Subversiongate: who actually runs government?

Who actually runs government?

Short answer - mostly not the elected politicians.

Tony Blair's 1997 Junta especially perverted the system. Those who vote and pay taxes are way down the pecking order when troublemaking "lawyers" and uncivil servants blissfully ignore the Official Secrets Act with impunity, disobey orders from elected politicians and game the system...

 

03september23

A former senior civil servant -  Sue Gray - who was largely responsible for the partygate report that precipitated the exit of Boris Johnson - is announced as a key player in Keir Starmer's shadow reshuffle. 

This really ought to be regarded as incredible, but the fact that it is not is even more incredible... How can any  government minister trust any civil servant again if they are immune from any requirement for impartiality? 

This Guardian report will give the background, Quite astonishing.

update 27August23

The Daily Sceptic is a reliable source of stories that will raise your blood pressure concerning the denial of democracy and infiltration of government by agenda-driven idealogues.

 

Emma Haddad, former Home Office Director General for Asylum, has joined the human rights charity Amnesty International U.K. Haddad was previously viewed as a roadblock to the Government’s strict immigration policies – policies that Amnesty has openly criticised as “inhumane, racist and divisive”. The Telegraph has more.

 

Emma Haddad, who was the Home Office’s Director General for Asylum until October 2022, will help to oversee Amnesty International U.K., which has been campaigning against the Government’s attempts to halt Channel crossings and deport migrants to Rwanda.

Ms. Haddad’s appointment will intensify tensions between Conservative ministers and senior officials. A senior Tory said: “This demonstrates the extent of the institutional hurdles that we have been up against.”

One source described Ms. Haddad as “very difficult” and the “chief blocker” of ministers’ policies during her time at the Home Office. A Home Office source claimed that, during her time at the top of the department, the senior civil servant was “hostile” to the Government’s agenda on asylum, including a plan to move migrants out of taxpayer-funded hotel rooms and into large-scale accommodation.

The Home Office source said that Ms. Haddad also oversaw the introduction of “lenient” guidance in which asylum caseworkers were told they could not reject the testimony of a migrant caught lying.

Sources cited her move to Amnesty as evidence that Ms. Haddad was politically opposed to Conservative policies on asylum and immigration. 

Responding to the claims, Ms. Haddad said: “As with any civil servant, my job was to serve the government of the day. All civil servants must abide by the Civil Service code and uphold the Civil Service’s core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.”

The row came as a poll by Public First found that almost half of pro-Leave voters who backed the Conservatives in 2019 believe the Government is not trying hard enough to deal with asylum and immigration.

update 21 APR 2023

News of the subversion by rogue lawyers trying to game the system from Steven Barrett in the Spectator...

" There was a two day hearing involving a King’s Counsel and three other barristers for the Good Law Project, and another King’s Counsel and two more barristers for the government. That is an expensive two days. 

What did the Good Law Project  want? Well, they weren’t actually clear initially, so we’ll come back to that later. But it was all to do with the issue of ministers using private emails and private WhatsApp or other messaging services for government business. The GLP were determined to stop that. They failed. 

They failed, but in some ways, they won – because people who are making our society effectively ungovernable cried ‘shame’ at ministers anyway when the case was announced. No one waits to see what a court actually says these days before rushing to judgement. It’s much easier instead to accuse your enemy of breaking the rules or law and watch the mob burn them anyway.

We have lost perspective in society. A small gaggle of retired civil servants can go on the media and claim some technical breach of a rule nobody has ever heard of and get real people sacked. Our entire government can be swept away over a lawful slice of cake.  

But I stay in the law precisely because it’s the only place left the mob can’t get you. And the Court steadfastly refused in this case to start policing ministers and controlling how they carry out their business.

The argument used by the GLP in this case was confused. And it’s right to note that the judges were extremely angry that the case had been brought at all. Now, because I know judges, their anger is obvious to me, I hope it’s obvious to all. Here it is: 

‘The fact that a claimant is unable or unwilling to particularise the relief that they seek, may be an indication that the claim should not be pursued.’ 

This can be translated as, ‘the fact that you can’t even say what you want us to do about this thing you are pretending is really important is a good indication it isn’t important and you should not have wasted our time’. 

That’s because all sorts of things are technical breaches of law. We have a lot of law. A new law student will inevitably walk to the pub after class and suddenly see lots of crimes taking place. And what GLP focuses on isn’t even crime – they focus on lesser things called ‘civil wrongs’. You can probably guess that there are bucket loads more of them. 

A good example is the tort (civil wrong) of trespass. If your neighbour trespasses on your drive once – and just once – do not try to sue him. Because yes it’s technically a civil wrong – but no the judge will not be happy and all you’ll get is shouted at and a big legal bill. 

