Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019

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

Kim Sanders-Fisher

As with all serious crimes, to find the motivation it’s best to “follow the money” and with Covid 19 disproportionatly taking the heaviest toll on the elderly, the Tory Governments “let it rip” strategy to ‘Slaughter the Sheeple’ clarifies their shambolic approach to the Pandemic. On the Website PensionsAge they reveal that, “State pension payments to fall by £600m in 2020/21 amid Covid-19.” Jack Gray reveals that the, “Total state pension payments are expected to decrease by £600m in 2020/21 due to excess deaths caused by Covid-19, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). In its Economic and fiscal outlooks report, the OBR stated this was a £500m increase on the estimate in its July Fiscal sustainability report (FSR). ‘We assume that two-thirds of this year’s excess pensioner deaths are brought forward from within the next five years and the remainder from beyond the forecast horizon, informed by analysis published by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research’, the report stated.”

Gray notes that, “Public service pension payments are expected to be £1.3bn lower in 2020/21 than estimated in its FSR central scenario before accounting for the effect of government decisions, largely due to an increase in contributions from a larger NHS pensionable paybill in response to the pandemic. The OBR stated that the cost of this in terms of higher future pension costs will be felt beyond the forecast horizon. The government’s income from annual and taper allowances will decrease by an average of £100m (14 per cent) a year, from 2022/23 onwards, to reflect lower CPI inflation and earnings forecasts, according to the OBR. Furthermore, it revealed that the Treasury was planning a consultation response and policy decision on the McCloud ruling in the new year, with the government’s latest estimate for the increase in public service pension liabilities being £17bn.”

Although Gray says, “The government also confirmed its commitment to the state pension triple lock, with the OBR assuming a 4.1 per cent uprating in April 2022, in line with earnings growth;” we can probably count on the Tories ditching that manifesto pledge. The callous disregard for the elderly who have died in unnecessarily large numbers due to avoidable catastrophic policy blunders, and lack of PPE supplies, shows that the Tories no longer feel the need to protect this important pro Tory voting demographic. If you are wondering why, just look at the huge amount of money the ‘Holocaust in Care’ will save the Government in terms of pension payments, let alone the costly burden of care and NHS funds. But the Tory Party isn’t pivoting to a new demographic of working people in the North of England in those Red Wall seats they falsely claim ‘lent’ the Tories their votes in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and they certainly aren’t counting on winning over the younger generation: votes are unnecessary for a Tory Dictatorship!

The Canary Article Entitled, “The government will face court over PPE contracts after claims that £4bn is unaccounted for,” brings us up to date on “The Good Law Project is pursuing seven cases against various government departments. As part of our #FollowTheMoney series, The Canary can confirm that permission has been granted by the High Court to pursue a judicial review against the UK government over its allocation of coronavirus (Covid-19) contracts. The Good Law Project has filed and been granted permission for several cases against the minister for the cabinet office, the health secretary, as well as private companies which were awarded PPE contracts. These contracts have not been published or disclosed, which is a requirement under UK law. The legal case, called The Fight for Transparency has been granted permission on some of its grounds with an initial hearing held on 3 December.”

The Canary report that, “The Good Law Project has welcomed the decision: Last week we learned the Court has given Good Law Project and EveryDoctor permission to bring our challenge against its decision to award contracts to Pestfix, Ayanda, and Clandeboye. The Court gave us permission on some – but not all – of our grounds of complaint. So we have asked the Court for a short oral hearing in which we will make the case to be given permission on the others. That hearing will take place this Thursday 3rd December. The hearing was a partial victory, with permission granted to add another complaint to two of the cases. The Canary’s recently reported that around £700m had been given out in undisclosed contracts. Companies awarded PPE contacts include: a US jewellery brand, an offshore property trading company, a pest control business, and a company specialising in confectionery. Everything one looks for in PPE.”

The Canary list the highly suspicious contracts, “The contracts in question are:
• £250m PPE contract to Saiger – owned by Micheal Saiger but branded as Miansai, a US Jewellery company.
• £252m PPE contract to Ayanda Capital Limited – a currency trading company specialising in offshore property – contract not published.
• £108m PPE contract to Clandeboye Agencies Limited – a confectionary company – contract published.
• £32m PPE contract to Crisp Websites Limited (t/a Pestfix)- specialising in pest control products – contract not published.
• 10 more contracts awarded to Pestfix – contracts not published.
• £930,000 artificial intelligence contract to Faculty Science Limited – contracts not published.
• £840,000 public research to Public First Limited – contract not published.
• £56m to consultancy firms which are undisclosed and contracts unpublished.”

The Canary highlight that, “However, The Good Law Project claims that the true figures could be much higher. The Good Law Project claims, as part of the Fight for Transparency case, that £4bn has been unaccounted for. Despite Government’s attempt to argue that we had no standing to bring the claim, the Judge agreed there is an important public interest in securing that Government abides by the law and its own public procurement policy. Government is required by law to publish contract details within 30 days of the award. But, the average length of time taken to publish COVID-19 contracts now stands at a remarkable 78 days, with over £4billion worth of contracts totally unaccounted for.”

The Canary describe, “Waiting for justice” saying that, “The Fight for Transparency case is backed by a cross-party group of MPs including ‘Caroline Lucas (Green), Debbie Abrahams (Labour), and Layla Moran (LibDem)’. However, the full case will not be heard until later in 2021. But it’s not the only case progressing through the courts. The Good Law project stated: A few days later we heard we’ve also been granted permission to bring our challenge against the lucrative public affairs contract given to long-time associates of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings at Public First. In the Government’s summary grounds of defence, they do not even bother to argue that their decision to award the contract without competition was lawful. ‘They are keeping their powder dry’.”

According to the Canary, “legal experts claim that the response isn’t surprising, especially as they were issued under judicial proceedings. Stephensons Solicitors partner and head of civil liberties & public law Mike Pemberton explained: The fact that they’ve not specified that they acted within the law is not surprising- generally a defence would seldom say ‘we acted within the law’ it would be more likely to say ‘we’ve not acted unlawfully’. In regards to the content of the summary grounds of defence, it seems they are keeping their powder dry- it’s like a holding statement. The summary isn’t surprising- on the basis they wanted a rolled up hearing, but reading the permission decision and from years of legal experience, it seems that the approach has not entirely found favour with the Judge.”

There is yet more scrutiny in line for this scrutiny averse Tory Government as the Canary warn that, “Another case filed: This one’s against Operation Moonshot. The Good Law Project has also filed judicial proceedings in a case about Operation Moonshot, the governments mass testing scheme: For weeks now the Government has refused to provide answers to simple questions around the programme for rapid turnaround testing, but its own documents reveal that work is already underway and that the programme could cost £100billion or more. The Good Law Project has various concerns, including that the government didn’t ask for consent from parliament for the project: Despite the potentially enormous commitment of public funds, the Government will not disclose any information about what contracts they have already entered into.”

The Cannary say that, “Our challenge is to the way in which they chose some rather odd counterparties – a familiar narrative to those of you who have been following the PPE scandal – and their failure to consult their own expert body, the National Screen Committee. We also have profound concerns that consent was never sought from Parliament for this absolutely mindblowing spend. If the Operation Moonshot case is successful in gaining permission, it will be another groundbreaking step for The Good Law Project in their pursuit to hold government departments to account amidst the coronavirus pandemic. More information about The Good Law Project’s ongoing cases, along with updates;” these can be found on their site. The Canary urge you to “Get involved: You can stay up to date with this series by bookmarking our #FactOfTheMatter, or find our latest investigations.”

In the Canary Article entitled, “Leaked testimony shows MPs knew the names of peers implicated in money laundering for years,” they expose more Government corruption. They Canary say, “Leaked testimony by Bill Browder, an expert in money-laundering investigations, to a 2016 Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) shines a light on alleged criminality by British peers and their companies. Two years later, Browder provided similar testimony to the Intelligence & Security Committee (ISC) for its report on Russia. The ISC report was eventually published in July 2020, but excluded the peers and companies that Browder named. Why does this matter? Because what’s apparent is that certain MPs have known about these allegations for years. Specifically, they have known the names of those peers and UK businesses Browder claims assisted individuals in alleged money laundering operations.”

The Canary report on, “Browder’s campaign for justice” first identifying his connection to the case. “So who is Bill Browder? Browder is CEO of Hermitage Capital Management and also heads the Global Magnitsky Justice (GMJ) campaign. The GMJ campaigns for ‘visa sanctions and asset freezes’ against those allegedly involved in the arrest, torture, and death of Russian tax lawyer and auditor Sergei Magnitsky, as well as ‘other gross human rights abusers’. Magnitsky accused senior Russian interior ministry officials of the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars. However, it wasn’t the interior ministry officials who ended up being arrested but Magnitsky himself. He was imprisoned and allegedly tortured. His health completely broke down while in prison, where he died in 2009, a year after his arrest. In 2017, the UK parliament passed a sanctions and anti-money laundering bill that included a ‘Magnitsky amendment’. This followed the 2012 ‘Magnitsky Act‘ in the US.”

The Canary report that, “The UK act provides for the seizure of assets of individuals believed to be responsible for human rights violations. Browder wants ‘top Putin oligarchs’ who are guilty of such human rights violations to be targeted. 25 Russians were targeted by the amendment in 2020. But as the Guardian reported: It is not clear what – if any – assets the sanctioned Russians have in the UK. With the exception of Bastrykin, most are mid-ranking government officials.” The Canary highlight, “Browder’s unpublished 2016 testimony” saying, “Browder’s confidential testimony (redacted by The Canary) to the HASC began: ‘This submission provides examples showing that Russians connected to the US$230 million fraud uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky have recently paid significant amounts of money to resist Western sanctions. Browder says they did this “using companies connected to UK politicians, past and present members of the UK Parliament and the UK Government’.”

According to the Canary, “He elaborated: They have done so through hiring several advisory firms [names redacted] with connection to members of the House of Lords, House of Commons and HMG, including personally [name redacted]. These firms agreed to work for Andrey Pavlov, member of the Russian criminal organisation responsible for the US$230 million fraud, and/or Denis Katsyv, son of the Russian government official, who is alleged to have laundered its proceeds: the ‘proceeds of crime’. Browder also asked, ‘What is the outcome of the engagement by Andrey Pavlov and Denis Katsyv of UK firms?’. His reply to his own question was: ‘These UK-based commercial organisations have derived financial benefit from alleged Russian criminals, and have potentially received proceeds of crime as remuneration for their advisory services’.”

The Canary say, “He added how the UK commercial firms referred to are able to influence whether or not legal proceedings are instigated. Indeed, Browder argues that there is a ‘conflict of interest’ by those firms. Browder ended his testimony with a series of recommendations to the HASC, including that ‘members of the House of Lords should be asked to explain the work of commercial advisory firms with which they have been personally associated’.” The Canary noted Responses’ saying that, “The Guardian invited responses from firms named in Browder’s ISC testimony (which were also named in the HASC testimony). Debevoise & Plimpton replied: Everyone is entitled to legal representation. Debevoise provides legal representation consistent with the profession’s best traditions of integrity and probity. We will continue fearlessly to defend the interests of all our clients.”

They say, “The Guardian summarised CTF’s response (CTF initialises the surnames of Lynton Crosby, Mark Textor, and Mark Fullbrook): [CTF] says [Peter] Goldsmith’s law firm hired a separate entity, CTF Corporate & Financial Communications (CTFCFC), to ‘research the EU sanctions landscape’. CTFCFC advised the law firm and there was no contact with Pavlov. ‘This was the extent of our involvement and to try and claim otherwise would be utterly false,’ it said. According to Companies House records, Crosby is a CTFCFC director. The Guardian added: There is no suggestion Crosby personally worked on or was aware of the work on EU sanctions carried out by CTFCFC until it appeared in the media.”

The Canary report that, “Separately, it should be noted that in December 2018, CTF Partners – Crosby’s “polling and market research” firm – gave Boris Johnson an interest-free loan of £20,000 which was declared and repaid and a further £3,000 donation. It’s also claimed that CTF staff ran pro-Brexit advertising via the invented group ‘Mainstream Network’, which spent £250,000 on such advertising, estimated to have reached more than 10 million voters.” They state that this is, “A matter of public interest. Browder’s 2018 ISC testimony also referred to a 2012 investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. It ‘identified’ 8,986 companies in the UK alone that were registered by just 28 individuals. Browder added that those companies ‘did not conduct genuine business activities and likely provided false filings to the UK’s Companies Houses over a number of years’. Indeed, George Monbiot wrote that the UK now ‘appears to be the money-laundering capital of the world’.”

The Canary say that, “In his ISC testimony, Browder expressed his frustration concerning the slow response by UK bodies into allegations he raised in 2016 about money laundering and criminality. He added how he was concerned: that this lack of consequences and the ease with which they managed to infiltrate the UK financial and corporate registration systems have created the sentiment of impunity and emboldened Russian crime groups and state interests in the last decade. Several years later, and it seems little has changed. It’s also a warning that’s still relevant, given allegations that Russia-related oligarchs donated significant sums of money to the Conservative Party, Tory MPs and their constituencies.” They warn, “given that an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin donated millions of pounds to the husband of major Tory donor Lubov Chernukhin. This is a scandal that should threaten the very core of Britain’s establishment.”

No wonder the Tory Government were so reluctant to release the infamous ‘Russian Report’ ahead of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election! This reckless Toray cabal are wallowing in corruption from the shedload of public money they are squandering to the source of their election campaign funding. We should not forget that “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” which inevitably means that the Tories have chalked up some serious Kompromat. Let’s not forget the public money that was illegally used to pay the fake Charity, ‘Integrity Initiative’ to generate defamatory material used to smear the official opposition Labour Party primarily targeting Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. In a properly functioning democracy that alone would be sufficient corruption to jail those responsible and delegitimize the election result even without the highly suspicious results warranting extensive Investigation. On several counts this Tory Government has no legal right to be in office hemorrhaging public money while putting so many lives at risk! DO NOT MOVE ON!