Conservative Party Funding

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
So Johnson has refused to authorise the intelligence and security services to investigate possible Russian interreference in UK Democracy
and Elections, along with delaying the Russia report and trying to put Grayling in charge of the select committee responsible for overseeing national security matters. Johnson is also looking to remove the rules that bar foreign nationals from funding political parties. He was likely compromised
by Russia when he slipped his security detail to go party in Italy with a Russian Oligarch. Russian Oligarchs existence is dependent on keeping
Putin and his cronies in the Kremlin happy.

Revealed: Boris, the Russian oligarch and the Page 3 model


So onto Conservative Party funding.




and it goes on, well worth reading the entire twitter thread and FT article.

£160,000 gets you direct access to the PM -
Johnson: £160k tennis match did take place

Now this could all be above board, but where Putin's Russia is concerned it's a good idea to be suspicious. Dominic Grieve would not
have stuck his neck out on this issue if he didn't think it were serious. His reward ? Kicked out of the Party by Johnson for asking
questions he seems to not want answered. Grieve put country before party, in other words an old School Conservative. Not whatever the Johnson Conservative party has morphed into.
The Russia report points to wilful negligence by the British government | Dominic Grieve

There's plenty more information and news reports floating on the internet about this subject matter. Now some might see this as me being boo evil Tories. When
in reality my only concern is the integrity of our Democracy and the survival of the Union. A UK that breaks up only really benefits Putin, as he'll have destroyed an enemy state without having to fire a single shot in anger. The Conservative Party we've known has been consumed by the cult of personality that Johnson
has built around himself. We are not in a normal political cycle. Culture wars ? We are better than that.
 

Smudges Dad

Distinguished Member
Its just plain old corruption and organised crime with a side serving of Russians and royals.
It would be interesting to know what Cummings was really up to when he was in Russia “setting up an airline” that never flew any aircraft.
 

dhia83

Active Member
MI6 has either had it's hands tied by politicians or it's been asleep on the job.
The intelligence services have always had their hands tied by politicians. In the 50s and 60s still you had the agents recruited in the 1930s as they picked the communist side in the Spanish civil war, and those who though Hitler was a good idea. . Few ever were arrested and tried. Some of them spawned the next generation who are still with us who still thought communism was the socialist version of paradise in the 70s and still do.. In the 60s through 80s you had high levels of penetration, at high levels, of the unions, causes that could be manipulated to achieve Soviet security objectives, and some recruitment of MPs from multiple parties by the KGB and its East European allies, with some support for terrorist groups from there and Libya, Activity grew at the deciding points of the Cold War in the 70s and 80s as Russia first thought it had won the Cold War and then found itself unable to continue with it. No one much was arrested and tried.

Basically, there's no longer any treason legislation to prosecute under , Intelligence services prefer to be not seen and not to be doing things one side in politics will see as partial, and exposure means exposure of intelligence sources, assets, past history , and practices and potential future leads. . Revealing penetration is embarrassing and it means accusations of involvement in politics, and senior politicians preferred to know , act accordingly, and stay quiet .And without a state run information department and monitoring of journalists , which would be unacceptable to many, its difficult to counter fake news.

So what you had was covert access to the membership lists of extremist parties, and accumulating lists of subversives, and enemy agents with the odd exercise to entrap those flogging secrets. You don't have many visible consequences.

What you should should have now is extensive monitoring of who is working for and interested in whom. Is Russian money associated with the regime, or people who can't stand the regime and are like any domestic donor? What effort are hostile states putting in where and how. Why is Iran involved in and how much , in the current wave of anti-semitism? What does that show about their objectives? What would be the consequences of shutting down their propaganda and interference assets, for UK news gathering and journalists and spies ?

The bigger problem is the nature of political parties. Party members tend to often come from the extremes as they are more committed to a cause. Donations ,whether from builders or Unite, come from people who want something who are not controlled by shareholders, or members, - the problem exists for all parties. Indeed as more causes feel the need to challenge government policy, there' more targets for hostile nations to support and exploit . And the more divided politics becomes, and the more extreme politicians on all sides that can be supported to create weakness , division, irresponsible leaders who don't care about previous goals and commitments, ,and the odd manchurian candidate for office, Russian oligarchs may be more enthusiastic about democracy, or more corrupt , or Russian intelligence assets.

The problem there is the obvious one . No one has thought of a way for financing democratic politics that doesn't leave itself open to bad people exploiting it. And non democratic systems are either institutionally corrupt,pure kleptocracies like Russia , and/or run by paranoid nutcases who will turn on anyone randomly.
 