Indeed, on the second day of the GLP hearing, when they had finally made up their mind, the GLP asked the Court to effectively turn government ‘policy’ and ‘guidance’ on communications into law. This strikes at the foundation of who makes law. Previous courts have made concessions on this in the past, and said that some policies are binding on the government. But this time the Court was clear that office policies on WhatsApp – that doesn’t deal with the way ministers interact with the public – is definitely not law.  

The Court also confirmed very clearly that guidance in general is not law.

We used to have laws that stopped this type of campaigning lawfare, such as the torts of Champerty and Maintenance and the tort of Barratry. The modern tool to end this kind of GLP campaigning might be the law of Standing, which asks that a party involved in a case is actually harmed by the law they are challenging. But this is only important if you want to stop GLP. 

What matters for now is that ministers can, of course, carry on using WhatsApp. They can carry on using personal emails (subject to security concerns, leaking etc, etc). Our laws are made flabby so that they catch everything. That system requires something called common sense for it to work. And for common sense to work, it has to be common. So the next time you hear someone crying ‘shame’ about some technical error you’ve never heard of, you have a role to play – join the mob or resist it.

But we need to know who is paying for this vexatious behaviour - every penny in the hands of the GLP should be traced - and its source listed. Remember Bezmenov!

December 8th 2022: Clive Thompson spells out the reset of fiat money with CBDC

A retired wealth manager gives very interesting reviews of how a national currency reset might work as a way to tackle inflation and the impossibly high deficits piled up across the global banking system now climbing interest rates are changing the game. Remember LVs? Clive does...

Earlier...
June 2022...

The "globalized" world that has evolved since the 1980s has produced many companies with the financial might of nation states, and no end of unelected organizations, oligarchs and billionaire plutocrats. Some of whom - like George Soros and indeed the European Union - have quite openly promoted global agendas to interfere in the democratic process and diminish nation states. Check out the World Economic Forum and its Marxist "own nothing and be happy" agenda.

Russell Brand explained back in 2021... (if you had not already found out - RB has morphed from wild man to an engaging commentator, with a fast-growing global following. Yes, interesting times!)

 

So how does the WEF plan to take over? Take a look at  this video by Liz Wheeler where she discusses how WEF elitists led by Klaus Schwab wants to replace capitalism. You will realize a lot of the necessary impositions are already in place and ready to go. Covid did all teh groundwork in many countries to establish online central identity; next stop all money controlled by CBDC.

 

 

The question of the legitimacy of the 2020 US presidential election continues to fester, and the accusations of Russian interference and inconsistencies around postal voting have not gone away.  Biden's bumbling and awkward performances range from embarrassing to incomprehensible, but the media that supported his candidacy and lined up against Trump are not rushing to reconsider their allegiance.

 

The dystopian imagery is all too obvious. But the UK's "righteous left" has spent 20 frustrating years without finding its way to power through the ballot box; and simple subversion is seen a fast track option to take control of a national political agenda without the annoying inconvenience of the democratic process. In 2022, the UK and USA are currently up to their ears in subversive influencers looking to incite regime change by fomenting some form of protest and/or insurrection. 

 

The UK is currently sinking under a pile of strike threats from various privileged interest groups ranging from train drivers to barristers and doctors. One of these privileges generally being the opportunity to "stick up" the country and cause disruption and inconvenience unless the government accedes to their wishes.

Those involved all seem to have a common theme of a pathological hatred of Boris Johnson and his government. These are fed by the Twitter swarms that are at ease with the use of any profanity in their assaults on politicians as they strut and parade their pseudo passion and bluster for the benefit of impressing their echo chamber followers.

Applying a little objectivity, it seems fair to remind the nation that we have only just emerged from the blind panic of a disease that might - for all we knew at the time - kill millions and certainly break the NHS by the overload - with unknown consequences. The nation gave credit to Boris for managing to keep just ahead of the worst case.

Many were understandably suspicious of the origins in Wuhan, where the Chinese have a biological warfare facility, and the consequent cover-ups resulting from suspicious coincidences and the equivocation by the apparent take-over of the World Health Organization by Chinese interests.

But we were in a state of siege, and we accepted that extraordinary times and circumstances required extraordinary responses.  Did we have a choice at that time? Covid involved throwing an improbably vast amount of ("quantitatively eased") money at everything from face masks to paying people to stay locked down at home. LOTS of money. Sane commentators warned that this would have the traditional economic consequences and lead to inflation. No one was really paying attention.

The pandemic also provided the basis for installing a government controlled surveillance society with apps and certificates. It was even called "track and trace" - talk about in plain sight! And this was accepted with minimal objection. Anyone questioning the wisdom of this policy was singled out as a callous potential granny murderer, and all round "anti-social". They were readily  castigated and muzzled by government's new best Big Brother friends with their control of the "community standards" of social media.

