The Enemy Within

 

Yesterday a clip was widely circulated on social media to frame a narrative of Boris Johnson being snubbed at the NATO summit.

Certain sections of the media and various "celebrities", with an axe to grind against the Tories/Boris, chose to use it to frame their own political narrative.

The list of shame includes, but was not limited to:

- The Independent

- The BBC

- Channel 4 News

- The Mirror

- Nigel Farage

- Deborah Meaden etc

Danny Baker, to his credit, realised he had been duped and apologised:

'We can't just bend the news to suit our views' Danny Baker (who withdrew the edited video)

— Sir Trapper 🇬🇧 🇺🇦 (@ArtsTrapper) March 25, 2022

Here is the reality 

President Biden Meets With NATO Allies In Brussels https://t.co/DeAEiJw9s4 pic.twitter.com/lYIQqJqIhh

— Forbes (@Forbes) March 24, 2022

The media do themselves and the country no favours by deliberately misleading people in this way, especially when we are on the verge of war with Russia.

Beware The Gung-ho Media Calls For a No Fly Zone

 

The media have had a jolly old time over the last couple of years what with:

- scaremongering over Covid, 

- instigating shortages (eg of toilet rolls, petrol, etc), 

- exaggerating lorry driver queues/shortages, 

- conducting a vendetta against Boris over alleged drinks/cakes etc.

Now they have the Ukraine situation to really get their teeth into, and top of their list is their demand for a "no fly" zone.

Here is why they are deluded and wrong:

1 A "no fly" zone would put NATO on a war footing with a  nuclear armed superpower.

2 A "no fly" zone would mean that no combat aircraft whatsoever could fly in the zone apart from NATO, that would mean no Ukrainian fighters in the air. Which would give Russia the advantage on the land, as the Ukrainians wouldn't be able to bomb the Russian land forces.

Even Sultana realises it's stupid and dangerous!!

For the first time ever, I find myself in agreement with her. May God have mercy on my soul! https://t.co/zAx2sGm46X

— Ken Frost (@ken_frost) March 2, 2022

Question for The Media - When is a Liar Not a Liar?

 

Dear Media:

Question: When is a liar not a liar?

Answer: When he tells you what you want to hear.

Whilst you are obsessing and reporting on every utterance from an embittered ex employee you might want to turn your attention to other matters, eg the imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine and Beijing Barry's £500K bung that Starmer says isn't important.

The Rank Hypocrisy of The Media

 

Just a gentle reminder that despite the media faux outrage of #PartyGate, there are a number of things that the media aren't telling you (or reminding you of) including, but not limited to, the following:

1 Many in the media, carping about #PartyGate, have happily broken the rules (Kay Burley and Beth Rigby spring to mind).

2 Senior media people were at some of these parties.

3 Keir Starmer had drinks in Durham with colleagues around the same time as #PartyGate.

4 ITV (ie Peston) sat on the #PartyGate video for several weeks (Peston is a chum of Allegra).

5 The Sun had a piss up for its staff around the same time as #PartyGate.

Therefore take the media onslaught against Boris with a pinch of salt, they have skeletons in their closets too!

There Be Idiots in Number 10

The worrying, ludicrous thing about Theresa May’s reply to Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit plan is that it’s been given a “strict” embargo of 10.30 tonight - so it was given out to media this afternoon on the understanding we can’t publish it until 10.30pm.

— Michael Crick (@MichaelLCrick) February 10, 2019

All News About Corbyn Is Now Fake

@paullewismoney nobody ever said there would be any whip. Times fabricated "order" and guardian fabricated "three-line whip" headlines.

— Mungo (@Mungo_5) January 20, 2017

Seemingly, even the Guardian can't be trusted....what is the world coming too??

Corbyn Asks For Police Help

WATCH: This is what happened when I tried to ask #Corbyn about shadow cabinet. He accuses me of "bothering" him. pic.twitter.com/uyqQdwXYu3

— Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) September 14, 2015

I wonder if he understands that this is part of the job?

Advice To David Cameron - Love Is A Many Splendoured Thing

When texting your chums in News International in the future, please do remember that "LOL" means "Laugh Out Loud" not "Lots of Love".

Murdoch Not a Fit Person To Exercise The Stewardship of a Major International Company

Those politicians who have cosied up to media moguls in the past may care to read the report issued today by The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee entitled "News International and Phone-hacking Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12".

The conclusion is damning, and will affect Murdoch's business in the USA:

"On the basis of the facts and evidence before the Committee, we conclude that, if at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications.

This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International. We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company. "

The report includes in detail:

"This report concentrates on the issue of whether witnesses have previously misled a select committee of the House of Commons. We have deliberately refrained from drawing conclusions about the evidence of any individual who has been arrested as we do not wish to risk prejudicing any future criminal trial. The Committee intend to produce a supplementary report when all criminal proceedings are finished.

275. As to the veracity of the evidence the Committee has received, we are able to draw the following conclusions about certain of the witnesses, and about News International corporately:

• Les Hinton misled the Committee in 2009 in not telling the truth about payments to Clive Goodman and his role in authorising them, including the payment of his legal fee. He also misled the Committee about the extent of his knowledge of allegations that phone-hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire to others at the News of the World (see paragraphs 84, 85 and 91).
• Tom Crone misled the Committee in 2009 by giving a counter-impression of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement (see paragraph 118) and sought to mislead the Committee about the commissioning of surveillance.
• Tom Crone and Colin Myler misled the Committee by answering questions falsely about their knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing (see paragraphs 130 and 140).
• Corporately, the News of the World and News International misled the Committee about the true nature and extent of the internal investigations they professed to have carried out in relation to phone hacking; by making statements they would have known were not fully truthful; and by failing to disclose documents which would have helped expose the truth. Their instinct throughout, until it was too late, was to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators, as they also professed they would do after the criminal convictions. In failing to investigate properly, and by ignoring evidence of widespread wrongdoing, News International and its parent News Corporation exhibited wilful blindness, for which the companies’ directors—including Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch—should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility (see paragraphs 32, 33, 60, 62, 132 and 141).

276. The effect of these actions and omissions is that the Committee’s Report to the House in February 2010 on Press standards, privacy and libel was not based on fully accurate evidence. False evidence, indeed, prevented the Committee from exposing the true extent of phone-hacking.

277. Rupert Murdoch's final admission at the Leveson inquiry that a cover up has taken place at the company may mean that the investigations conducted by Burton Copeland have been used by people at News International to perpetrate a falsehood. As such we believe there is a strong argument that the company has no right to restrain disclosure of the file. We call on the company to waive legal privilege, so that the Burton Copeland advice and investigations can be published and submitted to the Leveson inquiry.

278. While our select committee may have been constrained in some of its lines of inquiry or in the witnesses we chose to summon, nevertheless our committee has been able to uncover key information thanks to parliamentary privilege. It should be acknowledged that some vital information has only been revealed due to the powers of Parliament, that would not have been able to be produced for the Leveson inquiry or other ongoing civil litigation. 

Indeed, as a result of our questioning, important changes to financial governance at News International have been made. Hindsight is a wonderful tutor, though News International will regret that they did not use our predecessor committee’s 2010 report to undertake a thorough investigation of the wrongdoings within their business.

279. The integrity and effectiveness of the Select Committee system relies on the truthfulness and completeness of the oral and written evidence submitted. The behaviour of News International and certain witnesses in this affair demonstrated contempt for that system in the most blatant fashion. Important lessons need to be learned accordingly and we draw our Report to the attention of the Liaison Committeewhich is considering possible reforms to Select Committees.

280. We note that it is for the House to decide whether a contempt has been committed and, if so, what punishment should be imposed. We note that it makes no difference—in terms of misleading this Committee—that evidence was not taken on oath. Witnesses are required to tell the truth to committees whether on oath or not. We willtable a motion inviting the House to endorse our conclusions about misleading evidence.

If In Doubt, Say Nothing

Oh dear, it seems that Hunt's Permanent Secretary is not publicly backing Hunt's version of events wrt Adam Smith's interactions with Murdoch.

"Five times in the House of Commons yesterday the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told MPs that the Permanent Secretary (the most senior civil servant) at his Department approved the arrangements for the dealings with the Murdochs over their planned takeover of BSkyB.

Twelve times in the Public Accounts Committee this morning , the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport himself refuses to answer questions about whether he DID approve those arrangements - namely that Adam Smith, Mr Hunt's special adviser who resigned yesterday, could liaise with News International."

Adam Smith's Resignation and The Invisible Hand

Politicians can be rather a loathsome bunch of individuals. Aside from breaking election promises and habitually lying to the voters, they treat each other with contempt (especially when they try to save their own skins).

Such is the treatment meted out to Adam Smith, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt's special adviser, who has been forced to quit in order to try to save Hunt's skin.

For why has he been forced out?

The enormous row (that is growing in strength and ferocity) over contact between Hunt's office and News Corporation re the BSkyB bid. Emails released on Tuesday showed that Adam Smith had been in contact with the company about its takeover bid.

Smith therefore has been sacrificed, in the hope that Hunt won't need to be.

It is of course ironic, and very instructive (as to how politicians stab each other in the back), to see that last night Number 10 insisted that Smith would not go.

Doubtless Number 10 will blame Smith's departure on an "invisible hand", but we know better don 't we children?

Here is Smith's "resignation" statement issued (and I assume written) on his behalf:

"While it was part of my role to keep News Corporation informed throughout the BskyB bid process, the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State. 

I do not recognise all of what Fred Michel said, but nonetheless I appreciate that my activities at times went too far and have, taken together, created the perception that News Corporation had too close a relationship with the department, contrary to the clear requirements set out by Jeremy Hunt and the permanent secretary that this needed to be a fair and scrupulous process. 

Whilst I firmly believe that the process was in fact conducted scrupulously fairly, as a result of my activities it is only right for me to step down as special adviser to Jeremy Hunt."

The Guardian - Hypocritical Gobshites!

As I have stated before, it's not just the politicians who are hypocrites but also the media who feed off them.

Step forward the bastion of the "moral left" the Guardian, which yesterday published an article about the finances of David Cameron's family under the attention grabbing headline "Cameron Family Fortune Made in Tax Havens".

I will allow one of my ICAEW chums, Christie Malry, to explain why this story is bollocks:

"Ooh, have we caught the Cameron family doing something naughty?

David Cameron's father ran a network of offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune that paid for the prime minister's inheritance, the Guardian can reveal.
Though entirely legal, the funds were set up in tax havens such as Panama City and Geneva, and explicitly boasted of their ability to remain outside UK tax jurisdiction.

Er, no (emphasis added):

The structure employed by Cameron senior is now commonplace among modern hedge funds, which argue that offshore status can help attract international investors. UK residents would ordinarily have to pay tax on any profits they repatriated, and there is nothing to suggest the Camerons did not.

So they've put a bunch of money into a place where it's not subject to UK tax. They'll be subject to UK tax whenever they bring any money back to the UK and there's no evidence or allegation that they haven't complied with their tax obligations at all.

This isn't tax avoidance, because not even the mighty brains at The Guardian seem to be able to articulate precisely what taxes have been avoided."

Well said Christie!

Now there is of course another point to be made about the Guardian's hissy fit over tax avoidance (even though their story states clearly that there is no avoidance in this particular case), what of the Guardian's own dealing with HMRC and it's use of Auto Trader as a possible "vehicle" (pardon the pun) for tax avoidance?

Here I will refer you to Tim Worstall:

"There’s a reorganisation from the Scott Trust to the Scott Trust Limited in 2008.

2008 is also when that 50% sale of Autotrader went through, leading to the £300 million profit which was not taxed: quite righteously not taxed because it was a subsidiary of Scott Trust Limited and the sale of a subsidiary of a limited company is not, under the SSE rules, subject to corporation tax (technically, a chargeable gain).

The question is: if the Scott Trust had not reorganised into the Scott Trust Limited, would some form of tax have been due on that £300 million?

That is, did the reorganisation alleviate some of the tax bill on that capital/chargeable gain?"

Oh, and by the way, don't forget that the Guardian Media Group set up a Cayman Islands company to minimise its own tax liability.

I think the phrase hypocritical gobshites springs to mind here!

The Tears of a Clown

The Evening Standard reports that Ken Livingstone burst into tears at the sight of his own election broadcast.

A rare event, the last time Ken cried was when he was apologising for the slave trade.

Beware politicians who blub for the camera!

Still, the good news for Ed Miliband is that this made him look competent and in control.

Georgie Porgie Is "Shocked"

The government, for reasons best known to itself, has decided to play up to people's prejudices  and encourage media hysteria over the tax affairs of people classified as "rich".

This is rather odd, given that Cameron, Georgie Porgie (Chancellor of the Exchequer) and their associates are not exactly short of a few bob themselves. Anyhoo, wee Georgie has today expressed shock at the fact that some "rich" people organise their tax affairs in a manner so as to reduce their tax burden.

Osborne told The Daily Telegraph:

“I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right. 

I’m talking about people right at the top. I’m talking about people with incomes of many millions of pounds a year. The general principle is that people should pay income tax and that includes people with the highest incomes.

I’m not allowed to be shown the names of the individuals but I’ve sat with the most senior people at the Inland Revenue, the people who run some of the high net worth units there. They have given me examples, anonymised examples, and so we are taking action."

Georgie claims that he was shown anonymised tax returns of "rich" individuals who were paying a tax rate of "only" 10% or less on their income.

Well Georgie someone was having a laugh with you, the tax returns were yours!

All "joking" aside, as Chancellor how is that this is only now "news" to Osborne??

Whipping up the media into a fire storm of hysteria over this may serve a short term political goal. However, it will come back to bite the Tories on their arses:

1 Tax avoidance is legal

2 George, his friends and the boards on which they sit use the services of accountants, trust funds, schemes etc etc to reduce their tax bills.

Hypocritcal Gobshites

It is not just politicians who are prone to double standards and hypocrisy, but also those who feed off politics; ie the media.

The Mirror is foaming at the mouth over the income of Boris Johnson (he, Ken Leninspart and the Liberal candidate have published their tax returns as part of the contest to be London Mayor).

The Mirror shouts:
"

How did London mayor Boris Johnson find the time to earn £900,000 on the side?

The staggering sum, which he has described as “chicken feed”, comes on top of his lavish £143,911 taxpayer-funded salary"

This faux "outrage" is really rather "odd" given the pay that the Trinity Mirror's (owner of The Daily Mirror) CEO Sly Bailey actually receives:

"The pay package handed out to Trinity Mirror (LSE: TNI) boss Sly Bailey has had shareholders up in arms of late, and it's easy to see why.

With executive pay becoming increasingly disconnected from the money they actually earn for their employers (that is, their shareholders), disaffection is spreading amongst the ranks of everyday investors, and their voices are becoming increasingly harder to ignore in the country's boardrooms.

In this case, big investors are airing their displeasure too, after chief executive Ms Bailey was paid a total of £1.3m in cash, shares and pension contributions in 2011, despite Trinity Mirror having only last month reported a 40% fall in pre-tax profits, capping a dismal few years of falling profits, suspended dividends, and worrying levels of debt.

Collapsing value

The share price has collapsed too, falling from a 2009 peak of 192p to just 37p today, meaning that Ms Bailey has presided over a slashing of the company's capitalization. When she took over the top job in 2003, Trinity Mirror was valued at £1.1bn -- today it is worth just £97m.

The company's pension fund is suffering too, as the company has had to pursue a deal with its trustees to pare back its contributions in order to pay its dues to some of its creditors.

To answer some of the criticisms, the board of directors has decided to halve the value of any future cash bonuses paid to Ms Bailey, reducing it from a maximum of 110% of her basic salary to 55%.

Investors not calmed

But the move looks unlikely to stem the unrest, as they appear unwilling to budge on the overall levels of the boss's pay package, with share-based incentives boosted to compensate for any potential cash loss.

The board's actions appear to be at least partly aimed at avoiding a shareholder revolt at its upcoming AGM in May -- last year 11% voted against the CEO's pay deal, and a higher level of protest is expected this year.

But will it succeed in heading off the madding crowds? Major investors in Trinity Mirror include Schroders, Aviva, Standard Life, Royal London and Legal & General -- we'll find out next month whether they have the courage to press for shareholders' rights."

Maybe The Mirror hasn't been told what their CEO receives, or maybe The Mirror is simply being hypocritical?