More on Mr Waterman

Starting at (or near) the beginning.

The beginning: Having watched, with increasing dismay, a few of your YouTube videos, I thought I ought to go to the actual beginning and watched your first three efforts. I had thought there is obviously something that has triggered all this off. When I got to the end of the third one, I found myself almost sympathising with you,  thinking to myself "This bloke may have some serious points to make here. Then a new video popped up, dated March 30th and I watched that. This one actually got me angry with frustration. It was obvious you had taken no notice of my previous comments and seemed hell bent on ploughing your own deluded furrow.

The first signs of this occur when you have a rant about about your company, Exbourne Manor Freehold Limited. I don't remember which videos this appears in (there was more than one occasion). The thrust of your argument here is that you are accusing Jordans Ltd and Swift Incorporations of being fraudulent companies. Neither of these companies is fraudulent or fake. Swift Incoporations Ltd which you claim not to exist was incorporated 22 August 1985. As for Jordans Limited, this company was initially incorporated as 'Hamiplag' in November 1965. In December 1966, Hamiplag registered a name change to Tyndall Registrars Limited, followed by another name change in June 1968 to 'Jordan & Sons Limited'. On 17th June 1996, the name was changed again to 'Jordans Ltd'. I sent you an email which you have been ignoring for a couple of days now so, here is my response to the March 30th video and to my frustration.

When I began watching this video, I took your advice and looked at the various links you offered. One of these, on Rumble offered to teach us how to trace the evidence. First, harsh though it may sound, you haven't a clue how to go about this so you should not be offering this "advice" to anyone. You don't waste a second telling us how this company or that is either a fraudulent company or just plain doesn't exist. And you are wrong in virtually every case.
One of your other links begins with an allegation of Lloyds Bank having supplied you with false/forged statements. Your sole evidence for this being that you don't like the way these "amounts appear in the date columns" (your words). The document I saw (your document) shows an amount in the column headed 'value date'. And what is wrong with that? This indicates that the transaction ocurred on that date. Let's say, for example, that you received a cheque and paid it into your account. The date you pushed the cheque across the counter is one date. The next thing to happen to the cheque will be it either clears (shown to be valid and of worth) or it will be returned as the account it was drawn on has no funds. If it is cleared, the date it is credited to your account in terms of a real asset will be the value date. That, then, would be a good place to indicate the value of that payment.

But, let's get to that chronological beginning
This video starts off with spurious allegations here, there and everywhere. Beginning with Childline, you mention London Law Agency. Not the first time but let's re-hash it. In a related video, you declared this company to be an illegal company.The company is properly registered and still active on Companies House. (for simplicity, refer to Bates Wells & Braithwaite as BWB). BWB began as Bates Wells LLP, incoporated 23 January 2007. The name was changed to BWB London LLP on 25 January 2007 and the change was registered at Companies House 2 Feb 2007. The latest statement with Companies House shows this name is still the current one and the company is still operating.
Your Childline incorporation document shows  Bates Wells & Braithwaite "is there on the incorporation...as well as Oyez". I have seen your frothing about "Oyez" on other videos and it is probably about time someone had a go at putting you out of your misery. Did it not strike you that the term "Oyez" is not a company but rather a device or logo of the Solicitors Law Stationery Society. Somebody had to print that form and it was probably the aforementioned Society. I just did something you could have done, I searched the web and came up with an article in a publication named legalii insider, stating how "The Oyez Straker legal forms-to-stationery supplies and digital dictation systems group has been bought by venture capitalists Hermes Private Equity for £80 million. It has acquired the business from the rival private-equity outfit Bridgepoint Capital.". Oyez was obviously a trademark of the company providing the forms. So, strike all silly remarks, links etc to Oyez.
Now we are up to Bates Wells and a link to the Madeleine McCann fund. Rubbish! And I have rubbished it elsewhere.
A quick, unrelated leap back to Childline and a lot of slanderous statements, stating that there has been fraudlent documentation and that Companies House must be complicit in this "fraud". This is followed by one of your trips into la la land, when you say the Childline registered address was Royal Mail building and off you go, telling us about the Royal Mail/Horizon scandal and your "opinion" that the Fujitsu/Horizon scandal was not a real issue but rather a diversionary tactic. As you like.
Now for Children in Need (presumably via the Esther Rantzen link?). You state that this was founded by someone named Sunder Mansukhani and the company name was Chocdock Ltd., incoporated 18 January 1990. On 06 April, the name was changed to Children in Need Limited. Now you link Sunder Mansukhani to Max Clifford, Epstein, Maxwell and Christ knows who else and you state that "if we look on the Max Clifford document (where?) there's links all the way through to child abuse concerns". No there isn't.
After some potentially serious allegations, going via way of trying to implicate Social Services you get to "The former NHS Chief Executive from my company". The name you are pointing out is Peter Wanless so let's look at him. Well, Wikipedia describes him as CEO of the NSPCC. That is NOT the same as the NHS! Nowhere in the Wikipedia entry does it mention Exbourne Manor so perhaps a look at that is in order. Nothing there either (other than yourself).
Childrens Promise Trading Ltd is next in the firing line with the usual chorus of "it's obvious fraud". Of course it is! Except to me? So, now Childrens Promise Trading "goes though" to Asthma Enterprises Limited. This has Swift Incorporations in the incorporation document. So what? How many companies do you think the company helped start up, register etc? Again, you refer to your company and mention forged bank documents (again!). Earlier, you had said the bank documents were provided by the bank, so why bring Swift into it (again)? 

Next quote:" None of the people on the incorporation documents have ever been registered with Companies House... and there's fraud, very clear fraud all the way though this". The company was first incorporated as Realoke Ltd. Instant Companies Ltd was listed as a director. Now for the epic shock: Instant Companies, Jordan & Sons, Swift Incoporations are all members of the group now trading as Vistra Ltd.! Then, you go off on the "these companies shouldn't exist" etc. That's getting a bit tedious.
Oh dear! Cancer Care for Children changed the name to Clic Sargent Cancer Care for Children. Scandalous! How dare they change their name! And, worse than that, all these companies listed that have used the London Law Agency Limited. "Because they have used a company that hasn't been registered correctly". I have dealt with this one elsewhere so I shall copy & paste my previous findings:
"And off we go, lickety split to look at London Law Agency Ltd. At this point, you wet your knickers and proudly tell us that the company shown on the incorporation does not exist.
Hmmm. Companies House shows that to be a firm of solicitors, based in Wimbledon. No mention of Temple there. Originally incorporated in 1967 with the name Ganvilon Motors Limited, just as pronounced by you with an air of triumph. Aah! in 1969 the company name was changed to The London Law Agency Limited. Yes it was ! Don't argue. Read the entry dated 27 October 1967, especially the part that begins "Special Resolutions were duly passed, 1. That the name of the company be changed to The London Law Agency Ltd."
My original is here: https://grumpykelvin.blogspot.com/
Now for Phone Paid Services. You bring up the incorporation document, point to the page and say "You can see on there the same person, Temple." Stop! Go back to reading class! The name is Hope and his address is at Temple Chambers. You then say "This guy has never been registered". Who? Temple? Carry on with the reading practice and you will see Mr Hope (NOT Temple) is signing on behalf of London Law Secretarial. Oh God! Off we go again. Temple appears as part of an address, not someone's name.
Moving swiftly along, you bring up the Samaritans and make a big song & dance about how they should really be known as Samaritans (The) as that is the name on the incorporation document. Shame you didn't read the filing on 6th February 2006 which changed the company name from Samaritans (The) to Samaritans. You say this is a deliberate falsification of the register. No, it is NOT!
 

And now for Esther Rantzen and Silverline. Off we go, pointing out Waterlow links all the way through the fraud (no it doesn't; you have not yet shown a fraud exists) and Waterlow links to De La Rue. You say the Memorandum and Articles of association shows the link to Waterlows. Not on the copy I am looking at, it doesn't. (Doc filed 30 November 2019).
You also say Childline was taken over by the "National Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children". What! Protection of cruely? No. The 'P' stands for 'Prevention' (this is the 2nd time in this video you have made the same mistake).
Now for Farrer & Co. They appear to be a legal firm (the address should be a clue, isn't Lincolns Inn Fields a well known hang out of barristers etc?). Google Inns of Court and there it is! Oh and Christopher Belecher is listed as a solicitor.
From here you delve really deeply into la la land, pointing out Robert Clinton and Tony Blair just at random as there is no obvious link on Companies House to either of these.
Ghislaine Maxwell did indeed have a company, Terramar (UK) and the name of faara does indeed crop up on the inocporation document for this company.As the agency confirming that the requirements of the request to incorporate have been complied with. You know; as a solicitor might do.

Now for the great apostrophe hunt. You get your knickers in a twist over Voluntary Sector Mental Health Providers Forum and how the original name, at incorporation, had an apostrophe after the word 'Providers'' So it did. Now if you had bothered to read the filing for 11th April 2006, you would have seen the change of name to the current name; ie without the apostrophe. This apparent failure to read all the info seems a common failing of yours. This wouldn't be bad if it wasn't for the following nonsense about changing the name to facilitate fraud, child traficking etc. Why do you not write to this company and accuse them directly of such offences?
The Royal Society for Public Health? Well, no need to follow your lack of logic. The RSPH provides us with the info that the name was changed from "the (Royal Sanitary Institute to the current name in 1955. End of that mystery. It doesn't help or advance anyone's interests that you call it out as "an absolute fraud offence".

Now you point to a name, saying "now we've got this person" and showing the name of Ben Sumerskill and how he is linked with a real estate company. And nothing else.
Now for Colliers International, incorporated in December 2001, "That is just after the World Trade Centre". As were a lot of events. Matching a year of incorporation with the WTC event does NOT mean any any significant event. I went to Anfield to see Liverpool play in the Champions League game on 11th September 2001. That must surely make me a prime suspect?
And, off we go again linking Teneo Financial Advsiory. Another company I have covered previously and I shan't bother with here.
However, we then get to another piece of stupidity that I have previously covered; your preposterous links to Swift Incorporations to the bank money moving system Known as S.W.I.F.T. A copy from my original document: "I think I ought to point out that S.W.I.F.T, in relation to banking, stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, established in Belgium in 1973, but, of course you knew that didn't you. The Swift Incorporations you are pointing out is a British company whose business is company formations. Imagine that! A company whose business is the creating and registering companies should have their name appear in so many company incorporation documents! They have nothing at all to do with bank data from New York!" There! You must see why I used the term 'stupidity', not out of malice.
I got a bit dizzy when you started darting around all manner of people/entities so I thought I would give your "research documents" a whirl. First I tried was the Nicola Bulley doc. No actual  links there to anyone or anything except reprints from news articles and a most ridiculous attempt to smear her husband because he works for BAE Sytems. As do thousands of others!
Next document; you reach a new low. Claiming to provide something about a child protection case (I hope you are not stupid enough to do that, given how protective and secretive the courts are on this subject). What do I find? Nothing! Some baseless claims about children allegedly being murdered in Jersey. Groundless allegations as per your own document.
You post a document, 'BCP Council' which contains some of the daftest tosh I have encountered.
Update: I have, this morning, got my day off to a dreadful start; I clicked on the latest piece of tripe from Richard Vobes (a despicable person in my view). In his latest offering, he is featuring you and here we go. In support of your flakey argument that the whole thing revolves around HMRC (see a dictionary; the pronunciation of the letter 'H' is 'Aitch', not 'Haych') doing various things, including the shutting down of the Self-Employed Line for several months. Well, rubbish! HMRC operates a help line fo tax self-assessment users and it was this that they proposed shutting down during the summer. This was 14 days ago. Very quickly (next day in fact), they rowed back on this and reversed that decision. And that was 13 days ago. Do keep up!
And here we go, totally predictable! The SWIFT banking system..blah blah. Take note; this is NOT a company and therefore merits no entry in the Companies House register. Next is the  Swift Incorporations that you mention as being involved in the formation of your own company. I have checked and looked into this so many times in the last week it is making my head spin. Anyway, my findings are listed in this blog. And this is more or less where your troubles begin.

The bottom line:

Your whole host of "links to" etc appears to have all been based on your incorrect assertion that Swift Incorporations and Jordans never existed and therefore all reference to either of these companies must be fake/fraudulent. In fact, all your allegations of links (real or imagined) must fall away as they are all based on an idotic, incorrect and hysterical reading of the facts. You may have genuine grievances re the management of your company (of which you were a director and therefore must bear some responsibility for 14 years). I don't know and can't judge based on what you show as 'evidence'.

Gary's Universal Conspiracy Theory

 Intro: Gary Waterman is a man who, as a result of some possibly difficult circumstances, has, what they call "Gone off on one". His difficult circumstances seem to revolve around leasehold/freehold issues in the building where he has a flat. He was, at one time, a director of the company that managed the property. There appears to have been an issue between him and the rest of the board as the Companies House filing in respect of him says "Termination of Appointment" in July 2023.

Subsequent to this, he has taken to uploading videos to YouTube telling the world how he has established "links" from this to that to the other 'proving' that virtually every commercial enterprise in existence today is operating fraudulently, that Companies House is complicit in enabling this to go on and it all boils down to a global conspiracy. From his start point with his leasehold problems, he jumps so quickly to linking Lloyds Bank (who he alleges furnished forged/fraudulent bank statements to him) to the demise of Nicola Bulley and alleged irregularities in the management of the Madeleine McCann Fund.

It was one of his recent videos on the McCann topic that caught my attention so I looked into that. Below is my message to Gary Waterman, pointing out the errors, inaccuracies and plain stupid 'links' that he relies upon to 'prove' his claims. The reason I decided to do this was because, having looked at one of his other videos, I posted a comment on his page pointing out what I thought was wrong with his posts and offering my advice (for what it is worth) that he looks again at his claims and to beware of the companies and company directors who may view his allegations as libellous and to remember, big corporations have big budgets and they can employ some serious legal people to go after him (should they wish). His response was to post a comment which said that if I disagree with him, then perhaps I am one of the people conspiring against him. This got me angry but I responded with a call for him to retract the allegation or I shall take this argument more public. Two days later and I have heard nothing more from him so here we are.

Gary: Let's start with the Madeleine McCann story, your video titled "Missing Madeleine McCann links to decades long government fraud."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USv6sZkoFYc&ab_channel=Gary

According to you at 2.03 into the video, you state "Where millions of pounds of taxation money, public money was put through that account". At this point, you wander off, naming the Company Secretary from the Incorporation document. Well, let's hold on a bit and leave them until later. Before moving on to them, let's examine the statement you made re "millions of pounds of taxation money etc".
The fund's first set of accounts from 31 March 2008 show £1.8M income and a surplus of £1,052,027 to be carried forward. There is also a statement of Income, stating that "Income comprises donations received by the company along with revenue recognised in respect of merchandise supplied, exclusive of VAT". Not much room for millions of pounds of taxation money there, is there?
The following year's accounts describe how the Daily Express and other publications were making amends for a year of bogus speculation and accusations the previous year. The Express and other publications offered donations to the Fund. The auditors report for this year shows Income of £629,000 and a negative year end balance of £361,763.
The report for 2010 shows a similar pattern with Income at £233,099 and a year end deficit of £220,230. Tax was also paid (£2,598).
The annual report for 2011 contains the following lines: "Over the past financial year, as with the previous one, the costs of the search continue to be higher than the fund's annual income". And at year's end, there is a loss of £344,849.
The next 2 year's reports show that the publication of the book "Madeleine" by Kate McCann significantly improved the fund's position. There was also mention of David Cameron but only reporting his setting up of an inquiry. No mention of a couple of quid from government. And so the account trails go, only getting into a positive balance of funds following money raised as a result of the Kate McCann book. Nowhere throughout the accounts, from incorporation to date is there any suggestion of "taxation money". An apology and correction might be called for here.
So; let's look at the next couple of minutes of the video:

Off you go, on a magic carpet ride through the names and addresses of the entities involved in the McCann fund incorporation. You seem to get hung up a bit on the word "Temple".
You point out that, on the McCann incorporation paper, the agent is Bates Wells & Braithwaite. While pointing this out, you throw in one of your standard lines about links to fraud. No details yet but we shall see as the video grinds on. Further down the page, you highlight the name BWB (No 2) Limited. At this point you introduce an element of mystery: This is the point where you throw in the phrase "millions of taxation funds etc". The mystery arises from the lack of clarity: you are pointing to the First Director , while pointing out that this is on the McCann Fund incorporation page, giving rise to the question "Which of the 2 entities, McCann Fund or BW(No 2) Limited? You really ought to make that very clear. In my argument above, I have assumed you were referring to the Fund. Only you can answer that one.
Now you march on to "Let's have a look at those companies", starting with BWB (No2) Limited and point to London Law Secretarial Ltd and this is where you develop the fixation on the term "Temple". BWB(No2) Ltd was dissolved January 2018. Never mind, the incorporation document for this company, as you point out, names London Law Secretarial Ltd as the company secretary. What a coincidence! A company whose business is provision of secretarial services, featuring as a company secretary! You tell us how the Temple" address is linked to this etc Well of course it is: it is the address of the Company Secretary. If a different address had been used, they would  be in trouble with Companies House. And off we go, lickety split to look at London Law Agency Ltd. At this point, you wet your knickers and proudly tell us that the company shown on the incorporation does not exist.
Hmmm. Companies House shows that to be a firm of solicitors, based in Wimbledon. No mention of Temple there. Originally incorporated in 1967 with the name Ganvilon Motors Limited, just as pronounced by you with an air of triumph. Aah! in 1969 the company name was changed to The London Law Agency Limited. Yes it was ! Don't argue. Read the entry dated 27 October 1967, especially the part that begins "Special Resolutions were duly passed, 1. That the name of the company be changed to The London Law Agency Ltd."
Undeterred, you continue with "Jordan and Sons is also on that document". No, it isn't. That name appears on the next filing under the title of"NEWINC". Now you link Jordan & Sons with "my company, where fraudulent documents...etc". So what?
Now you get silly, saying "The evidence here is now overwhelming, the authorities need to..." Forgive me but I am not overwhelemed. There  has been not one scrap of evidence of anything produced so far. And you insist on telling the world, at the start of each of your videos, how you are an ex-policeman. Now you point again at Ganvilon Motors and declare it has an address of Cliffords Inn on this document. No it has not! That address is the address of the solicitor dealing with the incorporation of Ganvilon Motors. I know this to be true as I read it on the same document you claim to be reading.
Next you tell us Ganvilon Motors Ltd is not registered on Companies House. The Incorporation Document you claim to be reading, dated 17 October shows the company name as "Ganvilon Motors Ltd". How about that? Read the other document, the one you used to accuse Jordan & Sons of something untoward, titled NEWINC. It gives the name of the company as Ganvilon Motors Limited. You can see the "Limited" if you just move your gaze from Jordan & Sons, up the page a bit and there it is! Do you see it now, just above the line showing Statement of the Nominal Capital". Having spouted that rubbish, you state, quite definitively, "That is fraud". Tell you what, how about if I forward your rubbish to the injured party (the one you accuse of fraud) and see what they have to say about that?
Bashing on; you now pick on a couple of people involved with the Madeleine Fund, starting with Philip Tomlinson and you tell us about his involvement with Thomas Burton Developments Ltd and how this company was incorporated in 1992 and is still active. I should point out here that Philip Tomlison was born in 1931 and is probably enjoing his retirement now.
And off you go, via Thomas Burton Developments, on a foray into lala land. You mention that Burton Developments are linked with Swift Incorporations Ltd, saying "which you may remember Swift Incorporations and Jordans were both involved in starting up your company with forged bank documents." Suddenly, you are on a page of the Gazette newspaper focussing on an article about Nicola Bulley with some nebulous claims from a "Private Investigator" and his efforts to clear up some inaccuracies about the disappearance of Nicola Bulley. Well I am buggared if I can see the connection there. Make your mind up; how did you make that leap from bad mouthing a company to a nutter who can out plod all the plod in Lancashire? After reciting the past work of Mark Williams-Thomas, the private investigator who actually claims to be a "crime reporter", you say, randomly, "I suspect (unclear) have information that police officers were killed in relation to all this." All what? Anyway, it takes only a second or two for you to leap from a company he was once involved in, GumFighters and then you pounce on how this company was employed by various councils to clean their streets. According to you, that is important to note. A search on his former company GumFighters shows a previous name for the company of Hallco 369 Limited and you then comment on how "this crops up a lot where sequential number is given to a particular company for their initial registration." And off you go, yet again, with a company incorporation document for Hallco369 Ltd. Absolutely rivetting! Not! But you pick up on a person's name and show how he is involved with  a company named Fortdale Properties Limited, telling us to remember "Property & real estate factors heavily in all this fraud". No evidence anywhere of this. Perhaps I should plough on, perhaps there will be evidence later. "And the fake bank documents I have acquired links to a property limited company" and next you are naming a director of the Fortdale Properties company, named Jeremy Paul Janion and you are off. On a swift series of "links/goes through" to various companies who have all used Swift Incoporations Ltd. "And you can see someone else linked to GumFighters UK "Kathryn Janion " Don't bother telling us how this is linked anywhere. She is obviously related to the director you previously named, Paul Janion. You mention her name with "If that's a real person". I take it you have grounds for doubting the existence of this person? Well, if she is not real there will be a number of companies looking for her; she is linked to 8 companies in the period 1992 to date. One of the companies you connect her with, 3G Cleaning Ltd is shown as Signaward Limited from 10 April 2001 to 11 May 2001. Aagh, screams your inner Sherlock Holmes. Look how quickly the name was changed to Graffiti Fighters UK Ltd. Scandalous! Changing the company name after only a month. You tell us "it is all, I believe, part of this fraudulent system". What "fraudulent system"? You still haven't shown that yet. Oh God! You expand on your thoughts by saying it is all down to Companies House allowing companies to chop and change their names to avoid litigation so that crime can be committed. Being an ex-policeman, you would know the meaning of "litigation" surely? It is not connected with the criminal legal system but rather refers to settling civil disputes. Never mind. What is the purpose of Companies House if not to track and regulate the changes in company names, the appointment and resignations of directors etc?
Oh no! Back to the old chant about Swift Incorporations Ltd and Jordan and Sons and the links of those 2 entities to the beginning of your difficulties.
Along on another twist strewn set of 'linkages' now, from Temple Secretaries Ltd there is a link to Osprey Deep Cleaning. Whoa! Back to GumFighters UK now (this is the timing of your video, not mine) and we get a name: David Bovell. He now "goes through to another company Opportunity Investment Management Plc, with a Belgium address." Now, with no idea why, you point to Mark Williams-Thomas, saying he was linked to that company. Which company? Opportunity Investment etc? No, he is NOT. "AND Specialist Investigations is linked through to him". Well, of course it is! He was one of the 2 original directors who founded the company!
Sadly, you refer to a discredited rag, The Sun, for your next foray and pick up on Clarence Mitchell. And here is another of your cock-ups. You show the Companies House front page of Clarence Mitchell while your commentary says "Let's look at Madeleine McCann's Companies House records". Clarence Mitchell is NOT Madeleine McCann. Not to worry. You correctly show that he is linked to JBP Associates Ltd., listed by Companies House as engaged in PR and communications and this company was started by Swift Associates. And away we go to BWB Secretarial, routing through "Temple" and BWB Secretarial to Philip Kirkpatrick. Linked how? Is it because he was a director of BWB (No2) Ltd? Regardless of the pointless link, you plough on and link him to "The Death Penalty Project Ltd" and then point out that Keir Starmer is also linked to this company. So what? Anyway, you point to the address for the Death Penalty Project at 10 Queen Street, EC4R 1BE and say, quite glibly, this address comes back to the same address on the Madeleine McCann's Fund page. It bloody well doesn't! The incorporation document for the McCann fund shows an address of 2-6 Cannon Street EC4M 6YH.
Whoa! Stop! You continue wth Keir Starmer and sieze upon his tenure as Director of the Death Penalty Project as a link "through Companies House records to Nicola Bulley, that is linked to Madeleine McCann that is linked to this fraud". Absolute tosh! You have not shown a single link to any fraud. Having shown us how you don't have a clue about how companies work, creating imaginary links, you finish up by urging us to watch something by Sonia Poulton regarding Madelin McCann. I have seen a few of her pieces so perhaps I shall. After all, who could resist the lure of an important input that can't even spell the name of the subject correctly? (her name was not McGann.!) I will be most interested in the section marked "Unprecedented public spending". Oh dear! I just tried to watch the video and got the message "This video is not available any more". So, I searched all of her videos, looking for the tag "McCann" and came up with more than a slack handful. Tedious though it was, I skimmed through the lot. None of the dramatic revelations you were promising in your piece.
In summary; you stared off with a promise to show "links". At the end, there are no links of any note.The fact that a pair of companies doing what they do for a living (Swift & Jordan& Sons) does not make a link to anything. Still less does it show any evidence of fraud etc. It does seem obvious that you want to blame a couple of companies for your misfortune but, for that, you have to be at least partly to blame. All your talk about forged bank statements etc point to one thing: your possible culpability in any alleged wrong doing. You were, after all, a director of the company and directors have certain responsibilities. In fact, it would be fair to say that, if we were daft enough to use your phantom link logic, then you are presumably linked to all the crap in this video (same banks, company secretaries etc). And that, in turn, links you to Madeleine McCann, Nicola Bulley et al.

So, who now is complicit in the global conspiracy etc? You or me?

Mr Shapps; again! (the next Dr Who?)

 

The BBC reports today that the dear, exalted prick, (the Right Honourable Member) Grant Shapps, had to rearrange his trip to Ukraine on 6/7th March. He flew via his private jet G-ZABH,
(The one the RAF refer to as the "Royal Flight".) from Northolt to Poland
where he took a train to Kiev. The plan then was to, presumably, take another train from Kiev to Odessa
According to the BBC reports (and those from various newsprint wasters such as the Times), Shapp's plan was for a gallivant to Odessa.

And this is where the story starts to look a bit iffy.

He left UK for Poland on 6th March at 15:18 GMT (see below); from Northolt,  arriving in Poland approx 17:30 GMT.
Presumably, he would have been carrying Tesco bags, stuffed with your hard earned cash, for transfer to Zelensky's back pockets.
Well, things were not going well for Zelensky that day (6th March). He was in Odessa, meeting with the Greek Prime Minister.
According to Russian sources, Zelensky had been awarding members of the Ukraine Special Forces, in particular those who had had a hand in destroying the Russian ship in the Black Sea recently.
At 08:40 GMT, the Russians launched an Iskander missile at the base that Zelensky had been visiting. Basically, Zelensky had given the game away, alerting the Russians to where this base was located. Rumour has it that UK had officers there, controlling some of the UK weapons, planning etc. It would make sense for UK officers to be in the region; who else was Shapps going to use as props for his planned photo-op the following day? The same rumours claimed there was a lot of evacuation flights out of the area.

Let's have a bit of a time line here:
6 March, Ukrainian video on internet shows Zelensky's motorcade travelling through
Odessa to the awards ceremony.
6 March 08:40 GMT Russia launched an Iskander strike at Odessa, destroying the base.
Presumably, a loud bang had been noticed in Odessa when Shapps left Northolt 7 hours later?
Undeterred, our hero pressed on and took a train from Rzeszow air base to Kiev, arriving in Kiev the following day, 7th March.
The train service is currently slated to take 14 hours. If the train left Poland at 18:00 (his flight had arrived at 17:30) he could have arrived in Kiev at 06:00 (Polish border disputes notwithstanding).
Time for a wash and brush up, potty time etc and he decided to head home. The earliest he could have arrived at the Polish air base would have been 21:00. Hmmm. He was on a plane at Lublin in time for a  14:57 departure. How did he do that? Perhaps he had morfed into Dr Who.
If he had caught the dark o'clock connecting service from Kiev to Odessa, he would have arrived some 9 hours later. A slow but cheap service (£3-8)! But he didn't. According to the story, he decided to cancel Odessa and return whence he came. Oh dear! Another tiring 14 hour trip back to Poland, this time to Lublin. So, he set off for a visit to Odessa which was under Russian fire the previous day then waited until he had arrived in Kiev to decide it was dangerous. A jolly junket for the aviation mad Shapps.

RAF Falcon 900 G-ZABH flew to Rzeszow air base in Poland, departing Northolt 6th March 15:18 GMT, arriving in Poland approx 17:30 GMT.
Departed Poland approx 18:25 (less than 1 hour on ground), returned to Northolt, arriving approx 20:33.

The other Falcon of this pair, G-ZAHS, left Northolt 8th March at 11:40 GMT for Lublin, Poland.
Arrived Lublin at 13:59 GMT and departed for Northolt at 14:57 GMT, arriving back there at 17:10 GMT.

 Quis Est Mentiri (Who is lying)?

Well, someone is. Today's liars daily (aka The Daily Mail) is carrying a "story", quoted on the BBC web page, about how those sneaky Russians blanked GPS signals and satellite comms to/from the aircraft carrying his Great Most Exalted and Infallible Excellency Grant Shapps to and from Poland. (I see it has now spread to some real newspapers such as the Guardian, Independent etc. oh, and old Aunty BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68569676). According to the rag known as the Mail, the aircraft suffered a 30 minute black out "as it was flying over the Baltic Sea". Did it now? Furthermore, they claim "the sustained high-tech assault on the plane's hardware is believed to have been run from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad." Sounds serious; GPS "knocked out"? "Where are we Captain"? Buggered if I know, GPS is not talking to me. This needs a good dose of looking at.

Well, the aircraft, a Dassault Falcon based at RAF Northolt and forming half of the so-called Royal Flight, reg  G-ZAHS, took his Highness, Shapps to an air base in Poland, Olsztyn. It landed there at 10:53 GMT. Having completed his photo ops, it departed this airbase at 16:23 GMT, declaring it was off to Oslo. Except it wasn't going anywhere near Oslo. Flying out of the Polish air base in a north westerly direction, it climbed to 16,000ft and declared it was diverting to Northolt. Gerraway! It should be noted that Kaliningrad is due north of the Polish air base, some 50 miles or so distant. The plane flew across Poland, crossing the German border south of Stettin, skirting Berlin and landing at Northolt at 18:25.

At no time did this aircraft go anywhere near Kaliningrad, neither did it venture over the Baltic Sea. Ever! 

It may be worth mentioning here that, at the time this was "occurring" (or not), airliners from Air India, Finnair, Ryanair and Aeroflot all managed to navigate safely through the area without all bumping and banging into each other.

So, someone is telling fibs. The question is Who? Well, on the one hand we have the MoD. Well known for hiding the facts etc, justifiably in some cases. They are also currently engaged in banging the "government's" drum, coming up with all manner of fairy tales to suit the government's agenda, particularly where Russia and Israel are concerned.

And, in the other corner,  we have dodgy Grant. It would be convenient here to refer you to the Wikipedia page on Shapps. Or, look up the story on how he sold suckers a book which promised to help you make $20,000 in 20 days. The e-book cost $497 and advised the suckers to come up with some crap idea and sell it to other suckers. He was also, at one time, the chairman of an organisation named BBYO. This is a youth group which promotes Zionism. So, I suppose we can look forward to the RAF delivering much needed "aid" to Israel soon!

What more can I say? Oh! I bet you didn't know this; the airaft involved and its sister G-ZABH, may be flying for the RAF Royal Flight but the RAF don't own them though. The owners are Centreline Air Charter Ltd. So, rather than purchase 2 aircraft, they thought it would better to rent them from others. Nothing new there though. When the RAF needed air tankers that could also be used as cattle trucks, shuffling troops around, they contracted AirTanker to provide the aircraft and, approximately every 6 months they would be re-painted and fly holiday makers around for Thomas Cook or Condor. Here's one; G-VYGK except when flying for the RAF it became ZZ340: https://kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=35643 This one is currently flying troops from Brize Norton to Rzeszow in Poland, just 91 miles from Lvov!

Israel

First, let's get one thing out of the way: I make a clear distinction between Israel And the Jewish religion. So you can stick your "anti-semite" responses up your arse. I don't care if a person is Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Mounted Bombay Methodist. Everything and everyone should be treated on their merits, good or bad.

Now, let's move on to the right wing saddo who posts on You Tube under the name "Ex British Army Paz49". Today, he is posting some anti BBC tripe on the topic of why the BBC refuses to call Hamas "terrorists". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHvWNr9-StY&ab_channel=ExBritishArmyPaz49

Personally, I gave up watching BBC news programmes some time ago because of obvious bias in their reporting in Ukraine and John Simpson was never one of my favourite reporters. This Paz49  is obviously one of the people posting on You Tube clearly taking the side of the Netanyahu government and attacking Hamas. That's OK; freedom of speech and all that. (Make the most of it while you still can). I suspect this bloke is an awful lot younger than me, so I feel it right that I should try to educate him. I don't know for sure but I suspect my time in the British Army had finished before he was born.

First, let's examine past events regarding the State of Israel and its foundation. A long time ago, even before my time, Jews around the world had been crying for a state of their own. A state based solely on your religion? Whatever, their wish was granted and the Soviet Union came to their aid, creating the Jewish Autonomous Oblast via a decree in 1928. That still exists to this day as an autonomous oblast (the only one) and is still effectively a federal component of modern Russia. It is located on the border between Russia and China in the Russian far east. Regardless of the geography, it is still an autonomous state.

Post WW2, Zionists determined that Palestine would do nicely for their new homeland, thank you very much and began infiltrating into the British Mandate of Palestine. The British government didn't really want Palestine but it was mandated to them by the League of Nations and the British set about running it as per their mandate. The Zionist terrorist organisations, Haganah and Irgun didn't like this and set about organising terrorist operations within Palestine. They were labelled quite widely as "Terrorists" even by that great beacon of democracy (not!) Winston Churchill and Albert Einstein. They didn't seem to have any one side in the affairs of Palestine in their sights and set about killing and maiming Arab and British people alike. Eventually, in 1948, they bombed the King David hotel in Jerusalem, killing more than 90, including British, Palestinains and Jews alike. To cap this off, they organised the killing of 107 Arabs, including women and children in the village of Deir Yassin. If you are going to kill unarmed women and children, don't be susprised if you are labelled "Terrorist"! The list of Irgun outrages is so long, it even warrants its own section in Wikipedia, 3 whole pages of them! Also, following the end of WW2, a lot of British servicemen had been released from the armed forces and those of the Jewish faith went to Palestine and were involved in attacking and killing their erstwhile mates; fellow British servicemen, along with any Arab who didn't have a gun! So, there's a nice introduction to the beginnings of the Israeli state.

And then, there is the question of dispossessing Palestinian Arabs of their homes and land. Sadly, this has gone on from the earliest days of Israel up until this day. Unless you have been there and witnessed the unimagable suffering this has caused and continues to cause, it is probably best if you hold your peace and say nothing until you have educated your self. Can you imagine a British population being invaded by others who take away your homes and land and then just sitting there quietly, uttering a lot of "tut" and doing nothing about it? No, I can't either. We would be up in arms and doing our best to remove the usurpers. Wasn't a great deal made during WW2 about the training of not only the Home Guard but the "stay behind Squads"? These people were expected to go to ground wherever possible, in order to attack German invaders, yet they were never called "Terrorists". They would be labelled "Freedom Fighters" (quite rightly too).

So, we come to today, 2023, when, after 80 years of brutal, sub-human treatment by the Israeli government, the Palestinians have said "Enough!"and decided it was time to dish out some of the treatment they are regularly subjected to, if only to say "Now will you pay attention to us?" Isn't it odd that we here in the UK have listened for years to various governments condemning the likes of Al Quaeda, Islamic Front and their ilk for being driven by a religious ideology, yet, when it goes on daily in Israel we don't condemn the religious drivers here. I have no time for any of those organisations. Anybody who uses religion as an excuse to inflict pain and misery on others belongs to the era of the Spanish Inquisition and deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history as was the Inquisition. During my time in Aden (1966/67) we had to put up with a lot of crap including attacks with hand grenades, shootings, mortars etc. yet I hold no malice toward the evil bastards behind it all as they were at least "fighting" for a political purpose, not just mindless terror in the name of religion.

By the way, Mr Paz49, during my time, it was my pleasure to serve with a bunch of your comrades, "B" Company, South Wales Borderers. I had 5 months with these boys in 1967 in Botswana and what a great bunch they were, except for the occasional "11 VCs before breakfast" chants if they wanted to wind us non-SWB up (refers to the battle of Rorke's Drift when they were the 24th Regiment of Foot). We put up with that and even joined in with them but I don't remember a single one of them ever spouting the kind of tripe you produce.

 Stupidity at its finest

A quick glance at the front page of the Daily Mail this morning (courtesy of the BBC) shows the banner headline from Sarah Vine: "Does anyone give a fig about all of us hard-working taxpayers whose lives are being wrecked by strikes?"

 

Has the woman not got the brains to figure it out? Is she really trying to tell us that nurses are neither hard-working nor are paying taxes?

How about teachers, ambulance crews, postmen and all the others who have found it necessary to resort to strikes to try to maintain a decent standard of living? They all work hard and they all are liable to pay taxes. Unlike people named Mrs. Sunak or Zahawi. These are people who seem to feel that paying tax is only for the "little people", the great unwashed hordes.

Does the privileged Ms Vine not understand that these workers are sacrificing wages while they are on strike? And when they are not on strike, they are paying their fair share of taxes?

Why is it that this so-called government can claim not to have the funds to pay these strikers a decent living wage, yet are able to dish out billions of pounds, no questions asked, to the most corrupt government in Europe? I wouldn't be surprised to learn one day that these hand outs are going to Kiev in the form of grubby £50 notes via the diplomatic bag.

 

I shall not be reading the article penned by Ms Vine. The odious headline has ensured that!

Hypocrisy

 

 

Hypocrisy:  The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Hypocrisy seems to be gaining ground these days, with examples springing up all around. It is something I don't like but when practiced by those pretending to be better and cleverer than us mere mortals, it really aggravates me. So I thought I would mention a few examples:

Beginning with one that came to my attention today. On November 25th, the US regulator for telecomms, the FCC, announced a ban on deployment in the US of telecomms equipment made by, among others, Huawei. That is a ban effective 25th November 2022. The same gang (US government) had carried out a round of brow beating of European nations in 2019, basically forcing European nations to take out and replace their Huawei 5G equipment. The UK Security/Intelligence services had previously done an examination of Huwaei equipment going into UK telecomms systems and given it a clean bill of health. The Yanks shouted at Boris who responded with an "Oo Err Mrs" moment, followed by an edict that all Huawei kit would have to be removed. So, for almost 3 years, it was deemed necessary to eradicate Huawei from Europe on the grounds it was a security risk, while continuing to happily install and commission it in the USA. That's hypocrisy!

How about the UK's lunatic fringe, particularly "Just Stop Oil"? During their recent anti-social behaviour, sitting down in busy roads etc, causing massive disruption to many, and personal distress to others, I couldn't help noticing a couple of points: First, where and when these people found themselves in court for breaching injunctions etc, it became obvious that these people, in the main, came from a certain class; the comfortably off, presumably well educated class and second noticeable feature was their dress. Look for them on the internet and there are hundreds of images, showing them wearing rugged boots with rubber or rubber substitute soles, high-vis gilets, nylon or polyester garments etc. While telling us we must "Just Stop Using Oil" in our daily lives, they seem quite comfortable in wearing clothing that relies for its production on oil! Even if the boots were of natural rubber, have you seen how many tons of diesel fuel is used in the ships carrying the rubber to these shores?

A bit more hypocrisy, featuring once again the world leading exponents of the art, the USA. Currently, they are telling us how the Russian attacks on Ukraine's power infrastructure constitutes a "war crime". Does it now? If true (I don't think it is), was it not a war crime when the US announced in the 1990s how it was going to attack Iraq, beginning with bombing the Iraqi electricity system with carbon fibre filaments, designed specifically to (a) disable the grid and (b) to make it more difficult to restore electricity supplies. Or, what about bombing the crap out of the Yugoslav electricity system because the Yanks wanted to assist Kosovo in their independence grab?

And speaking of independence grabs, how about Ukraine? The regions of Donetsk and Lugansk sought and were granted autonomy within Ukraine in 2014/2015. Note: they were not seeking independence. They chose that route only after 8 years of Ukraine shelling and bombing of civilians and total disregard for the Minsk Accords? Such a flagrant desire to look after themselves (How dare they!) was greeted with contempt and a US led movement to refuse to recognise their self-determination.

BBC; Take note

 

What is this woman doing? Well, she was, at the time the photo was taken, doing 2 things: 1) Politely asking the journalist taking the photo if she could use his phone and (2) Dying.

She had been working in the civil administration building in Lugansk on 2nd June 2014.

Moments earlier the Ukraine Air Force had flown an Su-25 ground attack plane over the street outside the civil administration building and strafed the area with what seems to have been 30mm rounds.

Of course, the Kiev government denied it was anything to do with them. The OCSE reported the following day "In Luhansk the situation remained volatile. On 2 June, shortly after 15:00 hrs, rockets hit the occupied regional administration building. Based on the SMM’s limited observation these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown". https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/119479

Regardless of who did what, the poor lady in the photograph died of her wounds a short time later.

CNN published this report, clearly discrediting the Ukraine government's denials: 

https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/119479

On the same day, the BBC published this weasel-worded nonsense: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27661848. No doubt, the BBC would consider it churlish of me to suggest that the "reporter" contributing this item was sat in the Dog & Duck in Piccadilly, getting his feed via a Ukraine "source". Churlish or not, I'll take that risk and say just that!

Yet, here we are, over 8 years since this incident and the pompous bastards at the BBC maintain that this struggle/war/conflict (delete that which doesn't suit you) began 8 months ago. No stupid! It began over 8.5 years ago. Try and be a little more honest with your audience. Or try and get another job!

 

Wanna Buy Some Grain?

Recently, following the Ukraine/UK attack on the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sebastapol, there was a brief hiatus in the tripartite deal between Ukraine, Russia and Turkey  that allowed the shipment of grain from Ukrainian ports. The shipments continued after Russia said words to the effect of "OK Ukraine. You have had your warning, don't pull a stunt like that again". The day shipments resumed, I chose 9 bulk carriers departing Ukraine and heading South in the Black Sea.

Given the constant bleating from Ukraine and the UN about how the blockade of Ukraine ports was depriving starving third world nations of much needed grain. A need made more urgent by climate changes around the world resulting in crop failures, droughts etc. If renewed grain  shipments were to bring some desperately needed relief to those countries, it could only be a good thing. However, being a bit of a cynic, I thought I would track these 9 ships "just to see". (I had followed a couple of the very first shipments in July this year and they had not ended up where they said they were going).

Under the deal, shipments go via Turkey for checks to ensure the ships are indeed carrying grain exclusively and nothing untoward. So, it was no surprise to note that of the 9 vessels selected for following, all 9 declared Istanbul to be their destination, once they were underway. Eventually ships modified their declared destinations, usually upon leaving the Bosporus Anchorage after a couple of days at anchor. On 4th November, the following ships signalled modified destinations as follows:

St Sofia            Dest            Cartagena                    Caravos Harmony     Dest        Port Said

Nikolaos  A      Dest            Liverpool                      Despina V                Dest        Rotterdam

Notice how many ports in starving 3rd world nations there? At a quick count, I would say Nil. Zero, blank, bugger all, nought. Well, fair enough. That is only 4 of the 9, meaning 5 others had not decided or declared their destinations. So, Amyntor signalled Istanbul Anchorage as destination on 5th November. And no change for the remainder. Subsequently, Eco Destiny decided on 12th November it was bound for Tripoli and is now in Misrata (Libya). St Sofia has berthed in Cartagena, Caravos Harmony on 8th November decided it was not stopping in Port Said but would transit Suez, heading for Singapore and was last seen in the Gulf of Aden, apparently heading that way. Nikolaos A has berthed in Liverpool, Mount Baker is still bimbling around Maramara Sea, still determined to go to Istanbul. Ikairia Angel, on 11th November, turned around and set off for Djibouti and today it is in the Gulf of Suez. After a few days lurking around Istanbul, African Robin decided on 10th November to go to Almeria and was last seen somewhere between Sicily and Tunis allegedly "Out of Range" of suitable AIS receivers. (Other ships in the same area are NOT Out of Range though, so...hmmm). Following a couple of excursions around the Marmara Sea and the Aegean Sea, Amyntor came back to Turkey and is berthed in Iskanderun

As a table, they all look like this:

St Sofia                 Dest            Cartagena                    Caravos Harmony    Dest       Singapore

Nikolaos   A          Dest            Liverpool                     Despina V                Dest        Rotterdam

Amyntor                Dest            Iskanderun                   Eco Destiny             Dest       Misrata

Mount Baker         Dest            Istanbul                        Ikairia Angel            Dest        Djibouti

African Robin        Dest            Algiers

So there we have it. Of 9 ships carrying "desperately needed" grain supplies to the starving millions, I can see only 1 that would qualify, Ikairia Angel. Having said that, the destination declared by the ship may be Djibouti but it is still in the Gulf of Suez. I would suggest I wait and see!

Where in the bible does it say "The idiots shall inherit the earth"?

 Of course, I am writing this with a jaundiced eye. But then, bear in mind the cause of this affliction. "Mainstream Media". (I hate the term but it is the only one available). I honestly don't know if the BBC (which I consider the bulwark of UK Mainstream Media) is deliberately creating and publishing crap or whether they are doing the bidding of others but as this war in Ukraine goes on they are beginning to really stretch the boundaries of stupid.

Let's take a look at one of today's headlines on the BBC web site: "Celebrations in Ukraine after 'extraordinary victory' in Kherson". I would like to offer an alternative view: There was no victory in Kherson or anywhere else for that matter. The Russians announced a few days in advance that they would be withdrawing from the right bank of the Dnieper River. And some time before that, they had issued a call for civilians on that side of the river to evacuate the area. To me, that does not sound like the actions of a force that was taken by surprise and subsequently beaten back by the enemy that was some miles away still. And, despite the BBC and others proclaiming Ukrainian victories here, there and everywhere since the much trumpeted Ukrainian counter-offensive which began in August and was getting nowhere, they were not yet in a position to seriously threaten the city of Kherson. They had won a couple of minor victories in some villages around the boundaries between them and the Russians.

So, despite the Ukrainian hot air about what was going on, there was effectively a stalemate. Bearing in mind the probable 3:1 ratio of Ukrainian forces to Russian, it probably seemed to the Russians that lines should be shortened here and there and that logic probably extended to the area within and around Kherson. The Russians had forces on the right bank of the Dnieper and they had to be reinforced and supplied via the bridge over the river, which was subject to shelling by the Ukrainians and was not expected to last too long and posed a danger to the forces on the right bank. It was therefore sensible to leave the right bank and to consolidate their forces along a more defensible line on the left bank.

Meanwhile, the Russians had been defending the dam across the Dnieper at Nova Kakhovka. The Ukrainians had been shelling this fairly regularly, presumably with the intention to breach the dam and flood the city of Kherson and its environs. The dam is reported to be damaged but still holding. I wonder if the Russians have looked at this and thought it may be on its last legs?  If so it does eventually fail, who will suffer the effects of the subsequent flood in Kherson. Maybe Ukraine? If so, that would be classed as a self-inflicted injury. Is the BBC reporting this? Don't be silly! Of course they are not. Update: As of 15th November, the BBC are reporting on the dam but of course everything has the usual caveats such as "According to sources" and "The BBC was unable to verify this".

Did anybody notice that within 30 minutes of Ukrainian forces entering Kherson, Zelensky was claiming that the Russians had "committed 400 war crimes" in the city. So soon after the events and so precise! Then the BBC stepped on its dick, publishing photos of alleged Russian collaborators tied to a lamp post in Kherson. A search of the BBC news for13th & 14th November no longer shows this photo. I wonder why? Could it be that someone has realised that publishing this war crime photo was a big whoopsie as it demonstrates a war crime being perpetrated by the Ukrainian side? And still they are banging on about "mass grave sites" in Mariupol and elsewhere. Using their criteria, there must have been some tremendous "war crimes" here in the UK as the place is littered with "mass grave sites". There are so many of these in the UK that we have a name for them; they are called "cemeteries"! 

A few days ago, the BBC did a big piece on "Russians Kept in Dark by Internet Search" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63246153). How interesting. Nowhere does it mention how, here in UK, a government decree was issued months ago, not only banning RT news from broadcasting but instructing all internet providers to block internet access to RT (and no doubt other news organisations that don't fit the narrative). So, Russia blocks/interferes with internet in Russia: "Bad boys, Russians". While the UK does exactly the same but "Hoorah for the bastion of Free Speech in the UK". Now there's balance for you. A living working example of "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you".

Finally (for today at least), I found myself getting very wound up this Sunday. I was one of the 10,000 veterans attending the parade at the Cenotaph, remembering all those who had given their lives in conflicts throughout the ages. Stood on Whitehall, I happened to look up and see, on the roof of the Foreign Office, a bloody big Ukrainian flag. Given the special day Remembrance Sunday is, they could have given this some thought and, if they considered it necessary to fly the flag of another nation alongside the Union Flag, they could have chosen from 100 others. No! They chose to fly the flag of a nation with a dark past from WW2. In that period, Ukraine was the nation of Stepan Bandera and others of his ilk. This was one of the WW2 war criminals that are celebrated in Ukraine today. His followers are very same modern era Nazis that were the target of the Russian invasion of Ukraine earlier this year. By giving the Ukrainian flag a prominent place on Sunday, I take it that the UK government is fully supportive of the Nazi ideals

 UKRAINE: The demise of free speech and honest media in UK

Let's start off by making a couple of things clear:

At the outset of the Russian action against Ukraine, I didn't think Russia's actions were a good idea.

I was a British soldier for 5 years around the middle of the "Cold War" and, as a result, was not particularly well disposed to Russia or the USSR.

Over the last few months, I have found my views being challenged and changed by events in Ukraine. My interest in events in Ukraine began at the time of the so-called "Maidan" events in Kiev in 2014. Since those events, I have started to take a more serious look at what is happening there. And a number of things appear to be solidifying out of the information soup being dished up by the media, particularly the "Western" media.

The first thing to solidify here is the fact I am more and more baffled by events. What is worse, looking at precedents and motives for what is happening ends up less and less clear. Bloody murky, in fact. Although one thing is fairly clear; the culprit that pops up throughout world history since the end of WW2 is that bastion of "democracy", USA. I think it is fair to say that, over those years, Russia has never invaded any sovereign nation (don't mention Afghanistan; Russia entered Afghanistan as a result of the then current Afghanistan government begging them to come and help them out in the struggles going on between various factions trying to gain and hold onto power there). The USA, on the other hand, has invaded something like 30 sovereign states. Some more than once! And what about engaging in war without putting soldiers and tanks on the ground? Take a look at Kosovo. 

 After the death of Tito, Yugoslavia embarked on a sort of national Hari Kari and began to fragment. To cut a long story short; a bunch of ethnic Albanians, living in the Serbian province of Kosovo, decided they no longer wanted to be part of Serbia and set about fighting the remains of a rudderless Yugoslav army. The USA decided they would pat the Kosovans on the back, encourage them in the fight which should properly be called a Civil War. This culminated in a relentless US bombing of Serbia. Bombing the civil infrastructure of Serbia, in fact. Bear that in mind when reading US inspired media reports of Russian offensives in Ukraine! The US bombing of Serbia was carried out without the political nicety of declaring war on Serbia. Somehow, the US managed to get NATO involved in an undeclared war. When British and Norwegian forces raced to occupy Prstina airport, they found, to their embarrassment, that they had come second and the Russian forces, who were allies of Yugoslavia/Serbia, had beaten them to it. The Russians knew that a fight over the airport would probably lead to WW3 and they withdrew. It should be remembered that the attacks by NATO, particularly the bombing campaign, was never approved by the UN Security Council. At the end of it all, a new republic of Kosovo was recognised by the US and not many other nations. Of course the UK went along with the US as we do as we are bloody well told by the US!

So, what does all this have to do with Ukraine? Well, Kosovo came about as a result of a civil war in Serbia plus unwanted (see UN resolution 1244, which authorised various military and civil options in Kosovo but which refused to back air attacks) US led bombing of Serbia, yet the US says "That's OK. We can recognise Kosovo as an independent state". 

In Ukraine, the civil population of 2 regions (Donetsk & Luhansk) , plus Crimea, decided they had had enough of the treatment they were getting from the Kiev government and voted to ally themselves with Russia. Voted: a much vaunted process labelled as 'Democracy' by western nations. At the behest of the US, western nations smeared this vote as 'illegal, sham' etc. In other words; what the US helped bring about in Kosovo at the point of a gun was OK & democratic, worthy of being termed acceptable etc, while the use of the ballot box in Ukraine was deemed unacceptable and the western media constantly refers to their actions as illegal. The lesson from this is straightforward: "If you want change, eschew the ballot box, pick up weapons and start a war. As long as you are shooting at a nation the US dislikes, you will get backing from the West".

Today, we have a constant stream of crap from the western media, referring to the actions of the people in Donbas and Crimea  as illegal, a sham etc. They all appear terrified of the idea of presenting a balanced view. The once respected BBC is as guilty of this as any. Who remembers Clive Myrie reporting from a hotel balcony in Kiev when the weather was nice and from an underground shelter when it wasn't? A total pointless waste of BBC expenses. Jeremy Bowen, a reporter who I admired for his Middle East coverage, came up with a piece of drivel from Kiev recently when he referred to the Russians as "having failed to take Kiev, as they had planned". Except, of course, the Russians had no such plan. They made to threaten Kiev in order to draw Ukrainian forces from other regions such as Kharkiv, Donbas etc to ease their fight in those regions. Putin had stated, more than once, they were not interested in taking Kiev; their aims were to support the people of the Donbas in their efforts to be rid of the Ukrainian yoke and to remove the "Nazis from the Ukraine government". It has to be said they have not yet achieved that particular aim.

Truss

Listening to Liz Truss yesterday, when being grilled by BBC local radio stations around the country, a recurring theme/phrase throughout was "It is all due to Putin's appalling war on Ukraine". This seemed to be part of her stock answers to questions about Kwasi Kwarteng's appalling "Financial Event" last Friday. (Note: he couldn't call it a budget as he had broken his own governments' rules on setting budgets which mandates that any budget statement can only be made after consultation with the Office for Budget Responsibility and publication of their view). She decided that rising inflation and sky rocketing energy costs were all a result of Russia and their actions re Ukraine. She is totally ignoring the fact that EU/UK/USA sanctions are hitting the EU & UK much harder than they are hitting Russia. Major energy consumers in Europe refused to pay for their gas in Rubles, a condition imposed by Russia as a quid pro quo for sanctions designed to hammer Russia economically. And fair enough; if I was a seller of a commodity, I would be quite within my rights to stipulate payment must be made in whatever currency I wanted. After various moves and counter-moves by both sides, Germany's access to the gas from Nord Stream 1 was cut off. Nord Stream 2 was not a viable alternative as the US had told Germany they must not commission that route or else Nord Stream 2 would be hit with sanctions. (And that was before Russia's invasion of Ukraine).

Anyway, back to Mrs Truss and her attempts to shift the blame for her own government's incompetence onto Russia's "appalling war on Ukraine". A review of wholesale gas prices shows wholesale gas price on December 21st 2021 was 451.68p per therm. On February 24th 2022 it was 321.05p per therm. February 24th was the day Russia invaded Ukraine, so a significant date. Yet the price on that day was 128.95 per therm, LOWER than the December 2021 price. By March 7th, the price spiked and reached a new high of 540.43p per therm and 2 weeks later, March 21st, it was 227.27p. Half of the previous December's figure! The following 5 months was a series of minor rises/falls around the 200p mark. The price began a steady rise throughout July, eventually reaching the December 2021 figure of 450p on August 18th. This was followed by a series of spikes, reaching 640.91p on August 26th. From then, until today, September 30th, there has been a series of falls and rises until the price reached 249.04 on September 29th. Today, there seems to have been another spike with the latest price (September 30th) showing 383.25p. But then, today is a day AFTER Truss was blaming all the financial woes of this country on Russia. Perhaps her comments caused the sudden spike in prices? Addendum: While writing this, the price has risen to 380p.

 You Couldn't (and I mean COULD NOT) make it up!

 Over the last few days, we have seen the battle of words over the need to get grain exports from Ukraine resume as soon as possible. That is an essential next step for those nations, particularly in Africa, who depend on regular shipments of grain to feed their populations. A majority of the politicians involved in the battle of words around this topic seemingly are incapable of acting like grown-ups and getting the job done. It seems to me clear to even the proverbial blind man on a galloping horse what needs to be done. Bulk Carriers (bulkers) need to get into Odessa to load the grain and get it gone to the ports where it is needed.

So, how are these failed grown-ups dealing with this issue? By putting the blame on Russia. Nothing new there; if the sun was to rise 2 hours late tomorrow, that would be Russia's fault. Obviously. The facts, which are there for all to see tell a different story. Odessa is the only port in Ukrainian territory so the grain would have to be shipped from there. The snag is that the Ukrainians have mined the port and its approaches. We have seen some of these mines go walk about and fetch up elsewhere in the Black Sea, as far south as the coast of Turkey, dangerously close to the Bosporus Straits. A quick look at traffic in that area as I write, shows dozens of vessels making transit through the Bosporus between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. This includes a large number of tankers. One would not want a tanker to bump into one of these mines!

A look at the ports in Ukraine shows half a dozen bulkers in the port of Chornomorsk, 6 more in Odessa, 4 in the port of Yuzhny and another 6 in the port of Nika Tera (on the Bug River, near Mykolaiv. If these bulkers are capable of carrying 20,000 tons of grain, that would mean more than a quarter of a million tons of grain could be on its way immediately. But no ship owner in his right mind would send his very expensive vessels to sea from ports that have been mined, along with the port approaches. Ukraine has to remove all those mines; they put them there, they must clean them up!

Naturally, Ukraine is saying the ports are blockaded by Russia. Complete tosh! That can't be possible if we are to believe the same set of liars that makes up the government of Ukraine. How can the Russians be blockading the ports when that same government said recently that they had "pushed back Russian warships 100 Km. It must be true; it is published in the Daily Telegraph:

"As a result of our active actions aimed at defeating enemy naval forces, the group of ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet was pushed back from the Ukrainian shores at a distance of more than a hundred kilometres (62 miles),'' Ukraine's ministry of defence said on the Telegram messaging app."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/uk-missiles-help-to-chase-russian-navy-fleet-from-black-sea-coast/ar-AAYcPGC 

Change of plan: MSN seem to be removing that news as I write. Goggle the phrase Ukraine has pushed the Russian naval fleet 100km and you should get links to the same story from the Express, Guardian and one or two others.

The same article mentions that the Ukrainians used missiles supplied by the UK to do it. So there!

Either that statement is true, in which case the Russian navy can't be blockading anything =  Ukrainians lying.

Or they have not pushed the Russian navy back any kilometers, never mind 100! = Ukrainians lying! 

To condense those 2 lines; Ukraine is either lying or Ukraine is lying. Simples!

Ukraine: Get on with it; ship the bloody grain and stop the public hand wringing, telling us how we civilised people should be sending every gun, missile system, every bow and arrow we possess to help you continue your 8 year long campaign of genocide against the civilians of the Donbas region.

 A lovely away day for the chaps and chappesses

Yesterday, 12th May 2022, the UK Government decided to treat themselves with a nice day out to Stoke-on-Trent. This was billed as a "Regional Cabinet Meeting". Given that the House of Commons was half way through debating the Queen's Speech, this seemed an odd thing to do. Let's face it; the Queen's Speech debate is the process where the government's series of lies and distortions, as set out in the Queen's Speech, are debated and therefore open to attack by the various parties and members of the opposition. One would think the government would be keen on attending this debate in order to defend and maybe even promote their plans and empty promises as outlined in the Queen's Speech. 

Obviously not. Some bright spark decided an away day would be a better use of the Cabinet's time so off they all trundled on an all expenses trip up the M6 to gibber and ramble together. For whose benefit? Well, I thought I ought to try to discover what this was all about.

First; let's look at the title of the meeting: "Regional Cabinet Meeting". (This title is not mine; it comes from the Cabinet Office's press handout). At first glance, this would appear to refer to a meeting of a "Regional Cabinet". What it actually refers to is a meeting of the government's cabinet in a "Region". To most of the government members, the term "Region" applies to anywhere with a post code that is not in London. Anyway, once I had found the press handout, I sought the details of what this was all about and what benefit did it bring to the people of the U.K. by holding the meeting in Stoke-on-Trent. Surely, there would have been hordes of local government worthies in attendance? Or representatives of local business? Or even the people who could afford to take the time away from their local food bank?

Refer to the Cabinet Office briefing:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/regional-cabinet-meeting-12-may-2022 

Nothing to see here; move along! The hand out listed none of the those attending. So no point looking to see how many worthies and food bank dodgers were there. They weren't saying. So what about what was said? Well, I can save you the trouble of reading it yourself: Bugger all! The whole press release consisted of 6 paragraphs and those 6 paragraphs were made up of 5 of a single sentence and 1 with 2 sentences.

So I am none the wiser and I suspect what was the cost of this junket, I shall remain none the wiser. Bear in mind; this was the same day Johnson was talking of sacking 91,000 civil servants in order to save a few quid! 

 I am becoming more and more disillusioned with the BBC every day. When I complied to them recently about what I consider to be one-sided reporting on the conflict in Ukraine, I was fobbed off with a load of tosh.

My complaint was not about content or opinions etc, it was about there being no BBC reporting from the other side of the conflict. Everything is "Zelensky says" or "Ukrainian officials report" etc. After Clive Myrie had made a valiant 9 day stand holed up in his 5 star hotel in Kyiv and legged it, leaving his colleagues to carry on in his wake, (to be fair to the man, there was an air raid near by during his time there) all BBC reporting has continued from Kyiv with one or two isolated reports from Lviv. Nothing from Mariupol, Donetsk or Lugansk.

Today, they have sunk to a new low. They are apparently refusing to report on the desecration of British & Commonwealth war graves at the Jonkerbos cemetery in Nijmegen. For those that didn't know, there are over 1,500 graves in this cemetery. The morons responsible painted slogans such as "Fuck Russia" across headstones. I wonder who might have done that? Well, we don't need to wonder. They signed their work and this can be seen here:

https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/6198767/oorlogsmonumenten-in-nijmegen-beklad-met-anti-russische-leuzen.html

Yes. It was the work of the BBC's darlings, Ukrainians, claiming to be supporting the BBC's other darlings, the Nazi Azov Battalion.

Other newspaper articles can be seen here:

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/05/war-cemetery-in-nijmegen-sprayed-with-anti-russian-texts/

https://nltimes.nl/2022/05/04/nijmegen-war-cemetery-vandalized-remembrance-day

Notice too the date this happened: It was the Dutch Remembrance Day. Imagine if this had happened in England on November 11th!

There are reports around the web criticising the actions of Ukrainian refugees throughout Europe and it could be summed up as becoming a serious nuisance.

Let's give the BBC some time though. Of wait! If I, an ignorant old codger who has never been near a journalism school, can discover and read about this incident, can it be possible that the BBC just haven't noticed it?

No, I don't think so either.

 Well! The head shaking (in disbelief) is getting a bit tedious now. There's a lot to highlight at the moment but take the last 24 hours.

Yesterday Boris the Clot was in Bury telling us all how Conservative councils fill in pot holes 4 times faster than any previous government. That's the sort of announcement we all needed at a time when households are being driven deeper into poverty. People can't afford to feed their kids, they can't afford to heat their homes and, if they have a job, they can't afford to drive to work. But, as long as the pot holes are filled in at a record rate.... (I am sure someone will be feverishly fact checking that piece of nonsense right now).

And moving on to today, we have the idiot Heapey talking like a stupid person, saying it is fine if Ukraine wants to use weapons supplied by UK to hit targets within Russia. Prat!

And we have news that Boris is proposing a move to put kids at risk by reducing/relaxing/abolishing (who knows which?) Health & Safety rules governing child care. Nice one you muppet!

At the same time, he is threatening to privatise the Passport Office because they are overwhelmed with renewal applications. I don't suppose he has thought of looking at the monster in charge of that? Clue: the first name beings with a P and the surname begins with a P. No! It is not Peppa Pig! More on that moron in the next post...

And we thought Trump was a dip stick!

I suppose it is disappointing that the person elected to replace Trump has turned out to be something worse. (Be careful what you wish for?)

I have watched and listened to Biden's procession through the US Presidential office, via the media, since he came to office and it has gradually dawned on me the man is so similar to Trump, one could be forgiven for confusing the pair. I used to think the difference was in the way each handled their corruption, double dealing etc, with Biden being slightly more adept at the ducking and diving skills. Now I am not so sure.

So, what has got my attention this morning, causing me to put fingers to keyboard? I have just learned (a bit of 'old' news) that Biden has directed that $7 billion of frozen Afghan funds be unfrozen and to be split two ways: half to go towards providing humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. Isn't that big of him? He will take half of the Afghan people's own money and let them have it back, somehow, some day, in what will no doubt be trumpeted as a sign of America's largesse; "US providing $3 billion to ease the plight of the poor and starving people of Afghanistan". I have absolutely no doubt we will not see a headline like "US returns $3billion of the Afghan people's own money".

And what of the other 50% of the frozen funds? He is going to use that to compensate victims of the 9/11 attack. What did the Afghan people have to do with that attack? I thought it long established that the perpetrators of that attack were Saudis. Quite a number of those were from an area called Al Baha. When I was last in Al Baha in 2013, the place was known for the amount of police deployed around the city with road blocks, ID checks etc. The reason for this, according to locals, was down to fears the 9/11 perpetrators from the region might still have sympathetic mates in the area. And, at that time, the city and province of Al Baha was well and truly within Saudi Arabia.To the west of the country and south of Jeddah in fact. So why are impoverished citizens of Afghanistan being made to pay for 9/11? How much has Saudi Arabia paid and when? And are we to expect to see the families of the 9/11 victims receiving more than $1 million each? I very much doubt it. There will be deductions for lawyers, politicians and various other assorted pariahs before they see any of it. And still, the source of the money is cash stolen from the Afghan people. While the Saudis get away with it.

Returning briefly to Sleepy Joe, let's have a closer look at him. In the next outpouring of despair, dismay and disgust...

Who is the real bad guy?

 Is it the USA, Russia or Ukraine? Or perhaps all the above?

Since the current Russia/Ukraine "crisis" kicked off (it seems like 10 years ago!), I have had some doubts about the whole propaganda issue going on around it. I don't want to take the side of either Russia or Ukraine, so I won't.

However, there a few points that need to be taken into account here; well 2 points to begin with. The whole shouting match seems to have kicked off when Russia was found to have circa 100,000 troops in the area of the Russian/Ukraine border. My first reaction was "So what?" Isn't the area concerned within Russia? And, doesn't Russia have the right to move their troops hither and thither within their own country? If these troops were not on the Ukraine border, they might be on the border of Finland, China, Mongolia or Kazakhstan. What would be said about the any of those circumstances? Probably nothing, although that would depend on where you were finding your news/commentaries sources.

Anyway, 100,000 (said now to be 150,000 as of today). In Russia. But wait; Russia announced some time ago that they have scheduled military exercises with their best mates Belarus and those exercises are currently ongoing. Did the Russian troops involved in that come from the Ukraine border? If so, the current number on the Ukraine border should surely have decreased, rather than increased? Never mind. What about Ukraine troops? How many of them are there and where are they? There are different figures available, mostly out of date but it is probably safe to assume around 160,000. One has to assume the Ukrainians have the home game advantage, while the Russian forces are probably made up of troops far from home.
And, as I prepare to post this, there is news that Russia is sending some of the troops on the Ukraine border back home. I have been saying since this nonsense began that I thought Russia wasn't going to invade anyone. Putin is doing this purely to rattle the chains of the West to what he could provoke. I would say he has managed the West and our politicians perfectly well. Biden has been spouting traditional USA war mongering rhetoric and Johnson has been slavishly requesting updates on "What do you want me to say next, Joe". As for the US pushing the "False Flag" litany; well, who better to identify one of those operations than the US? Over the years, they have become masters of that underhand game.

 Over recent weeks, on multiple dates, Johnson has claimed "There are more people in work now than there were before the pandemic began". The numbers claimed were variously around 400,000 and 500,000. The latter figure of 500,000 was used the day after Johnson received a letter from the Office for Statistics Regulation advising him his numbers were incorrect. Obviously the letter was ignored. It seems there had been a rise in the number of employees in work, based on numbers derived from PAYE statistics. This data covers only people appearing on PAYE figures as "Employees". Totally ignored was the number of those declaring themselves as "Self-employed". Before the pandemic, there was approximately 700,000-800,000 in the number of self-employed. The actual total, while Johnson was making his empty boasts, had decreased by 600,000.
Never mind, what about a recent claim that crime in the UK had decreased by 14%? The chair of the UK Statistics Authority pointed out that crime had actually increased by 14%. How did this huge discrepancy come about? The government explained that the Johnson figures didn't include fraud. Fraud is not just someone selling an American tourist London Bridge. It goes to the thousands of people being ripped off by cold callers, conning people into moving money out of their account, into another "for security" reasons. It goes to the gullible who receive calls from bogus call centres  in India, claiming to be from Microsoft and saying that the victim's computer has been hacked and for a sum of money, "Microsoft" can fix that. (Note: Microsoft have nothing whatsoever to do with this scam). When that dynamic brain box, Kwasi Kwarteng was challenged on this inaccurate crime stat, he claimed it was quite normal to exclude fraud from the crime statistics and Johnson was therefore right with his claim that crime had decreased. So fraud is no longer a crime then? Well, there you go Mr. con man; fill your boots. Scotland Yard will not be knocking on your door as there is "no crime to investigate here".
That ridiculous idea seems to come from the same school of idiocy governing the Met Police. You know, the organisation that until recently was steadfast in its refusal to investigate Downing St piss-ups. The first excuse was that they have not seen any evidence of a crime. Isn't that part of the job of the police? To investigate allegations and determine if there was any evidence and to then examine that evidence to see if it bears scrutiny? Then they started along the track of "Well, we won't prosecute because these incidents happened a long time ago". Less than 2 years is considered by them as "long time ago"? Mr. Jack the Ripper; you can come out now. If you give yourself up, there will be no prosecution as the events of which you are accused happened a "long time ago".
And, tying together Johnson and the Met Police's abject failure to police, we have the arguments in Parliament during which Johnson repeatedly claimed there were no parties at No. 10. Then he said there may have been but no Covid rules were broken. (I seem to remember he referred not to Covid rules but guidelines. They were quite definitely rules when members of the public were prosecuted!) Johnson eventually progressed to referring to cheese and wine knees-ups as "work meetings".
He went on to tell us that all will be revealed in the outcome of Sue Gray's report. Full and unredacted, he said. A clever shyster lawyer must have spotted a wizard wheeze (couldn't have been Johnson as he is demonstrably not clever enough). The wheeze being to shake the Met into reversing their earlier decisions re investigating/not investigating any Downing St party allegations. A clever move as they could then use the involvement of the Met as an excuse to effectively torpedo the Sue Gray report. Claims of "possibly bias inferred from her report impeding the investigation if the report was published, as promised, in full" to the invocation of sub-judice rules. Despite numerous legal sources rubbishing these excuses, the government allowed the Met to get away with this interference. Doesn't the law re "sub-judice" cover crimes? And hasn't the government and the Met repeatedly assured there were no crimes? If there were no crimes, there is nothing to be sub-judice.
Like I said; a wizard wheeze.
STOP PRESS: While writing this, we have had the latest PMQ in Parliament and Johnson has doubled down on his earlier mis-statement on crime figures. Today (9th Feb) he said at the dispatch box that crime figures are down by 17%. He also threw in some random numbers concerning current staffing in the NHS and the police. These are crying out to be fact checked. In the meantime, I would pose this question: Isn't it time we stopped using euphemisms such as "mis-spoke, taken out of context etc" and reverted to the old fashioned "He's lying"? As I remember from my upbringing, to state something as fact, when you know it is not true, it is called a lie. And the person making such statements is to be called a liar. And punished for it.

 PPE; Tired of Reading About it yet?

The UK PPE supply saga rumbles on. This morning, the BBC News web site reports:

"Government writes off £8.7 billion spent on PPE during pandemic". A rough breakdown of reasons for this shows £673million for items that were unusable, £750million for items that passed their expiry date before they could be used and £4.7billion as a result of the government paying more for the supplies than their current worth.

Add to these numbers the £4.9billion lost through fraudulent Covid loan schemes and we end up with somewhere around £13.6billion thrown away by the government. That number is remarkably close to the amount the government say is needed to tackle the issue of a cash starved NHS/Care system and needs to be raised via the much disputed increase in N.I. contributions (tax). How careless of them! But never mind; as Boris the liar keeps reminding us his government has led world beating this, that and the other.

Virtually all of his "world beating" claims are either based on a clever use of statistics, comparing apples with oranges etc or plain and simple lies.

Looking back over the government's world beating ordering of PPE supplies (something being boasted about along the lines of "We took the appropriate measures to obtain PPE kit against serious competition for available supplies"). Or, in the language of the common man or woman, "We had legions of cronies to take care of. Regardless of the cost to the exchequer".

Reviewing data I collected in 2020, when the spending frenzy was reaching a crescendo, I see that, during the months of April, May and June, there were 233 contracts let to cronies, with a cost to you and I of £5.8billion. Picking one of these contracts at random, I noted one for £122million for supply of PPE gowns awarded to a company named PPE Medpro. According to Companies House, PPE Medpro was incorporated on 12th May 2020. The Companies House filing for 12th May 202, the day the company was incorporated, shows total capital of £100. The contract was awarded on 26th June 2020.

So, a company formed on 12th May 2020 with 100 quid from someone's desk drawer (or found behind the sofa?) was awarded a huge contract to supply PPE kit.Firther reference to the Companies House web site shows this company has not yet filed accounts. None. Since incorporation. Surely one could reasonably expect to see accounts showing at least an inflow of some of that £122million award?

The web site "Thelondoneconomic.com" carried an article on this company back in November 2020:https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/handing-122m-ppe-contract-to-tory-peer-associate-is-the-definition-of-corruption-mp-says-204739/ In the article, reference is made to links between this company and Lady Bra, (Lady Michelle Mone), and her husband, David Barrowman. The Guardian took up this case as recently as January 2022:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/06/tory-peer-michelle-mone-involved-ppe-medpro-government-contracts

The founder of PPE Medpro, Anthony Page,  was previously running a company that managed Michelle Mone's "brand". Well, how about that?

More later...