Fletch 01

Well-known Member
So Johnson has refused to authorise the intelligence and security services to investigate possible Russian interreference in UK Democracy
and Elections, along with delaying the Russia report and trying to put Grayling in charge of the select committee responsible for overseeing national security matters. Johnson is also looking to remove the rules that bar foreign nationals from funding political parties. He was likely compromised
by Russia when he slipped his security detail to go party in Italy with a Russian Oligarch. Russian Oligarchs existence is dependent on keeping
Putin and his cronies in the Kremlin happy.

Revealed: Boris, the Russian oligarch and the Page 3 model


So onto Conservative Party funding.




and it goes on, well worth reading the entire twitter thread and FT article.

£160,000 gets you direct access to the PM -
Johnson: £160k tennis match did take place

Now this could all be above board, but where Putin's Russia is concerned it's a good idea to be suspicious. Dominic Grieve would not
have stuck his neck out on this issue if he didn't think it were serious. His reward ? Kicked out of the Party by Johnson for asking
questions he seems to not want answered. Grieve put country before party, in other words an old School Conservative. Not whatever the Johnson Conservative party has morphed into.
The Russia report points to wilful negligence by the British government | Dominic Grieve

There's plenty more information and news reports floating on the internet about this subject matter. Now some might see this as me being boo evil Tories. When
in reality my only concern is the integrity of our Democracy and the survival of the Union. A UK that breaks up only really benefits Putin, as he'll have destroyed an enemy state without having to fire a single shot in anger. The Conservative Party we've known has been consumed by the cult of personality that Johnson
has built around himself. We are not in a normal political cycle. Culture wars ? We are better than that.

This might interest you:

 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
You've not read it then...
Slightly contradictory messaging in that Spectator article;

Clinton says she is ‘dumbfounded’ that the British government has decided not to publish a parliamentary report on Russian meddling in UK politics until after 12 December. ‘Every person who votes in this country deserves to see that report before your election happens,’ she says. ‘I find it inexplicable… and shameful.’ She may have a point there: some funny politics are being played about the report’s publication. But it’s hard to take her seriously on the subject because poor Hillary has succumbed to Russia Derangement Syndrome: a malady that means you see the hand of Moscow everywhere.

So the writer agrees that there is “some funny politics being played” about Johnson not releasing the report on Russian interference, but because it’s Clinton saying it, it mustn’t be a problem.

How about proof that Russian activity changed the minds of voters? There have been plenty of governmental and journalistic enquiries searching for such evidence. Embarrassingly little has been found. Yes, pro--Brexit or pro-Trump messaging emanated from the Internet Research Agency, that notorious troll factory in St Petersburg. It might be a good idea to try to stop that happening again. But does it explain Brexit? Or Trump? No.

Again, they acknowledge that the Russian “troll factory” was involved in both Pro-Brexit and Pro-Trump propaganda, and jokingly suggests it shouldn’t be doing it, but then brushes it aside as having no impact at all.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
You've not read it then...

I've read plenty of articles, I've just had to pull up my file on Cummings (it's just a text file with links I keep in the cloud). Here's 3 such articles. Nobody really knows what exactly Cummings got upto while spending 3 years in Russia. A failed Airline sounds like a cover story for a number of things, not least laundering money. I don't pay the Spectator much attention as it's gone downhill rapidly in the last decade or so.

Examples - Dominic Cummings' ex-boss lifts lid on spin doctor's controversial past
 

Fletch 01

Well-known Member
Slightly contradictory messaging in that Spectator article;

Clinton says she is ‘dumbfounded’ that the British government has decided not to publish a parliamentary report on Russian meddling in UK politics until after 12 December. ‘Every person who votes in this country deserves to see that report before your election happens,’ she says. ‘I find it inexplicable… and shameful.’ She may have a point there: some funny politics are being played about the report’s publication. But it’s hard to take her seriously on the subject because poor Hillary has succumbed to Russia Derangement Syndrome: a malady that means you see the hand of Moscow everywhere.

So the writer agrees that there is “some funny politics being played” about Johnson not releasing the report on Russian interference, but because it’s Clinton saying it, it mustn’t be a problem.

How about proof that Russian activity changed the minds of voters? There have been plenty of governmental and journalistic enquiries searching for such evidence. Embarrassingly little has been found. Yes, pro--Brexit or pro-Trump messaging emanated from the Internet Research Agency, that notorious troll factory in St Petersburg. It might be a good idea to try to stop that happening again. But does it explain Brexit? Or Trump? No.

