Britain is "corrupt" according to 'unnamed source'
Flight from accountablity entrenches UK's failed state status
Today’s Guardian refers to an unnamed former Minister commenting on Rishi Sunak's communication strategy
In the headline the paper refers to a quote from a former minister but rather infuriatingly it at no point:
a) names the former Minister
b) explains that they are unnamed
Yes, that's right, you have to read the whole article to discover that the former Minister is unnamed.
Does that make the former minister a whistleblower? Does it make them a leaker? Or is this lazy journalism? And is it part of a worrying trend in absent accountability?
I’ve seen this sort of thing from the Mail on Sunday, but not yet from the Graun.
On Tuesday night, on the eve of the much anticipated Budget, the same paper also revealed that Number Ten pressured the BBC not to use the term “lockdown” at the start of the pandemic.
Again there is no naming of either the source or the BBC senior editors who reportedly celebrated successfully burying the Jennifer Arcuri story. Not even any screenshots of WhatsApp or email exchanges.
For all the questions around Isabel Oakeshott’s Telegraph revelations about some of Matt Hancock's WhatsApp messages, at least we could see they were real.
They published the screenshots.
But this time we're expected to believe the BBC Leaks because they come rubber-stamped by the Guardian. But we’re not trusted to see the screenshots. Or have a conversation about if this way of reporting is acceptable.
That type of conversation has to happen in unofficial places like substack
There ought to be more outcry and even an independent inquiry into the way the Arcuri story was relegated to suit the interests of the Conservative Party.
Another inquiry should be started looking into how the BBC has been caught acting against the public interest.
But instead of raising these matters at yesterday's PMQs Keir Starmer went big on the BBC Chairman Richard Sharp’s secret loan for Boris Johnson, and on the Gary Lineker impartiality story.
This was a missed opportunity.
Or was it classic Controlled Opposition from Trilateral Sir Keir who operates indistinguishably from Mossad, UK secret services, & yes … the Conservative Party?
It's hard to wind the clock back three years but the Arcuri affair and the Russia Report could easily have brought down the Johnson government despite its 80 seat majority.
But the powers that be dropped the ball.
The BBC is completely exempt from standard Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. It relies on a 2010 Supreme Court interpretation of human rights law to say that anything artistic, literary, or journalistic is beyond the scope of the FOI act.
Maybe if the UK leaves the European Convention of Human Rights, these things will be up for grabs.
The temporal aspect of the law may be a growth area according to an eminent lawyer I saw speaking at an event last week.
Phillipe Sands was talking about how his client, Mauritius, managed to defeat the UK and the US in an international court and have the Chagos Islands returned to them more than 60 years after Harold Wilson handed the former UK colony over to be turned into a US military base as a quid pro quo for not sending British soldiers to Vietnam.
Phillipe Sands (left) speaking at the War Crimes Unit at Kings College last Thursday
The temporal aspect as I understand it is in the same family as retroactive application of law.
Phillipe gave the example of genocide. The term was not legally defined until 1946. So as you cannot be held guilty of committing a crime before it has been deemed to be criminal, nobody can be found guilty of any genocide that was carried out pre-1946 unless they, of their own volition, admit to it.
The Chagos Islands were found to have been handed over to the US under duress.
In some senses similarly to how Northern Ireland was separated from the Republic.
But maybe the temporal element of the law will allow arguments to be run at the UK Supreme Court that go against previous findings.
Whilst I find the prospect scary in that it lends weight to the argument that anything can be overturned, I think it potentially offers hope to struggles that would otherwise be viewed as a lost cause.
Of course to overturn a law you need backing, often in the shape of finance.
The UK has much to hide from its historians and does a brilliant job of curating its history.
Historian Andrew Lownie has done a fantastic job of highlighting these issues.
He spoke to me about his work a few weeks ago.
He is worth listening to!
Meanwhile it is notable that this week the Green Party reversed its policy on the arms trade and has become pro-NATO.
Thanks for getting this far in. More soon!