An interview with a CCHQ-appointed fluffer doesn't really spell trouble, especially after 20 months of the BBC and its Tufton St alumni management refusing to report on this matter except for one five-minute section on Newsnight when Kirsty Wark just screeched over her guests "It was an emergency! An emergency, I tell you!", before they could answer her loaded questions. They're pretending it was because of SLAPP orders from her lawyers - but the Good Law Project just told her lawyers to **** off and kept reporting on it (as did the Guardian and the Mirror), and have been completely vindicated.
Let's hope, if she's interviewed again by the BBC (doubt it) then it'll be by Derbyshire, or by Rigby on Sky, or, best of all, by Maitliss now freed of the Tufton St-operated tentacles of the BBC. But the question to ask is this - Gove was on last week saying that he couldn't comment as it's sub-judice, yet here she is now getting her retaliation in first. Why? Just go back to Kuenssberg's CCHQ-approved interview with Matthew Elliott of Vote Leave BEFORE the Electoral Commission roundly condemned them. It was a PR stunt to ensure that there was no way they could face public prosecution by claiming they now couldn't get a fair trial - because of the press exposure. Square that circular logic. And that is what they're trying now, with the same client journalist.
https://x.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1111904501294874624?s=20
But in essence, here is their defence - she didn't benefit because the profits went into a trust fund, and she continuously lied about her involvement and had her lawyers impose a blanket SLAPP order on the media (that proper journalists ignored) because... it's not a crime to lie to the press. How much more atypical is this morass of sleaze, lies, cronyism, and corruption in the story of the dying days of this Tory Kleptopia? Indeed, Toryism per se across the ages? Bent, irredeemably bent, corrupt, and venal. Meet the new OCG boss - same as the old boss.
Last edited:
