Monday, 19 March 2018

Jacob Rees-Mogg has £millions in dodgy Russian investments

Aside from being a living 'Lord Snooty' caricature of the quintessential English Toff, Jacob Rees-Mogg has strategically positioned himself as one of the most powerful people within the ruling Tory party, despite never even having served as a junior government minister.

The way he's done this is by becoming the leader of the hard-right Brextremist 'party within a party' called the European Reform Group (ERG). This shadowy organisation rakes in taxpayers' cash to fund their campaign in favour of the hardest possible Brexit, and has easily enough members to call a no confidence vote in Theresa May at any moment.

The two previous leaders of this Brextremist pressure group Steve Baker and Suella Fernandes have both been rewarded with positions in Theresa May's government, but Rees-Mogg doesn't seem to just be interested in bagging some junior ministerial role, he's intent on using the ERG's influence over Theresa May to control her every move.

May knows that if she steps out of line over any issue, the ERG have the power to oust her because they've got more than enough members to trigger a leadership election by registering letters of no confidence with the Chairman of the 1922 Committee (the archaic method by which the Tory party dispose of unwanted leaders like Margaret Thatcher and iain Duncan Smith).

Theresa May knows that if she defies the ERG then she'll be out of Downing Street in a flash.

The upshot of all of this is that as the leader of the ERG Jacob Rees-Mogg is the de facto Prime Minister, a man who gets to call all the shots, but doesn't have to take any of the flak when things go wrong because he can use the hapless and hopeless Theresa May as a bullet shield.

One interesting question is whether Rees-Mogg has used his indisputable power over the Prime Minister to push for things that go beyond the hard Brexit fanaticism that the secretive ERG pressure group exists to promote.

For example have Rees-Mogg and the ERG had any influence over the Tories' extremely pro-Russian behaviour in the weeks before the Salisbury attack for example?

Given the revelation that Rees-Mogg's Somerset Capital Management fund has a huge £90 million investment in Russia, including £57 million in the blacklisted Russian Sberbank, the very recent Tory party decision to deliberately obstruct the introduction of Magnitsky powers to clamp down on dodgy Russian money looks a tad suspicious.

Sberbank is already subject to EU and US economic sanctions, but somehow Rees-Mogg and his Somerset Capital management chums have seen fit to retain this dodgy investment despite the sanctions, and £43 million worth of other Russian assets. 

These kinds of Russian investments obviously mean that any serious government moves to clamp down on Russian money flowing in and out of the UK would represent a risk to Rees-Mogg's profit margins.

Because of the secrecy of their operation it's impossible to know whether Rees-Mogg and the ERG are responsible for the Tory government's very recent policy of obstructing Magnitsky powers, but their continual secrecy (despite being bankrolled by the taxpayer) leaves questions like this hanging in the air.

If they insist on being so secretive about their influence on government policy, it's clearly invites questions about whether they would use this secret influence to further their own financial interests.

Unless they give up the secrecy and actually publish stuff like their membership list, all of their sources of funding, their contacts and communications with government ministers, their contacts with people and institutions outside the Tory party, and their own financial conflicts of interest, then these kinds of questions about how their influence could be misused are inevitable aren't they?

It is of course possible to come at it from an alternative direction and ask the Tory government to provide a detailed explanation of their decision to brazenly obstruct Magnitsky powers up until very days before the Salisbury attack, but then that would require some journalists within the Westminster lobby to earn their salaries by actually holding the powerful to account, rather than uncritically churning out whatever hard-right propaganda trope is the chosen narrative of the day.

Would Jacob Rees-Mogg abuse his position as the most powerful man in the Tory party to further his own financial interests?

Given the culture of secrecy that runs through the ERG and Theresa May's autocratic government, who knows if it's even theoretically possible to answer the question. But given the abject lack of decent journalists within the Westminster bubble, it's almost certainly a question that will never be answered.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Anna Campbell was killed by Theresa May's tyrannical Turkish mates

Anna Campbell gave up her comfortable western lifestyle and her job to travel to the Kurdish region of northern Syria in order to fight ISIS. She did this because the democratic Kurdish Rojava are demonstrably the only real good guys in the brutal Syrian civil war (the other main forces being the Assad regime, ISIS, other Islamist terrorists, Russia, Turkey, and the increasingly marginalised anti-Assad rebels who kicked the whole thing off).

Of course she knew that she was putting her life in danger by taking up arms to defend Kurdish democracy from the threat of ISIS, but she wanted to help make the world a better place.

Anna was killed last week as a result of Turkish shelling in the Kurdish town of Afrin.

Turkey has continually intervened in the Syrian conflict in order to attack the Kurdish forces that are trying to drive ISIS and the other Islamist fanatics out of Syria.

Turkey also stands accused of allowing Islamist extremists and military supplies to flow across the border into and out of Syria, treating wounded ISIS fighters in Turkish hospitals, and funding ISIS by buying their oil.

Aside from their interventions in Syria to support ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups, Turkey itself is in the grip of a brutal and repressive dictatorship. There are more journalists in Turkish jails than any other country on earth.

Theresa May and the Tories don't care about any of this though. Human rights violations in Turkey, support for vile Islamist terrorists in neighbouring countries, attacks on the Kurds who are fighting back against ISIS ... it's all swept under the carpet because just like Saudi Arabia, Turkey is a marketplace for British weapons.

Just a couple of months ago Theresa May and the Tories signed a £100 million fighter jet deal with the Turkish tyrant Erdo─čan.

And Theresa May and the Tories have also flogged an incredible £4.6 billion worth of arms Saudi Arabia in the full knowledge that they're a barbaric tyranny that funds, arms, and supplies terrorist fighters to ISIS, and also uses British weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen.

If Anna Campbell hadn't been killed by the British-backed Turkish forces behind her, she could just have easily have been killed by the Saudi Arabian and Turkish backed ISIS terrorists in front of her. Both of the enemies that wanted to kill Anna and wipe out the emerging democracy in Kurdistan are ultimately backed by Theresa May and the Tories.

Probably the worst thing of all is that it's only really in unusual cases where this Tories' grotesque foreign policy of hawking weapons to the most brutal and tyrannical regimes on earth ends up killing a British citizen that the British media pay any kind of attention.

So often the British press are willing to turn a blind eye when it's gays and atheists being beheaded and crucified in Saudi Arabia; huge numbers of Yemeni civilians suffering Saudi war crimes and starvation; dozens of Turkish journalists languishing in jail for doing their jobs; millions of civilians displaced in Syria and Iraq as the Turkish/Saudi backed Islamist terrorists run amok; or hundreds of Kurdish democratic fighters being shot in the back by Turkish forces as they try to defend their region from Islamist terrorism.

When Britain should be following Anna Campbell's lead and standing in solidarity with one of the few genuinely democratic movements in the Middle East, our government actually arms and supports the tyrants who seek to destroy them.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Sunday, 18 March 2018

Why did the Russian Embassy back Theresa May at the 2017 General Election?

Backing one particular political party in another country's general election is a serious breach of diplomatic protocol. Even if governments privately favour one particular party to win in another country's election, it's considered very bad diplomatic form to actually attempt to sway the election with partisan public statements.

So aside from demonstrating their willingness to ignore diplomatic protocol and interfere in other nations' sovereign affairs, why would the Russian Embassy have chosen to back Theresa May and the Tories at the 2017 General Election?

Here are a few potential answers:
Whatever the reason, it's telling that the Russians were backing Theresa May in 2017, yet the UK mainstream media are intent on spewing out reality-reversing propaganda that Jeremy Corbyn is the "Russian stooge".

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Flowers and fist bumps: Who thinks Theresa May has done well on the Salisbury attack?

One of the most incredible things about the response to the Salisbury nerve agent attack is that as the result of an absolute barrage of reality-reversing propaganda from the mainstream media (including the BBC) millions have been duped into believing that Theresa May has actually done a good job of responding to it.

In this article I'm going to go through just a few of the things that demonstrate what an appalling job she's actually done.

Russian cash

The Tories have taken an astounding £3 million in donations from Russian oligarchs and Putin cronies since 2010, including £800,000+ since Theresa May became Prime Minister. In the wake of this chemical weapons attack on British soil they've steadfastly refused to return a penny of it.