Again, they acknowledge that the Russian “troll factory” was involved in both Pro-Brexit and Pro-Trump propaganda, and jokingly suggests it shouldn’t be doing it, but then brushes it aside as having no impact at all.

Not contradictory at all if you are aware of the facts. This might help you:

New Study: "Russian Trolls" Did Not "Sow Discord" - They Influenced No One

The Mueller investigation indicted 13 Russian persons and three Russian legal entities over the alleged influence campaign. But, as we wrote at that time, there was more to it than the media reported:

The published indictment gives support to our long held believe that there was no "Russian influence" campaign during the U.S. election. What is described and denounced as such was instead a commercial marketing scheme which ran click-bait websites to generate advertisement revenue and created online crowds around virtual persona to promote whatever its commercial customers wanted to promote. The size of the operation was tiny when compared to the hundreds of millions in campaign expenditures. It had no influence on the election outcome.

The IRA hired people in Leningrad for little money and asked them to open accounts on U.S. social media. The virtual persona they created and ran were to attract as many persons to those accounts as possible. They did that by posting funny dog pictures or by taking strong political positions. They were 'influencers' who sold their customers' products to the people they attracted.

The sole purpose was the same as in any commercial media. Create content to attract 'eyeballs', then sell those eyeballs to advertisers.

As Point 95 of the Mueller indictment said:

Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the [financial] accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist.
The was no Russian government campaign to influence the 2016 election. There was only a Russian commercial media enterprise that used sock-puppet accounts with quirky content to attract viewers and sold advertisement space to U.S. companies.

Rest of article at:


There was so much propaganda from Operation Crossfire Hurricane it's understandable that people who rely on msm or US/UK/Western 'spokes people' think Russia really did do something. But then that is always the case from the west be it Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and so on.
 

Fletch 01

Well-known Member
I've read plenty of articles, I've just had to pull up my file on Cummings (it's just a text file with links I keep in the cloud). Here's 3 such articles. Nobody really knows what exactly Cummings got upto while spending 3 years in Russia. A failed Airline sounds like a cover story for a number of things, not least laundering money. I don't pay the Spectator much attention as it's gone downhill rapidly in the last decade or so.

Examples - Dominic Cummings' ex-boss lifts lid on spin doctor's controversial past

Talk about miss the point, twice. then make something up or cast aspersions with nothing to back it up.

Your second link about Russia:

THE RUSSIAN
After leaving university, he went to Russia for three years where he helped set up an airline in Samara. It failed.

That's it and also nothing to back it up.

As for 'Russian funding' you will likely find it's from exiled Russian or Ukrainian oligarchs living in London or perhaps on the European mainland.

By the way.

Cummings in Russia (lodging with Liam Halligan of the Sunday telegraph) between 1994 and 1997.
 

Vollrath

Well-known Member
On the wider question of Russian interference and "unwitting" stooges, it's always worth revisiting Bill Browder's evidence to the UK ISC, which I can only find for the moment here on the Canary site.

There's plenty more information and news reports floating on the internet about this subject matter. Now some might see this as me being boo evil Tories. When
in reality my only concern is the integrity of our Democracy and the survival of the Union. A UK that breaks up only really benefits Putin, as he'll have destroyed an enemy state without having to fire a single shot in anger.
Alternatively, a UK always on the verge of breaking up could be more in the Russian administration's interest. I would expect the effort to be put into both sides of any independence arguments, for instance, with the goal of constant disruption.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
More dodgy looking funding, this time related to Raab and his local constituency party.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
More dodgy looking funding, this time related to Raab and his local constituency party.

Not those pesky Russians again :laugh:

One might be inclined to think that they have some kind of influence over here....
 

LakieLady

Well-known Member
More dodgy looking funding, this time related to Raab and his local constituency party.

More ammunition for the P45 For Raab campaign! Some people are plainly doing serious digging.
 

birdseye

Standard Member
I am not sure that I see anything to worry about in the above. Its unlikey that the Russians would even want to try and exert any leverage in the UK for the obvious reason that the UK doesnt matter in realpolitik. We have little or no influence in the world of the big boys like the US, China, the EU. We have no secrets worth bothering about because we have proved time and again that HMG leaks like a seive. So can anyone explain why Putin would bother to "turn" Boris?
 

The latest video from AVForums

AVForums Movies Podcast: Streaming Theatrical Releases And The Future Of Cinema
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Sky reveals content lineup for 2022
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Panasonic TVs now feature Apple TV+
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Magico announces Titan 15 subwoofer
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Ajax Systems adds UK Socket to expand smart home options
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Best TVs of 2021 - Editor's Choice Awards
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom