There have been nine and a half years of Tory destruction of society and public services.
Tories see everything in anyone’s life as an opportunity to enable the enrichment of the wealthiest and most despicable parasites. People need healthcare, education and, often, some welfare assistance. People with disabilities need more assistance than others. Elderly people need more assistance than others. Tories see the need, they see how vital some public services are and they interpret what they see as a bottomless trough to feed exploiters via privatisation.
For Tories, a disabled person, a chronically or terminally ill person, an injured person, an elderly person in need of care, a child in need of education or a homeless person is just a potential windfall for the elite few inhumane beneficiaries of a corrupt system.
Via distribution of taxes or costs for individual users, privatisation parasites gorge themselves. Their supply of unearned income is ceaseless because of the necessity of what people are paying for. Most of the money handed to the Tories’ friends and clients is not spent on the services for which it is supposedly intended. It is siphoned off by companies created solely for that purpose and they are assisted fully by the Tories. Private healthcare businesses, private care services and facilities, private prison and probation services, school academies and private welfare assessment businesses exist only to collect tax-payers’ and/or users’ cash. It is a scam preying on necessity, on life. Tories are enablers of exploitation of humanity.
Effects of Tory ethos toward vital public services are catastrophic. Destitute people are starving to death, people with disabilities are dying due to removal of vital financial assistance, homelessness is increasing rapidly, once-eradicated diseases resurfaced due to malnutrition, very ill people are dying in under-staffed hospitals while waiting for healthcare and number of suicides has increased due to lack of sufficient mental healthcare. It is a war on humanity. It is a cull.
This election is not a game.
It is not about an extra percentage point of taxation. It is not about whether or not Trident is replaced. It is not about how many trees can be planted. It is not about nationalisation of internet access. It is not about the dead cats thrown down by Tories and complicit media. It is not about whether there should be a second referendum on membership of the EU. it is not about Russian interference in the democratic process. It is not about what is written on the sides of buses.
This election is about life and death.
A Tory government with a majority after December 12th will enact a Brexit that is intended to collapse to a no deal Brexit. Subsequently, the Tories will sign deals with voracious gluttons to hand over what is left of the great advances in public services and society made since 1945 alongside empowerment of enhanced tax avoidance for the wealthiest. The UK will become a tax haven for the elite and everyone else will rent their lives without adequate healthcare, education, welfare provision or homes.
Channel 4 hosted a party leaders’ debate on climate crisis yesterday (November 28th). Two party leaders, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, chose to dodge the debate because they feared further exposure of their respective commitments to climate destruction.
Tory MP Michael Gove, formerly an utter failure as Environment Secretary, tried to trespass into the Channel 4 studio as an uninvited stand-in for absent Johnson. Gove and Tory party had been informed earlier that invitations to partake in the debate were specifically for party leaders. Gove’s childish actions were a stunt. He was accompanied by reality TV contestant Stanley Johnson, father of the Prime Minister.
The motivation for Gove’s silly stunt was to provide spurious justification for a censorious assault on Channel 4 as a response to its news output not being as unbalanced in favour of the Tories as other broadcasters’ output.
Before the (live) broadcast of the debate Johnson’s Director of Communications Lee Cain, formerly employed as the Daily Mirror chicken, sent a pre-written (before Gove’s pantomime appearance) and absurd letter to broadcasters’ regulator Ofcom complaining about the denial of entry to the debate for Gove.
The letter – screenshot at foot of blog – misrepresented events leading up to the debate, it selected random quotes from Ofcom’s regulatory code for broadcasters as a ruse to support the complaint and, crucially, chose to omit any reason why Boris Johnson had not accepted his invitation to attend the debate. Misdirection and concoction were the key components of the letter.
As is normally true in charlatans’ letters such as this, the final sentence was the most pertinent.
“If Ofcom takes the view that this matter could not be considered until post-broadcast, I would request that this complaint is assessed subsequent to the broadcast, given the unfortunate precedents that Channel 4’s actions may set.”
The clear message that the chicken man wanted to send, not to Ofcom but to any reader particularly any broadcaster, was to set a precedent of government dictating to broadcasters what should and should not happen in political programming. The threat was clear.
A document of discussions between UK and US governments for a post-Brexit trade deal was published by the Labour party today (November 27th). It showed clear willingness by the Tories to acquiesce to demands of predatory US businesses eyeing UK public services particularly the NHS.
Unsurprisingly, as a response to the documents’s contents, most of the media adopted a derisory perspective as a facet of damage limitation for the Tories. BBC’s veteran reporter Laura Kuenssberg’s analysis typified the majority media tack.