Just imagine the purely hypothetical situation that Iran had conducted a chemical weapons attack on British soil, and that the Labour Party coffers were stuffed with £3 million in Iranian cash, and that Jeremy Corbyn was refusing to pay back a penny of it or explain what kind of influence all that cash had bought.

Do you honestly think the mainstream media wouldn't be making any fuss over it, and that public opinion of Corbyn's handling of the situation would be favourable?

Gavin Williamson 1

Theresa May appointed the staggeringly underqualified former fireplace salesman Gavin Williamson as Defence Secretary in her shambolic January 2018 reshuffle. For his first two months in the job he did virtually nothing except allow the Tory party to sell personal access to him for £30,000 to the wife of a former Putin finance minister. What Williamson and this Putin stooge discussed has not been made public.

Magnitsky powers

Just two weeks before the Salisbury attack the Tory government brazenly obstructed Labour's efforts to introduce Magnitsky powers to clamp down on the flood of Russian dark money flowing into the City of London and the UK housing market.

An Opinium poll found that 65% of British people are in favour of Magnitsky powes as opposed to just 5% against, but thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media, neither Theresa May nor other senior Tory ministers have been grilled over why they brazenly obstructed these Magnitsky powers just a couple of weeks ago.


Theresa May eventually caved in to Jeremy Corbyn's pressure and announced that the Tories would be seeking to introduce Magnitsky powers like he has been arguining in favour of for eight years, however the mainstream press decided not to portray this as the screeching Tory U-turn that it so clearly is.

How can a political party go from crudely and brazenly obstructing efforts to introduce Magnitsky powers two weeks ago, to suddenly supporting them, without anyone in the mainstream media clocking it as a massive U-turn?

Hiding information

For the best part of a week the Tories and their chums in the mainstream press derided Jeremy Corbyn for daring to ask questions about the proof that Russians were behind the attack.

Then it turned out that Theresa May had actually hidden intelligence about the attack from Corbyn. Cutting Corbyn out of the intelligence loop then deriding him for asking questions is about as cynical a ploy as can be imagined, especially when the subject under debate is an unprecedented chemical weapons attack on British soil.

Playing politics

Mainstream media hacks were quick to accuse Corbyn of "politicising the attack" when he asked pertinent questions about the flood of Russian cash into Tory party coffers and their continual obstruction of Magnitsky powers.

But then they "forgot" to make similarly outraged (and much more justified) accusations that Theresa May and the Tories had been "politicising the attack" by hiding vital information from Corbyn, then caricaturing him as some kind of Russian stooge for ... erm ... asking for more information!

Gavin Williamson 2

After deriding Corbyn's calm evidence-seeking approach to the attack for the best part of a week, the Tories and the mainstream press turned a blind eye to Gavin Williamson's incredible sub-juvenile whine that "Russia should go away and shut up".

If Theresa May had any authority whatever over her shambles of a party she would have slapped Williamson down for demeaning his office like that, issued an official retraction and a clear reiteration of Britain's actual position, and then told the catastrophically unfit Williamson to submit his resignation.

She didn't do any of that because he's one of her last remaining allies within the party, meaning she'd rather have Britain made a laughing stock on the world stage than weaken her own position within the Tory party.

Boris Johnson

Gavin Williamson is not the only Tory minister to have made a complete pillock of himself and been allowed to get away with it Scott free.

Aside from all of his bumbling rhetoric, Boris Johnson has tied himself in an impossible knot by claiming that Russia has been building up a stockpile of chemical weapons, which is in stark contrast to the findings of the Organisation for Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) who oversaw and certified Russia's destruction of their chemical weapons programme, then describing the OPCW are "reliable" "technical experts".

Now they're either reliable technical experts or they're a bunch of bumbling idiots who certified Russia's destruction of their chemical weapons while Russia was busy expanding their chemical weapons programme. They simply can't be both.

This kind of bumbling and self-contradictory "making it up as he goes along" rubbish is an absolute embarrassment to Britain, but Theresa May can't sack him, or even publicly disagree with him, because she knows that the secretive cabal of ERG Brextremists who control her every move would have here out of Downing Street in a flash if she even tried it.

