016 Referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU,” Hawkins adds, “Though again the impact of such influence remains elusive.” The onscreen text backs him up, “The impact of any such attempt would be difficult – if not impossible – to assess, and we have not sought to do so.” Wow! Really, my take: it’s only the single most important decision the UK has made in the last four decades with the potential to negatively influence our future for decades, also possibly breaking up the UK and possibly destabilizing the EU, so why bother? If it was massively corrupted, no matter who accomplished this goal, obviously those who will suffer the most must just choke it down. Johnson and his evil minder have emphatically decreed that crash-out Brexit is unstoppable; Starmer the enabler will help deliver the poisonous consequences to the working poor as the Tories launch austerity 2.0!
I digress with my rant; back to RTs as Hawkins reports, “State agencies haven’t looked closely enough at open source information, according to the report, they lacked retrospective assessments and intelligence agencies in particular need a more important role in future.” I would say that will focus on PR spin to protect the Tory Government rather than to defend an open democracy in the UK. The onscreen text reveals that, “The committee was struck by the relatively small proportion of **** work that is carried out by the Agencies in relation to Russia.” Hawkins adds that, “In any case, if they should consider other threats to be a higher priority, they can always fall back on trusted Russia experts to lead the way.” Text confirms the identity of one such dubious ‘expert’ with the quote, “We are grateful to… Christopher Steele for …very substantial expertise on Russia.” They show a picture of Christopher Steele Former MI6 intelligence officer, it must be a recent shot as he is wearing a mask!
While Hawkins refrains from openly attacking his credentials he informs us that this MI5 operative was, “Christopher Steele author of the infamous anonymous ‘Golden Shower dossier’ and contributing to the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative.” He goes on to describe the so called ‘Integrity Initiative’ as, “a project founded to tackle the Russian threat, receiving state funding to advise the state that Russia is a threat.” From what I have learned about Steele and these two dubious state funded organization they represent the very antithesis of ‘integrity’ set up to blindside the public with bogus information on false flag incidents and flood the media with pro Tory Government propaganda. The Integrity Initiative has been called out by the Skwawkbox for violating its claimed charitable status due to rampant disregard for impartiality and direct targeting of the former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. Hawkins does not elaborate on the sordid details of their claim to ‘integrity’ once again leaving us to draw our own conclusions.
Hawkins just factually reports that, “Moscow’s response was swift as predictable,” as an onscreen quote appears to confirm that they felt there was, “Nothing sensational. Just fake-shaped Russiaphobia,” with the quote attributed to “Maria Zakharova Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman.” Hawkins added, “As was the final conclusion of the long awaited report, showing yet again that any reproachment with the UK, however small, is still beyond the horizon.” The final comment from the report appeared on screen left dangling in our consciousness over what we had managed not to achieve. It said, “Any public move towards a more allied relationship with Russia at present would severely undermine the strength of the international response to Salisbury.” It was this “we stand by our fake news” parting salvo that discredited the supposedly unbiased nature of the cross party, Intelligence and
Securities Committee’s long-overdue exposure of the unredacted portion of the content of the Russia Report.
Having watched the RT response to the report I thought it was remarkably balanced and well focused on the documented evidence or lack thereof in the report. If there was recourse to questionable sources Hawkins left us to investigate further ourselves with just a hint of justifiable cynicism to encourage us to do so. It was a refreshing change from the ‘evidence free’ assumptions fed to the public via the BBC, who blackmail us all into paying for their woefully corrupted version of ‘impartiality’ we now recognize as Tory propaganda! An RT Article challenges this most recent attack on their station and the underlying motivation for it in, “Free press? Labour letter demands RT UK’s license gets REVOKED in light of ‘damning’ Russia report that gave NO examples or proof.” They report, “We have this leaked letter, arguably proof that Sir Keir Starmer wishes to curb the free press and most notably attack an independent, so-called, media regulator, said Ashraf Rattansi, host of RT’s Going Underground, referring to the Labour leader.”
They report that, “We now have the words of… Starmer’s Shadow Department of Culture, Media, and Sports Secretary in a private letter sent to this independent regulator saying, almost telling her urgently, ‘I need to see you.’ To do what? To interfere with an independent regulator? Devastating.” They point out that, “Slamming the letter as an attempt to bully the media watchdog, Rattansi also noted the move may amount to a breach of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which codifies the “freedom to hold opinions without interference.” Rattansi Tweeted, “NEW: Reported letter from Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party arguably interfering with the role of a UK statutory independent media regulator. Is @UKLabour’s @JoStevensLabour breaching Article 19’s ‘right to freedom of expression’ of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?” A qualified, highly experience, prosecutor; Starmer really should know better; this and the abandonment of a case he was advised Labour would win, shows incompetence or malice.
RT could easily have pulled the Russia Report apart due to the numerous expansive assumptions or the credibility of their dubious sources, but they left inquiring minds to delve further into the validity of the accusations. In a 2018 Skwawkbox Article they exposed the focus of the Government funded ‘charitable’ work accomplished by the sarcastically named Integrity Initiative. Video footage of the news coverage on this when the story broke demonstrated the BBCs determination to look the other way as exemplified in the headline, “Video: as huge Integrity Initiative scandal breaks, BBC’s ‘coverage’ ices the cake.” They report that, “Social media is abuzz today with the confirmed news that the Tory government used public money to pay a company staffed by former military intelligence officers to conduct online smear campaigns against the leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, in what it laughably termed the ‘Integrity Initiative’.” This same politically motivated group supplied ‘evidence’ for the ISCs Russia Report.
The Skwawkbox rightly point out that, “It is a huge democratic and constitutional scandal – as well as confirmation of what Labour supporters have known all along: the Establishment is coordinating smears in desperation to undermine the Labour Party and its leader.” They emphasize that, “Such a scandal, in a genuinely democratic society with a genuinely free media, should be headline news – in fact, not merely headline news but the kind that makes governments fall and generates rolling coverage as the media’s talking heads and experts pore over every detail, cutting away occasionally for footage of the latest government minister being led away in handcuffs.” A segment of the news coverage on this otherwise rather uneventful day exposes the BBC covering for the Tories: “not a single word about the fact that the UK’s government misappropriated taxpayers’ money to pay former intelligence officers to conduct a clandestine operation against the leader of the UK’s main opposition party and likely next Prime Minister.”
In another Skwawkbox Article posted in March of 2019 entitled, “Fresh calls for investigation after Integrity Initiative apologises to Corbyn,” they reported that the, “Founder of Scotland-based ‘charity’ also admitted it broke charity law – and Foreign Office rules. The Integrity Initiative(II), the organisation that received £2 million of state funding yet had interfered in the affairs of other nations such as Spain and listed numerous ‘mainstream’ journalists as resources, has apologised to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for negative social media messages about him.” The II’s founder, the Institute for Statecraft (IFS) also admitted that II had broken charity laws and Foreign Office rules by its political output. Referring to tweets, Chris Donnelly, an honorary colonel in military intelligence, said: “we should not have sent [them] because the Foreign Office does not allow us to make any party political comment, nor does Scottish charity law.”
Skwawkbox report that, “The Scottish Sunday Mail, which first exposed II’s activities, commented last week on the number of ‘mainstream’ journalists acting as ‘outliers’ (presumably ‘outriders’) of the previously-opaque organisation and called for an urgent investigation – as did Scottish Labour MSP Neil Findlay, who said: This is a charity registered in Scotland and overseen by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, funded by UK Government contributions. It should never have been spewing out political attacks on the Labour Party and the Labour movement. Such clear political attacks shouldn’t be coming from any charity. We need to know why the Foreign Office has been funding it. This cannot be allowed to pass. We need a full inquiry into the actions of this organisation and its links to the Conservative Government.” Has this gross conflict of interest and clear political bias damaged the credibility of the Integrity Initiative? Apparently not or they would not contributing to the Russia Report.
From this it is logical to deduce that the architect of malign interference in the UK democratic process is a lot closer to home than Moscow! Ware and the ‘Poison Dartblowers’ who want to sue Corbyn for trying to clear his name have said they will drop the case if he is thrown out of the Labour Party. But they have already made their deal with Labour to extract blood money. Now Corbyn has a fighting fund of over £305,000 and it is up to Jeremy to call their bluff going to court to seek justice, set the record straight and prevent similar defamation scams in the future. This case could expose the corrupt smear campaign operated by the BBC using public licence fees to deliberately pervert politics in favour of the Tory Party. The propaganda from the Integrity Initiative was damning enough to bring down the corrupt Tory Government when it was first exposed; it cannot be ignored any longer. In Court the truth will provide the public pressure for a full investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election; we must rescue our democracy. DO NOT MOVE ON!