“Looks like Labour’s secret documents were actually uploaded online at the end of October. Which noone, including journalists (hands up) seemed to notice. There is a lot of interesting stuff in the documents which are mainly not about the health service. Documents show there has been a lot of work going on between US and UK officials about potential trade deal after Brexit and show how much the US side would push to gain that could be hugely controversial here; for example, weakening rules on food labeling and lengthening patents on medicines which could make drugs more expensive here. Interestingly, documents also suggest hopes on the US side of making quick progress with a deal partly for political advantage for Trump, even if the chances of getting a deal done by 2020 by end of his first term are low. But, important to note, the documents do not show final agreement on UK side, and don’t confirm Labour’s claim the government is trying to sell off the NHS – documents go up to July 19 covering Theresa May, not Boris Johnson’s time in office. But documents will be used, no doubt. as evidence that discussions have been had and US making demands will be used again and again by Labour in what’s left of the campaign as a bid to get onto safer political territory for them that’s trickier for the Tories. No government ministers appear to have been present apart from Liam Fox at the first meeting although officials, of course, are always very well aware of what ministers want and don’t want.” – Kuenssberg 27th Nov.
Her comments encapsulated every angle to be taken to downplay the significance of the document’s details and to protect the Tories from inquisition and criticism. Kuenssberg demonstrated her skill as an establishment public relations operative.
She began by dismissing the media’s wilful avoidance of the document (available for a month) as merely a small oversight. Her intent was to encourage inference that the document wasn’t considered important.
As a ruse to lessen concern, Kuenssberg mentioned that NHS discussion was a part of and not the whole document but that is neither surprising nor does it diminish the fact that NHS was discussed. Even one sentence about the NHS in transcripts of trade deal negotiations would be problematic.
Possible removal of food safety regulations and higher drug costs were described as “hugely controversial here [the UK].” Controversial was an odd word to use to describe a matter of life and death. In USA “controversial” food safety and drug pricing lead directly to deaths.
Kuenssberg observed keenly that the documents didn’t show any “final agreements” on trade deals. Well, of course they didn’t; they were discussions of desire and statements of intent. She knows the difference but pretended to not know in order to distract the reader. The intent of both the US and Tory governments is devastating for the NHS.
For some reason she made the point that discussions transcripted in the documents took place during Theresa May’s tenure as Prime Minister. Kuenssberg knows thatBoris Johnson is even more likely than May to give the privateers what they want. Equally, she knows that the discussions were (as is normally the case) between ministers’ staff and so her point that Liam Fox was the only minister present was a superfluous point.
Her dismissal of Labour’s analysis of the document as “safer political territory for themthat’s trickier for the Tories” showed the distance between the public and the media bubble. For Kuenssberg, NHS is just a talking point not people’s lives. She sees the election as a competition of presentation and not a choice between humanity and conservatism.
Today (November 27th 2019) Labour Party published an unredacted document that revealed details of Tory intent with respect to the NHS and any post-Brexit trade deal with the USA. In particular, the document showed Tories’ willingness to negotiate anything as part of such a trade deal.
(The document was online for a month but British media chose to pretend not to notice it.)
For anyone who views the Tories accurately there was nothing surprising in the document’s content. For Boris Johnson and his gang, Brexit, with or without a deal, will be an opportunity to give away what remains of Britain’s public services. The Tories prefer the no deal option and the current plan for negotiations if Britain leaves the EU on January 31st would lead inexorably to no deal late next year.
No deal Brexit will be a windfall opportunity for the worst and most destructive parasites. Disaster capitalists and market gamblers would revel in the planned pseudo-chaotic fire-sale, enriching themselves at everyone else’s expense. Tories will assist the handover of public services with necessary associated removal of workers’ rights, health and safety regulations and legal protections and rights.
The NHS is the biggest prize the Tories have to hand out. In USA ill health or injury lead to bankruptcy for patients and wealth for the healthcare industry; for those with insufficient money to pay, death comes early. US pharma industry, health insurers and healthcare providers make huge profitsand they want to do the same in the UK. The intent of the Tories is to help them as much as they can. Health Secretary Matt Hancock, like his predecessor Jeremy Hunt did, works for US healthcare industry and for its PR teams including Institute of Economic Affairs.
A key consequence of the Tories’ aims for Brexit is that they do not care about their political futures in parliament. For the few beneficiaries and their Tory assistants, the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of a bad deal or no deal Brexit overrides the downside of any future problems for the Tory party. Destruction of the NHS in the next parliament, if the Tories win the general election on December 12th, could annihilate the Tories’ electoral chances in later elections but they don’t care. Johnson, Raab, Hancock, Rees-Mogg, Patel, Javid, etc. are working for a one-off event and the riches for the few that such an event would produce. Afterward, they will scarper.
Voters in Dover received a letter from Boris Johnson asking for postal votes for Tory candidate Natalie Elphick. The intended recipients of the letter were Tory supporters of leaving the EU and the purpose was a reminder to vote. (In 2017 general election the seat was won by the Tories with a majority of 6,437.)
Such letters are standard during an election campaign but the words of the Tory Prime Minister showed how relentlessly and blatantly he lies.
(Screenshot of letter at foot of blog)
He began with a plea for votes to ensure a Tory majority because, according to Johnson, there have been “three years of a hung parliament that agrees on nothing except more arguments.” He forgot to mention that he voted against Theresa May’s withdrawal deal.
Thereafter lies and misdirection occupied every point made in every sentence of the letter.
“Passing our Brexit deal – which is agreed and ready to go from day one.” The deal agreed with the EU has not completed its progress through parliament and so it is not ready to go immediately.
“It projects jobs and trade.” The current withdrawal deal includes no trade deals, as it is unable to do so, and it has no protections for jobs that could be lost due to Brexit.
“It means we can leave the EU by the end of January and it means we can get on with the country’s priorities.” Leaving the EU is the first step of many not the end point. If Britain leaves the EU then the consequences of departure – trade deals with the EU – will occupy government time and resources for years.
“£33.9 billion extra for the NHS so your hospital and local GPs can give you the healthcare you need.” There is no extra money or the NHS. Johnson repeated a lie that was printed on the side of a bus in 2016. Tories are destroying the NHS via deliberate under-funding and are in negotiations with US private healthcare companies and with US government to further remove access, raise costs and downgrade quality of service.
“20,000 extra police officers.” Tories cut more than 20,000 police officers since 2010 and cut a greater number of necessary support staff and handed police stations to property developers. It takes a few years to train a police officer.
“With the powers they need to keep us safe.” Powers, not laws?
“More funding for every child for every school so your child gets a better education.” Owners of academies and free schools, funded by tax-payers, siphon off the money received.
“A growing economy that creates jobs and pays for our public services.” A government cannot promise a “growing economy” and even less so after Brexit. The implication in Johnson’s comment is that if the economy doesn’t “grow” then public services are in greater danger than they are already.
“Let’s put the last three years behind us; let’s get Brexit done so the country can finally move on.” As explained above, Brexit is the start of negotiations not the conclusion.
“Britain has spent too long going nowhere spinning around in a hamster wheel of doom.” As explained above, Johnson voted against May’s withdrawal deal.
“Let’s end the delays, get Brexit done with our deal and unleash Britain’s potential.” See earlier comments.
Everything in Johnson’s letter was untrue and/or a gross misrepresentation. His presentation of the widrawal deal as a final chapter was the absolute opposite of reality. He repeated untruths from the Tory manifesto and from the recent Tory conference on NHS, police and education. The line on a “growing economy” helping public services was both gobbledegook and a threat.
He is a swindler, a conman and a charlatan. Telling the truth appears to be offensive to him.
yes-platformv. t. Intentionally provide a public platform for a specific point of view or ideology
Journalist Peter Oborne exposed BBC’s (and other broadcasters’) political interviewers’ and presenters’ willingness to allow politicians to lie unchallenged in interviews and on panels. In Broadcasters enable Johnson’s lies he said
“I have talked to senior BBC executives, and they tell me they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics.”
Anyone expecting BBC to refute or even just deny Oborne’s claim would have been mistaken. Instead, David Jordan, BBC’s director of editorial policy and standards, backed up what Oborne had reported. In a letter to the Guardian (screenshot below) Jordan said
“What we don’t do is label people as liars – that’s a judgement for the audiences to make about an individual’s motives.”
What Jordan described is BBC policy of allowing charlatans and con artists to spout whatever they want without being asked for evidence, without any exposure by the interviewerof untruths and without corrections provided in real time.
If the BBC or other broadcasters provide a platform then they have professional, moral and legal obligations to stop blatant lies being aired without immediate refutation. Political news programmes should not be vehicles for manipulators and propagandists.
Jordan claimed audiences should decide on a guest’s motives. Generally, viewers and listeners to news programmes will do their own analysis but there is reasonable and correct expectation that broadcasters will do some of the work of fact checking at the time when false statements are made. Jordan is aware that such expectation exists and, thus, he is aware that if lies are not challenged when they are uttered then audiences will be less inclined to assume that something is untrue.
If a broadcaster’s guest lies and the interviewer or host knows the guest lied then the lie should be exposed and corrected and the guest should be admonished. To not do that is a failure of journalism and a failure of broadcasting responsibility. In such a scenario the interview is a platform not an inspection. A broadcaster might claim that a searching question is inspection but, however clever a question may be, if the interviewee’s answer receives no swift inquisitive response then she or he can say anything regardless of veracity or mendacity.
Jordan has form. In September, after BBC Complaints Unit upheld a spurious complaint from a far-right viewer unhappy with presenter Naga Munchetty’s comment on racism with respect to Donald Trump, Jordan backed the Complaints Unit’s action. He thought it was wrong for her to connect racism to its perpetrator.
“[It] is not about calling out racist comments it’s about how you go on to discuss the person who made the comments and make assumptions or remarks about that. The issue is about when she [Munchetty] went on further to discuss President Trump himself, what his motivations were for that, and that breached our impartiality requirements. I think it’s probably unwise of the BBC to be calling out people for being liars or racist.”
In the same statement in September he differentiated between pointing out a lie and calling someone a liar.
“I think it’s probably unwise of the BBC to be calling out people for being liars. If someone’s told a lie, we call it out for being a lie.”
Jordan didn’t contradict himself above. His stance is that, although a lie might be addressed later, it should not be done directly to the liar because that would call the guest a liar which is, according to Jordan’s skewed logic, a separate charge from noting a liar’s lie. He applied the same separation logic to a racist comment and deducing that someone is racist.
Separation of acts (or words) from their source is absurd. According to Jordan and the BBC, lies and racism are sentient entities and their sources are merely hosts. It isn’t obvious if his flawed methodology is deliberate but it is clear that its consequences include manipulation of information.
His worldview was inspired by and infused exhaustively with bigotry, hatred and a sociopathic psyche but Nigel Farage’s focus in his life and his professions has always been his personal financial gain.
Campaigning to leave the EU provided a steady and lucrative income for him for more than two decades via a variety of sources including supporters’ donations (non-refundable), EU parliamentary salary and misuse of associated expenses, large corporate donations from extremist free marketeers, most recently chanelled through World 4 Brexit, convenient wind-ups of companies he owned leaving creditors short-changed and a tax haven registered side-career as a public speaker.
Armed with a few skills – prejudice, absence of shame and relentless gobshitery – Farage developed his saleability as a promoter and enabler of ultra-conservative destruction of public services and statutory and legal rights through his support for departure from the EU’s regulatory framework that offered some basic (though insufficient) protections of worker’ rights, legal rights, human rights and health and safety regulations.
His specific role, enhanced over the last five years, was to grab votes for destructive conservatism from non-Tory voters. Positioned as an opponent of the EU, one of his sources of underserved income, he appealed to base instincts of faux patriotism and othering. There was no subtlety, intelligence or highly-developed strategy behind his approach; it was simple, dishonest and fraudulent.
Farage was aided by compliant media, some of which fully endorsed his swindle and some that was so inept it presented a loud-mouthed yob as a great orator. Without considerable assistance from news media he would never have become popular. Centrist and liberal media were as culpable as right-wing media.
Following a successful EU election for The Brexit Party in June he encouraged applications for potential candidates in the December general election, charging each applicant a non-refundable £100. There were at least 3000 applications – £300,000 into Farage’s offshore pocket. A few weeks later he declared that no Brexit Party candidates will stand in seats held currently by the Tories having previously stated the party’s intent was to contest all parliamentary seats. £158,000 was saved by not having to pay 317 deposits for those seats; in the election most of the deposits would have been lost.
Farage’s decision to not contest the 317 seats – acting under instruction from his wealthiest and most generous (to him) donors – was a simple tactic to stop a split conservative vote giving Labour some seats. Of course, immediate financial benefits for him and possible future payment if Tories win the election were motivating factors.
Media veneration of Farage as a key political figure was its own self-fulfilling invention. Motivation to promote him was partly political and partly a consequence of news media’s schooled contempt for the people. Since the 1980s, dumbing down, with associated simplicity and omissions, assimilated news delivery in newspapers and on TV and radio. Denial of knowledge and diversion from analysis was the aim.