Fist bumps and selfies

Theresa May's visit to Salisbury was an utterly bizarre spectacle. She was visiting the site of an unprecedented chemical weapons attack on British soil, with three people gravely ill in hospital, and she treated it like she was some C list actor delighted that they've been invited to a glamorous film premiere, when they know they didn;t do anything to deserve it.

Fist bumps here, selfies there, and a truly cringeworthy photo op with a baby thrown in too.

At a time of national crisis do we want a leader who takes the situation seriously and is seen to have concern for the victims and their families, or do we want one who cavorts around the crime scene like a C-list celebrity?


I guess regular Another Angry Voice readers will at least be familiar with some of this damning evidence, but millions clearly aren't.

Millions of people remain confined within carefully curated mainstream media echo chambers. They get their politics from the right-wing propaganda rags, from the BBC, and maybe from the commercial radio news items on the workplace radio. And that's it.

In order to unmask the mainstream media's reality-reversed propaganda deceptions it's no good just talking amongst ourselves, we need to get the real information out there to people who wouldn't otherwise see it.

Feel free to print this article off, email it, or share it in whatever way you see fit.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Saturday, 17 March 2018

Who has got the nuttiest Salisbury conspiracy theory?

In the feverish atmosphere in the wake of the Salisbury nerve agent attack there have been some absolutely bonkers conspiracy theories flying around.

In this article I'm going to attempt to give a measured perspective on the attack before detailing some of the nuttiest reactions.

The difference between questions and conspiracy theories

Like almost everyone reading this article, I don't have access to the chemical analysis that's been conducted on the nerve agent, and I don't have access to any intelligence that may have been gathered in relation to the attack.

This lack of information means that it's impossible to fly off into alternative explanations for the attack without the danger of wandering off into the tinfoil hat conspiracy zone.

However this lack of vital information doesn't prevent us from asking questions about the official position, which according to Tory ministers like Boris Johnson, involved Vladimir Putin directly ordering this hopelessly botched hit on a long-retired double agent.

The glaring problem with this theory is that it relies on the idea that Putin is some kind of idiot with no regard for consequences. Of course Putin is your archetypal strong-man tyrant with a disregard for human rights, but if you've ever actually paid attention to any of his speeches, he's clearly an intelligent man, not an idiot.

So, given that just a couple of weeks ago the Tory government pliantly did Putin's bidding by obstructing Labour's efforts to introduce Magnitsky powers to clamp down on all the Russian dark money sloshing around in the City of London, the UK housing market, and the coffers of the Tory party, why would Putin then decide to personally authorise an attack that would massively increase the chances of Magnitsky sanctions being imposed?

You can attempt to answer this kind of question in whatever way you like, but be careful you don't end up wandering off into the tinfoil hat twilight zone  ...

The fireman conspiracy

The first conspiracy theory to deal with is the idea that the attack was faked because of one out-of-context photograph of firemen with no biohazard suits standing next to people with biohazard suits.

It says a lot about the kind of person you are if you can look at a single photo and deduce a convoluted conspiracy theory from it, which you then believe without giving thought to other potential explanations, like maybe the fact that people in biohazard suits need to take off their biohazard suits at some point. 

Perhaps a much simpler explanation that the whole attack being an elaborate hoax, is that that's what was going on?
The evil mother-in-law

Then there's the theory that Yulia Skripal was poisoned by her future mother-in-law who supposedly doesn't want her son to marry the daughter of an ex-spy.

How the evil mother-in-law got her hands on a supply of highly toxic nerve agent isn't related in this particular conspiracy theory.

It was the CIA

If you really want to get into the kooky conspiracy shit, then UKIP is definitely a great place to turn. I mean who could forget the Ukipper "Somerset floods were caused by gay marriage" theory from a few years ago?

Well Godfrey Bloom has publicly stated his suspicion that the attack was carried out by the CIA in order to ringfence the budget for the military industrial complex.

It's interesting to see the way the hard-right UKIP mob have moved from adoration of anything American to outright hostility and conspiracy theorising against the US intelligence services ever since the Mueller investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign started getting serious.

It's all about Brexit

Another bizarre UKIP conspiracy theory is that the Salisbury attack is a false flag attack orchestrated by the British government in order to derail Brexit!

Here's what Richard Wood of UKIP told Sputnik News: 

"Theresa May has been absolutely stupid because she is now in a hole over Brexit with the European Union and the EU is doing its best to keep Britain in and we want to be out. The whole point about this fiasco is that something happened and Mrs. May is now being able to point another finger at Russia and say this is our enemy. They are finding some excuse to actually blame Russia for something else so Russia becomes a big bad man again to take the pressure off Theresa May with the Brexit negotiations because she is not getting anywhere. Everybody I speak to is not on her side and not against Russia. I do think it was staged."
Trust the UKIP loons to come up with a load of batshit crazy nonsense about how it's all a conspiracy to undermine their beloved Brexit.

It's all about the UN

Another theory doing the rounds is that the Salisbury incident was a "false flag" attack designed to ramp up international pressure to get Russia thrown off the UN Security Council.

The idea that Russia could be removed from the Security Council over this incident is as impractical as it is unrealistic.

If Russia and the United States managed to stay part of the UN Security Council together throughout the theft of US nuclear weapons secrets, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Olympic boycotts, countless near misses and sanctions impositions, and all of that, how on earth is an incident like Salisbury going to register enough impact to essentially destroy the United Nations?

Even if the endgame was to get Russia thrown off the UN Security Council, how would that be achieved given that Russia has a Security Council veto, and China (another of the 5 permanent members) would obviously never let it happen either?

It's all about football

Then there's the probably the most ridiculous theory that the attack was staged to somehow undermine Russia's hosting of the FIFA World Cup, as if football is somehow the most important thing in the world.

The problem with wild conspiracy theories like this is that there's always some absolute dullard who comes along to give credence to such nonsense. In this case the right-wing Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, who has started gabbing on about how the UK should somehow form a global alliance to pressurise FIFA to delay the World Cup until 2019 and ban Russia as the hosts!

If Argentina being over-run by one of the most violent and repressive military dictatorships of the late 20th Century wasn't enough to stop the World Cup in 1978, then it seems a tad unlikely that Kinnock is going to succeed with his plot to get this summer's World Cup taken off Russia.

Trust a right-wing Labour melt like Kinnock to hear the most bonkers conspiracy theory of all, think it's actually a really good idea, and then try to pass it off as his own policy!

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Friday, 16 March 2018

Let's 'control our borders' by throwing them open!

While the majority of the mainstream media have been fixated on the primary task of portraying Jeremy Corbyn as a Russian stooge (in order to deflect attention away from the incredibly incriminating behaviour of the Tory party) the Sky News team have been busy trying to hold the Tory government to account over the absolute shambles they're making of Brexit.

First Sky News disclosed that the Tories have taken the extraordinary step of imposing gagging orders on key border operators to prevent them disclosing what the government are plotting.

Taking back control

Thinking back to the EU referendum debate and all the talk of "taking back control"
, this rhetoric hardly seems compatible with highly secretive government plotting and their efforts to gag private and public border agencies to prevent them from warning the public what they actually have in store for us.

Surely nobody figured that "taking back control" actually meant handing even more control to the Tory government to wilfully hide their schemes from the public, their political opponents, and British businesses alike?

Then the Sky News team delved into the details of what the Tory government have been so desperate to hide.

Controlling our borders

Apparently the scheming Tories have drawn up three different Brexit scenarios to test out on the various public and private border operators which have been labelled "hard Brexit", "Soft Brexit" and "No deal".

Under the "no deal" scenario the Tories have decided that the only way to deal with the border issues is to throw the UK border open completely, and unilaterally abandon customs checks!

This "throw open the borders" option is quite extraordinary given that "controlling our borders" was such an elemental part of Leave propaganda that delivered the Brexit vote, and was quickly adopted by the Tory government as one of the narratives they used to attract the hard-right ultranationalist blue-kip demographic who were fleeing the wreckage of UKIP.

The reason the Tories have decided to model this extraordinary "open borders" approach to Brexit is obvious. If they had any intention whatever of securing our borders, they would have had to have invested £billions in new customs checking facilities, infrastructure, software, and staff, but they've done nothing to address this enormous challenge for the best part of two years.
We now know that the Cameron government didn't bother to do the slightest amount of contingency planning just in case they lost the Brexit referendum, and that the Tory cabinet are still bitterly divided over the actual objective of Brexit almost a full year after Theresa May triggered Article 50.

All in all it's hardly surprising that giving the Tories the green light to just make it up as they go along is resulting in such abject chaos.

No back door

The EU have no intention of throwing open their borders if no customs deal can be agreed before Brexit actually goes ahead, meaning that Britain's decision to throw open our borders would be a unilateral one.

Many on the Tory right conceive post-Brexit Britain as a kind of backdoor into Europe for substandard produce (like chlorinated chicken or hormone riddled beef), but the EU have no intention of letting that happen.

Even if it means huge delays for British exports to the continent while they build the infrastructure to carry out the customs checks, the EU simply aren't going to allow the UK to act as a backdoor conduit for unscrupulous profiteers to flood the European market with substandard produce.


So in this farcical Tory Brexit scenario "taking back control" equates to allowing the government to make it up as they go along behind closed doors, and "controlling our borders" equates to throwing our borders open because the Tories have done absolutely nothing to build the customs infrastructure necessary to actually check what's coming in!

Given that this "throw open the borders" approach is the polar opposite of what Leave voters were promised during the debate, you would have thought that more of them would be spitting blood about it, but then this kind of analysis relies on a fundamental misunderstanding that a lot of Remainers still seem unable to get their heads around.

The misunderstanding is the idea that people who were duped into supporting this chaotic hard-right "let's make it up as we go along" Brexit can be convinced to change their minds with facts, evidence, analysis and the like.

They can't be convinced to change their minds through appeals to reason because Brexit was an emotive decision for them, so it doesn't matter how much we point out stuff like the way "control our borders" has morphed into "throw open our borders", they'll simply perform cognitive gymnastics to pretend that they knew that throwing open the borders was the plan all along, and that's what they voted for.

The terrifying thing is that it doesn't matter how much chaos, division, economic damage Brexit delivers, nor how many promises are broken, businesses are destroyed, jobs are lost, or families are thrown into poverty. millions of Brexit voters will continue to insist that that's exactly what they voted for.

It's clear that to a lot of people unleashing such chaos and destruction on your country and your fellow citizens is a price worth paying in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Why are the BBC running blatant distraction propaganda for the Tory party?

A little over a month ago the Tory party took a £30,000 donation from the wife of a former finance minister in Vladimir Putin's government. The donation was in fact a bribe to buy personal access to the Tory defence minister Gavin Williamson, and this is far from the only donation the Tories have taken from Russian oligarchs and Putin cronies. They've raked in over £800,000 since Theresa May became Prime Minister, and over £3 million since 2010.

The obvious question these donations raise is what are these Russian oligarchs and Putin cronies buying with these donations. People don't just hand over vast sums of money for nothing, so they must be expecting some returns on their investments.

One possible answer is the way the Tories have steadfastly obstructed moves to introduce so-called Magnitsky powers to bar Russian officials from the UK if they're suspected of war crimes, human rights abuses, or crimes against humanity, and to stem the flow of Russian dark money that is flowing into the City of London.

Blocking and overturning Magnitsky powers has been described as Vladimir Putin's top foreign policy objective, so when the Tory party took the unprecedented step of halting a committee meeting on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill in order to avoid consideration of Magnitsky powers on February 27th, just three weeks after taking a £30,000 bung from the wife of a known Putin associate, it's hard to draw any other conclusion isn't it?

And now, despite this damning evidence against the Tory government 
(money trail and incriminating behaviour), the mainstream media are uniformally attacking Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour front bench in the wake of the Salisbury nerve agent attack as if they're the Russian stooges!

Corbyn has been condemned for "political point scoring" for pointing out the huge flow of money from Russian oligarchs and Putin cronies into Tory party coffers, his concerns about the Tory blocking of Magnitsky powers have been routinely ignored, he's been attacked on the front pages of the right-wing propaganda rags as a "Kremlin stooge" and Putin's puppet", and the supposedly impartial BBC made up a huge backdrop portraying Jeremy Corbyn as some kind of Russian agent!

These kinds of partisan attacks are to be expected from the right-wing propaganda rags, but when the BBC state broadcaster is spewing the kind of biased, reality-reversing pro-government propaganda you'd expect to see in Putin's Russia, questions really need to be asked.

Aside from the incredible bombardment of reality-reversing propaganda portraying Corbyn as the "Russian stooge" when the money trail points clearly and undeniably at the Tory party, another interesting question comes out of all of this.

If one of Putin's top foreign policy objectives is preventing Magnitsky powers, and the Tory party were gladly doing his bidding by brazenly obstructing political efforts to introduce these Magnitsky powers in Britain, why on earth would they jeopardise their main objective by launching an unprecedented chemical weapons attack on British soil against a retired spy they released from prison years ago?

Of course it's possible that the Russians are so arrogant that they think they can get away with carrying out a chemical weapons attack deep in NATO territory, but even the most rudimentary Russian consideration of the likely outcomes of such an attack would surely have raised the probability of Magnitsky powers being imposed in retaliation.

Of course I'm not arguing that Russia didn't carry out the attack because I'm not privy to the chemical analysis, or any of the intelligence material on the case. To make such a judgement without firm evidence would be to wander off into bonkers conspiracy territory.

However, given the fact that Putin is usually a very smart operator, I think the question of why he would green light such a brazen attack on British soil is a pertinent one, especially given the way the Tory government were pliantly doing his bidding just a few weeks ago by obstructing efforts to impose Magnitsky powers in the UK.

The other pertinent question is why almost the entire UK media has rounded on Jeremy Corbyn to misleadingly present him as some kind of Russian stooge when he's the one who has been pushing hard for Magnitsky powers, and completely let the Tories off the hook for their extremely dubious donations from Russian sources, followed just weeks later by their deliberate obstruction tactics to undermine the implementation of Magnitsky powers.

There's clearly something dreadfully wrong with the BBC that they're ignoring this compelling evidence against the Tory government and running the kind of flagrant pro-government, anti-opposition propaganda you'd actually expect to see in Putin's Russia.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Thursday, 15 March 2018

Britain's official diplomatic position "Russia should go away and shut up"!

"Russia should go away and shut up". This is now the official UK government position as outlined by the Tory defence secretary Gavin Williamson in a rambling speech that has been described as "one of the least impressive speeches ever delivered by a government minister".

Incredibly this childish playground taunt style "diplomacy" is being allowed to stand as Britain's official stance because Theresa May is far too weak and incompetent to slap it down.

As long as Theresa May refuses to disown these ridiculous comments Williamson's bizarrely childish taunt is being allowed to stand as the UK's official position!

Given that Williamson came across as a frightened child-like figure, it's no surprise that the Tories have been trying to keep him out of the limelight since Theresa May unexpectedly promoted him way beyond his qualifications or experience to the role of defence secretary. And the horrified reaction of the Tory party to this unexpected promotion makes a lot more sense now that we've seen this.

One of the oddest things about Williamson's taunt is that it's just a few weeks since the Tories auctioned off direct access to him to the wife of a former Putin government minister.

One wonders whether he'll be telling Lubov Chernukhim to "go away and shut up" after taking £30,000 of her cash to buy access to him?

In another part of the speech Williamson accused Russia of "ripping up the international rule book", which is an accusation that would carry a lot more weight if the UK government actually complied with the Chemical Weapons Convention to provide samples of the nerve agent as is required by international law.

It's perplexing how Russians are supposed to "go away and shut up" immediately after they ask the UK government to comply with international law and provide samples of the chemical weapon agent under the framework of the Chemical Weapons Convention, but they're welcomed with open arms if they've got thirty grand or so to lob into Tory party coffers.

It's almost as if Williamson and his Tory mates are a bunch of intellectually stunted money-obsessed hypocrites who resort to childish playground taunts when what is required is some serious adult diplomacy.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.