Why has the Independent not published evidence to support its claim that Rishi Sunak is the beneficiary of an offshore trust? It is being reported that the Treasury denies any knowledge of the trusts cited by Anna Isaac in her scoop. That is a direct contradiction.
The specific allegation is that:
“Trusts in the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, created to help manage the tax and business affairs of his wife Akshata Murty’s family interests, note Mr Sunak as a beneficiary in 2020, according to people familiar with Ms Murty’s financial affairs and evidence reviewed by this publication. Mr Sunak became chancellor in February that year, and had previously been chief secretary to the Treasury since 2019.”
The only way the two claims could be compatible is if Rishi didn’t know he had been made a beneficiary of a family trust or if it was voided before he took office. However the “father-in-law did it without telling me” defence is preempted by this Daily Mail source quote “A Treasury source said that neither Mr Sunak, his wife nor her family were aware of any trusts naming him as a beneficiary.” If the Independent has evidence to the contrary, that is of public interest and will be very damaging for the Chancellor. Something doesn’t add up…
Incidentally, there is nothing illegal or morally wrong about using offshore trusts. It is just politically impossible to be a tax hiking Chancellor when you minimise your own taxes.
The Independent’s race correspondent Nadine White is refusing to apologise or retract claims she made about Prince William last night, despite video footage appearing to disprove the allegations… and the story’s original reporter even apologising for mishearing William’s quote in the first place.
Following William and Kate’s visit to the Ukrainian Culture Centre yesterday, White tweeted “Prince William said it’s rather normal to see war and bloodshed in Africa and Asia but not Europe”. The tweet was shared over 25,000 times. The only problem is video footage later revealed this was a complete misquote…
Here’s what William actually said:
“Everyone is horrified by what they are seeing. It’s really horrifying. The news every day, it’s just, it’s almost unfathomable. For our generation, it’s very alien to see this in Europe. We’re all right behind you. We’re thinking about you. We feel so useless.”
At no point in the video does William claim it was “rather normal to see war and bloodshed in Africa and Asia“. Making the obvious and benign claim that no one below the age of around 70 has experienced full-scale war in Europe is not the same thing as saying it’s “normal” in Africa. Despite this, White insists she’s “standing by everything tweeted previously [and] Nothing inaccurate was posted.” So far, she’s yet to provide any evidence to support this and the video evidence totally contradicts her second hand report. Even as the Express’s Richard Palmer, the reporter of the original story, says:
The Duke of Cambridge […] doesn’t appear to have compared it to conflicts in Africa and Asia. In the chaos, a remark he made was misheard, starting a social media storm. Apologies for reporting that online.
The Daily Mail and PA also later corrected the record and admitted the original claims were “inaccurate“. Still, nice to collect a few retweets…
UPDATE: Nadine White has posted an update thread claiming “the source of any misunderstanding lies with the correspondent and PA – and no one else.” She adds that “those of us who took the original PA report in good faith and who commented should not now be subject to any criticism, as this saga was not of our doing.” She nonetheless tweeted “nothing inaccurate was posted” an hour after Palmer admitted his mistake, and after the video was released…
The Independent has somehow managed to conjure up a sexism row around Storm Eunice by claiming Brits aren’t as scared of the winds as they should be because the storm has a feminine name:
“there’s a bank of fascinating psychological research to back up the fact that overall, female-titled storms and hurricanes are in fact far more deadly.
Why? Because people don’t take them as seriously; so don’t take as many precautions to protect themselves, and there are consequently more deaths. That’s right: storms are sexist.”
The author, Victoria Richards, goes on to claim that Storm Eunice gives us “an opportunity: both to look at ourselves, to do some rigorous self-analysis – and, most importantly, to stay indoors.” There’s just one problem with Victoria’s culture war-stoking claim: it’s nonsense…
Richards cites a 2014 paper, “Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes”, which has since been debunked. In 2015 a review of the paper – “Hurricane names: A bunch of hot air?” – fact-checked the claims of sexism, concluding that the “reported relationship is not robust in that it is not confirmed by a straightforward analysis of more inclusive data or different data.”:
“The assertion that female-named storms are deadlier than male-named storms is not robust, evidently because it relied on the questionable statistical analysis of a narrowly defined set of data.”
Another reminder that it’s the liberal left who claim right-wingers are the ones stoking a culture war…
Since Allegra Stratton’s resignation on Tuesday night, Guido’s video of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s IEA speech has racked up well over 7 million views, with pick-up from almost all the big hitters including the Sun and the Mail. For an appropriate fee and accreditation, Guido has happily licensed the footage to any publication that’s asked to use it. Most outlets have gladly obliged and paid up. Not all.
Sky News, the Independent, the Daily Express, UniLad, Metro, and BristolPost all took our content without paying for it. At the time of going to pixel, all still have Guido’s footage embedded on their websites without permission. Reach (on behalf of the Express and the Mirror) and BristolLive asked for licensing details before publishing, which we provided, only for them to upload the video without paying anyway. This isn’t the first time Reach has done this…
Unfortunately for these outlets, they lazily embedded link to our original YouTube video in their text, meaning any changes made to the clip’s thumbnail are reflected in their stories:
Our ferocious lawyers will be – or have already been – in touch.
In surprising news the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has announced that Abimbola Johnson, is to be the newly appointed Chair of the Independent Scrutiny & Oversight Board, which is overseeing the Police Action Plan on Inclusion and Race. Hyper-political Abimbola happily tweets about; how racist the UK is, how much she despises the police and her deep-rooted hatred of the Tories. Guido has dug out some of her tweets so you don’t have to…
On several occasions Abimbola accuses the government of being racist, despite the fact that it has the most ethnically diverse cabinet in history.
Abimbola has also tweeted several times about wanting to abolish the police. Given her rhetoric, Guido wonders if she’s the best person to fairly and independently scrutinise police…
Abimbola was unsurprisingly a big fan of HuffPost under the former editor-in-chief, Jess Brammar
Are the police chiefs being clever making a poacher gamekeeper, or did they fail to investigate her views? In any event Guido looks forward to Abimbola’s ‘independent’ advice…
This weekend the Guardian and Independent both published a whopper of a story sure to set social media and MP’s casework inboxes alight; with claims Boris was to use Brexit to authorise the use of a “bee-killing pesticide banned in the EU” – neonicotinoid thiamethoxam – to treat sugar beet seed this year in an effort to protect the crop from a virus. Greta immediately leapt on the story:
UK government has announced "a bee-killing pesticide so poisonous that it is banned by the EU" may be used in England.— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 9, 2021
New coal mines and pesticides... the UK's so called "green industrial revolution" is off to a great start.
Very credible indeed.https://t.co/R4o54ZEyvD
There was just one problem with the screeching Remainer environmental outrage: the pesticide is not banned in the EU and the UK was always entitled to use it pre-Brexit – with 10 EU countries also having issued emergency authorisations for the pesticide since 2018 including Belgium, Denmark and Spain. DEFRA makes it very clear: “The UK’s approach to the use of emergency authorisations has not changed as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU.”
British sugar beet yield in 2020 is expected to be down by 20-25% on previous years due to predation by aphids which have been spreading beet yellow virus:
“The temporary use of this product is strictly limited to a non-flowering crop and will be tightly controlled to minimise any potential risk to pollinators.”
Don’t expect blind, unverifiable Remainer anger to die down just because Brexit’s finally done and dusted…
UPDATE: Reported today in French press France approves three-year use of controversial pesticide