 

It has always been in the nature of the righteous to be able to justify (to themselves) almost any means to achieve what they believe to be a righteous end. The examples are all around - overreaction to the imagined threats arising from the unproven (really it is, don't hate me- just be scientific) global warming hypothesis has cost us all a fortune, and put Russia in control of Western economies and is about to trigger a serious global recession and food shortage.

One takeaway from the Sunak "wifegate" affair was that yet again an out of control civil service colludes with the rabid media, using unlawful access to confidential information to make determined mischief. These unlawful intrusions into communication and security video are only possible with tacit support from our woefully biased judiciary, whose objectivity deficit was exposed during the Bercow Brexit rebellion. Sanctimonious remainers have always been willing and able to believe that the holy Grail of EU membership justified any means and compromise of principle - and law...

Anything that can be used to undermine the job of government to hasten the demise of Boris is being eagerly and relentlessly whipped up into a feeding frenzy, especially by the BJ haters of certain "mainstream" TV news services. Mainstream media commentators eagerly try to marginalize the one outlier in the competition to be the most woke finger-waggers, so GBNews (and now TalkTV) gets parked in the far right corner at every opportunity using any scornful pejoratives they can muster, especially the unforgivable sin of not observing the same enlightened liberal agenda that has created the predictable, dull and anodyne TV news industry serving the globalist wokocracy in the UK.

The absence of anything of interest to those who do not share the censorious left wing outlook of the mainstream media has encouraged the creation of a number of independent online news channels and commentators that have been driven off YouTube and Facebook by "community standards", if they dare to question the promoted narratives around pandemics, US elections, climate change and avoid mentioning inconvenient truths emerging around uncomfortable ethnic and religious behaviour.

The media appears to be completely unbothered by the use of unlawfully obtained information, and tells all politicians that any and all aspects of their lives are to be considered fair game and in the public domain. Howsoever obtained.

The stench of hypocrisy is strong with this industry, but apparently all is fair in love, war and journalism, so it is now hardly surprising that politics is struggling to attract good people willing to put their heads above the parapet. Only inconsequential people with little or nothing to lose need apply.

The curious hybrids of radio and online - LBC, Times Radio, Talk Radio, and now TalkTV, seem to go round in circles. Broadcast TV news is being sliced and diced for online soundbites and lost in the balkanization of media and "device" options and standards. Murdoch's News UK has been fumbling about trying to work out the way ahead, and after years of indecision, has now stepped out with TalkTV on Freeview channel 237 from April 25th 2022.

Meanwhile...

How many times has NewsScape warned of the toxic and subversive alliance that seems determined to fill the UK's present "opposition void" with dirty tricks? 

When the BBC refers to BJ's swipe at Starmer over the missed opportunity for a Savile prosecution - indisputably missed on Starmer's DPP watch - they carefully emphasize "Boris Johnson's FALSE accusation..." 

The variable standards of the BBC were nicely illustrated by the Beijing Olympics ceremony - and the reading of the Olympic Oath by Chinese Olympic officials, talking about respect, inclusion, solidarity, inclusivity and discrimination.

So here's a tough call for BBC... should they kowtow to China and turn a blind eye to awkwardly well-known abuses of human rights, and the unilateral dismissal of the Hong Kong "agreement"? Should the BBC meekly allow China to parade its highly polished PR on our screens, using technology that was almost certainly originally seeded using "borrowed" tech that was acquired in the days when they couldn't afford to just buy up the entire world's ideas and resources using ill-gotten gains? 

 

So it seems that what passes for the BBC's adaptable notion of morality comes with pragmatism and without moral judgement - as long as there is no accommodation of the corporation's right wing bogeys..? News of China's funding for Labour Party MPs has been quietly forgotten for now. The focus is on Russian oligarch influencers and the government.

If the Johnson scalp eventually ends up in Laura Kuenssberg's trophy cabinet, that will of course not be the end of the assault, but merely encouragement to drive harder at the liberal elite/BBC agenda that plainly still holds out hope that the UK will rejoin the EU. There are many Islingtonian media folk with  holiday homes in the EU.

This latest news of social engineering at that BBCconcerning gender identity is just another example of the hopelessness of the DCMS and Ofcom to regulate the BBC...

It is alarming to realise just how deep the subversion has been allowed to penetrate.

 

And now we have Home Office uncivil servants, already with a history of defying their job description, trying to undermine the policy of elected politicians, are threatening walkouts. They threatened to refuse to implement the government policy of moving asylum seekers ushered across the channel in rubber boats by compliant French "authorities" to Rwanda for processing. But not to worry, their end was achieved by other means thanks to the fellow travellers of the liberal elite- as it usually is.

The tempting option is to move a section of the Home Office from Whitehall to Rwanda.

Who'd be an elected politician?

 

WORK IN PROGRESS!