Gobby, repetitive professional liars, conmen and charlatans have been staples of democratic societies for decades; useful tools to distract attention from culprits and to coerce support for damaging governments. Such characters were necessarily venal, dishonest and focussed on their own financial fulfilment. Farage’s personality and his political career fitted the template exactly.
His success as rabble-rouser was an indictment of the ease with which the British democratic system can be played. It showed that manipulation of the process of democracy lay within reach of those with the will and the funds to attack it and it revealed the abject duplicity and deception intrinsic to centrist politics and liberal media whose fear of a shift leftward in British politics was much greater than its opposition to right-wing charlatans and illiberal philosophy. If Farage hadn’t existed then the BBC and the Guardian would have had to invent him, which, in a way, they did.
Hark the plaintiff cries of anguish from extremely wealthy parasites who said they will leave Britain with all their money if Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister.
They spent their entire professional lives exploiting workers and customers while utilising loopholes in tax law, they donated money as bribery to Tory politicians and, now, they intend to dash off to tax havens of Monaco or Switzerland the day after a Labour victory.
Their announcements of flight were declared as threats. They claimed Britain will be worse off financially if they took all their money away. Peter Hargreaves, owner of stockbrokerHargreaves Lansdown, said “if 50 of us [the biggest taxpayers] got on a plane and left, that would put a big hole in the chancellor’s budget.” John Caudwell, owner of Caudwell Properties, said “we’d just go and live in the south of France or Monaco. Why would we stay and be raped?”
Parasites’ parasites expressed excitement at the prospect of more income for themselves for enabling their clients’ tax-dodging. Geoffrey Todd of Boodle Hatfield said “lots of high-net worth individuals are worried about having to pay much higher taxes on their wealth and have already prepared for the possibility of a Corbyn government. Transfers of wealth are already arranged – in many cases, all that is missing is a signature on the contract. There will be plenty of people on the phone to their lawyers in the early hours of 13 December if Labour wins. Movements of capital to new owners and different locations are already prepared, and they are just awaiting final approval.”
The stated reason for “transfers of wealth” was fear of consequences of Labour’s proposed Wealth Tax. Labour’s motivation for a Wealth Tax is a response to the tax-dodging of businesses and individuals who are registered in tax havens and who offset huge profits against alleged losses in associated businesses. The intent of the proposed new tax is a new method of acquiring appropriate fiscal income from the wealthiest.
Either by ignorance or by design the wealthiest parasites depicted the effects of the Wealth Tax wrongly. They were wrong about the effects of the new tax and wrong about the ease with which it could be dodged. Their remarks and those of their enablers claimed a change of nationality and residence would allow someone to dodge a Wealth Tax introduced by Labour but that could be true only if a person’s wealth was entirely cash in a bank. All businesses, property and land – remaining in Britain after their owner’s flight – could still be taxed. Existing law, a Wealth Tax or other changes to tax law could be used to ensure that suitable contributions will be made by the owner wherever she or he claimed to live.
By “transfer of wealth” the parasites meant transfer of cash. The only loss to the exchequer would be the tax on the interest accrued. Flight of people and their money would not “put a big hole in the chancellor’s budget” as Hargreaves claimed and a Labour government could easily make changes to the law to offset any losses due to cash flight.
Some wealthy people might choose to depart if Labour are in government on December 13th but their departures will not damage fiscal income. The proposed Wealth Tax is one option among many under consideration by Labour to tackle the multi-billion pound tax-dodging industry. The dramatic statements from parasites and from parasites’ parasites were presented as if a Wealth Tax was the only change Labour plan to make and that cash was the only wealth owned by the wealthiest. Their fraudulent claims about consequences if wealthy people emigrated were merely attempts to dissuade people from voting Labour.
If a few “high net-worth individuals” wish to sod off if the British people elect a government that doesn’t exist to feed parasites then they can go with a socialist boot up the backside. Any land, property or businesses they leave behind will be taxed correctly and fairly. The wealthiest fear a Labour government, as they should. Enjoy the fear.
“Public image; you got what you wanted; The public image belongs to me; It’s my entrance; my own creation; my grand finale.”
Any wealthy or influential person or business needs a strong PR team to protect the public image they wish to portray. An industry of reputation management lawyers misuse and abuse the law and intimidate complainants to maintain the reputation of the wealthy.
Faced with accusations of paedophilia and sexual assault, related to activities of his good friend the late Jeffrey Epstein, the queen’s son Prince Andrew hired lawyer Paul Tweed to assist him with public presentation.
“Tweed has the capacity and proven expertise to initiate a multi-jurisdictional approach, which has achieved ground breaking results in protecting clients’ interests over the last three decades.” – Tweed
Andrew’s nephew Prince Harry hired Clintons LLP to pursue damages against newspapers who allegedly hacked his phone a decade ago.
“Clintons provide pragmatic, round-the-clock advice across the full range of privacy and reputation management issues, including defamation, malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, breach of confidence, data protection and protection from harassment.” – Clintons LLP
Harry’s wife Meghan hired Schillings to sue a newspaper that published a letter (with the consent of the recipient) she had sent.
“Your reputation and privacy are paramount, so when it comes to a crisis or an ongoing need, there’s no room for doubt.” – Schillings
The public image of the royal family is a key facet of its modus operandi. Continuous massaging of its image is necessary as a promotional tool. A good public image is necessary to help justify the royals’ existence. The royals abhor the truth being exposed for everyone to see or hear. Their stolen wealth, accumulated over centuries, their income from spurious land ownership, their tax avoidance and their wealth gains made via stock market gambling at others’ expense need a deceptive saccharine public image of goodness to distract and to obscure the intrinsic exploitative nature of their relationship with the people of Britain. Reputation management helps the royals achieve that aim.
The London Assembly sent a summons to former mayor of London and current Prime Minister Boris Johnson demanding details of possible wrongdoing with respect to misuse of public funds and misuse of the office of mayor in his professional relationship with businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri. Johnson ignored the summons and asked reputation management lawyers Atkins Thomson to send a response to the Assembly. He demanded that Atkins Thomson’s letter not be published but, rightly, it was. (See Huff Post report.)
Atkins Thomson used familiar tricks to excuse their client’s non-compliance with the summons. They pretended to not understand what was asked of their client or what was being investigated, they quoted random eclectic rules of the investigative procedure related to the office of mayor to concoct an accusation of wrongful use of investigatory powers and they used the old chestnut of claiming a different investigation into the same activities meant Johnson couldn’t comment on the London Assembly’s investigation.
“Where you fear that the media may be threatening to disclose private and intrusive material, or commercially or politically sensitive material, it is essential to take advice and act quickly. We have very considerable experience in all types of privacy, data protection and confidence claims not only in the UK but also throughout the world.” – Atkins Thomson
Johnson’s behaviour, and that of Atkins Thomsons, displayed utter contempt for the law and for democracy. The former’s contempt for both is a key attribute of his reputation. As an Etonian, he views law and democracy as optional. Managing Johnson’s reputation is an oxymoron.
Journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia investigated corruption in the Maltese government including the behaviour of Henley And Partners, a private business hired by the government to help wealthy people to acquire Maltese citizenship. Henley and Partners hired Mishcon de Reya to use the British judicial system – more attuned to the demands of wealthy plaintiffs – to protect their reputation by trying to silence her. Mishcon de Reya sent several threatening letters to her to coerce her to stop doing her job.
“We are able to navigate complex and special situations quickly, applying the intellectual rigour required to reach the most effective solution. Reasoned legal and commercial strategy, combined with an appreciation of the particular sensitivities of the individuals involved characterise our approach, as does our responsiveness and availability to our clients at all times.” – Mishcon de Reya
On 16th October 2017, a few weeks after being contacted by Mishcon de Reya, Ms. Galizia was executed in a car bomb.
Mishcon de Reya’s strategy to protect reputations of its wealthy clients relies on threats rather than proceedings in court. A threat, or a SLAPP, is often sufficient to silence someone into self-censorship because of extortionate costs incurred in reputation/defamation legal cases even if the defendant wins. Legal costs for Mishcon de Reya’s clients are not problematic because all are very wealthy.
Labour MP Margaret Hodge used Mishcon de Reya when she faced disciplinary action from the party after she hurled foul-mouthed abuse at Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons. Another Labour disruptor Ian Austin used Hamlins for similar reasons.
“Preventing damage is our primary objective. But at times it’s necessary to take action to remedy unfair coverage. We achieve success through strategy and pressure, while recognising your need to remedy harm efficiently and cost-effectively.” –Hamlins
Reputation management is a tool of censorship for politicians and wealthy exploiters. It is used to silence criticism and prevent exposure of harmful facts. It is designed to be threatening: Threats of severe costs for complainants are issued in order to gag them.
Reputation management is a symptom of the developed bias of British justice. It is a deliberate consequence of a legal system that intrinsically leans toward protection of the interests of the wealthiest.
Reputation management is an enemy of freedom of speech and an enemy of democracy.