Steve Jones, who was the first minister’s special adviser for five years, said Sargeant, who apparently took his own life following allegations of harassment, was upset by the “mind games” that went on within the government.
Steve Jones’s remarks follow allegations by the former Welsh minister Leighton Andrews that Sargeant was undermined from within the Labour government for several years.
An inquest on married father-of-two Sargeant, who was found dead at his home in Connah’s Quay, north Wales on Tuesday, four days after he was sacked, is due to begin on Monday.
On the day before his death, Ms Howe received a text message from David Taylor, a friend of Mr Sargeant, who had been asking how to program a text message to be sent at a later time.
Ms Howe told the coroner she then became concerned Mr Sargeant was planning to take his own life. Taylor’s text is an important event since it suggests he had knowledge of his close friend Sergeant’s intent to commit suicide.
The partner of a Labour MP has been arrested on suspicion of spying for China. David Taylor, the partner of Joani Reid, was detained by the Metropolitan Police and is being held under the National Security Act.
Two other men were arrested on Wednesday morning – Matthew Aplin, 43, from Pontyclun, South Wales, and Steve Jones, 68, from Powys, Wales. All three suspects, who were held on suspicion of assisting Chinese intelligence, had connections to the Labour Party.
Information has come to light that David Taylor, may have been a client of Positif Politics, according to messages from the former director, Daran Hill
Mathew Aplin’s profile has recently been scrubbed from the Camlas website.
Daran Hill@daranhill: I’m writing about Hendy wind farm. Do you want to tell me how you got involved. And your relationship with David Taylor.
Yesterday, 10:26 am: I don’t work on Hendy wind farm
Yesterday, 10:28 am: But you work for Grayling Capital / Bute Energy.
Yesterday, 10:38 am s/For Bute yes but I haven’t worked on Hendy
Yesterday, 10:38 am: Your e-mail to Penybont and Llandegley community council mentions Bute and Grayling
Yesterday, 10:47 am: v”I’m retained by Bute Or rather Positif is
Yesterday, 10:48 amL But you are Positif. The e-mail to the council was in your name. David Taylor is also involved with those involved with Powys wind turbines – he’s even a shareholder in Windward Enterprises – and I know you two are fairly close, so are you working together? Do you have contact details for him?
Yesterday, 11:53 am: v’:Yep the email was in my name as the lead person in Positif working on the Bute Energy account. The email was drafted in response to a specific query.
Yesterday, 12:11 pm. How can I contact David Taylor?
Yesterday, 12:14 pm: I don’t give out client contact details sorry
Yesterday, 1:34 pm: Fair enough. I didn’t realise he was a client of yours.
Yesterday, 1:41 pm: V Camlas V https://camlas.wales Matthew Aplin. Matt has been involved in public affairs and communications for nearly 20 years.
A former journalist at Camlas V https://camlas.wales Steven Jones, who was the first minister’s special adviser for five years, said Sargeant, who apparently took his own life following allegations of harassment, was upset by the “mind games” that went on within the government. Steve Jones’s remarks follow allegations by the former Welsh minister Leighton Andrews that Sargeant was undermined from within the Labour government for several years.
An inquest on married father-of-two Sargeant, who was found dead at his home in Connah’s Quay, north Wales, on Tuesday, four days after he was sacked, is due to begin on Monday.
Steve’s private sector experience includes providing strategic, political, communications and crisis management advice for clients both in the UK.
He was a close friend of David Taylor, the director and sole employee of a company that had an £885,000 increase in the cash it held in one financial year. The company does “Public Relations” and has only existed for just over four years.
Concerns have been raised that Bute Energy “courted” Welsh politicians with gifts and donations to gain favour and influence for future wind farm projects.
Run by Oliver James Millican, Bute is an offshoot of the property and investment company Parabola, run by his father, Scotsman Peter John Millican.
Several Labour Senedd members and a Labour MP received tickets to sporting events and cash from Scottish company Bute Energy over the last three years.
Bute is developing a portfolio of onshore wind and solar power energy parks across rural parts of Wales.
It’s been involved in several controversial planning applications for turbines and steel pylons in picturesque areas of the country.
Some Labour politicians have hosted prestigious events on behalf of Bute Energy after receiving gifts from the company.
John Uden, husband of Labour MS Jenny Rathbone accepted a position on Bute Energy’s advisory board in March 2021.
The board was set up to provide advice and guidance to Bute’s executive team and to help to promote onshore wind and solar energy projects in Wales.
Bute Energy is currently planning to build an onshore windfarm made up of 26 turbines 220 metres high near the Glaslyn nature reserve in Powys.
The proposals have sparked fierce backlash from locals and wildlife campaigners.
A statutory consultation with local communities and organisations is expected at the end of this year.
On June 12 this year, Jenny Rathbone, John Griffiths, Jack Sargeant and Ken Skates all followed the Labour whip and and voted against a Plaid Cymru motion for new power lines to be placed underground.
A campaigner against Bute’s plans who didn’t wish to be named said: “Although this information is available in the public domain, these members of the Senedd are unable or unwilling to see conflicts of interest that are so obvious to the public.
“This seems to run counter to Sir Keir Starmer’s recent comments about the importance of probity and public service in government.”
“Jacothenorth”, picks up the story
I first became aware of Bute’s links to Labour when I was told that someone was visiting people close to a planned wind farm. This was (the now abandoned) Moelfre site inland of Colwyn Bay, a real outlier from Bute’s other projects.
This Bute representative was David James Taylor, Labour insider who’d been Spad to a number of high-profile figures; UK government minister Peter Hain and Wales first ministers Rhodri Morgan and Carwyn Jones.
In 2016 Taylor stood to become the North Wales Police and Crime Commissioner. After losing maybe he considered his career options. Or perhaps he was approached, for Labour was already helping wind farm developers.
We saw this when Anna McMorrin lobbied Powys councillors on behalf of Hendy wind farm in April 2017, just a month before she was elected Labour MP for Cardiff North.
Taylor formed three companies in October 2018: Moblake Wind Ventures Ltd (which became Moblake Ltd 11.11.2020); Moblake Energy Trading Ltd (folded 2020); and Moblake Associates Ltd (now being struck-off).
The timing is intriguing, because Taylor’s companies were formed a week before his friend and colleague, Lesley Griffiths, set the precedent of over-ruling a planning inspector to give Hendy windfarm planning consent. She did so using the relatively new Developments of National Significance (DNS) legislation.
DNS made it clear that Wales was free range for wind turbines; free of interference from locals, their council representatives, or even planning inspectors.
Taylor was rewarded by Bute with shares in Windward Enterprises Ltd (now Windward Energy Ltd), both in his own name and that of Moblake Associates Ltd. He was also a (non-designated) member of Grayling Capital LLP.
Money magically appeared in Moblake Ltd, which Taylor then paid to himself in ‘loans’ totalling over £600,000 that did not need to be repaid.
There was an attempt to liquidate this company a couple of years ago, but the liquidator was removed last August. Since when there’s been no further news.
Taylor was useful to Bute because of his closeness to Lesley Griffiths, and his insider knowledge of the Labour party machine.
Which is why it’s suggested that Taylor’s personal payment came in shares and other ways; and that most if not all of the £600,000+ was really a donation from Bute to the Labour party.
Bute Energy
Soon after setting up in Wales, perhaps in an attempt to establish Welsh credentials, Bute set up a Welsh Advisory Board. comprising:
Derek Vaughan, redundant MEP;
Dr Debra Williams, businesswoman and academic;
John ‘Cwmbetws’ Davies, man of many hats and big shot in the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society;
John Uden, partner of Jenny Rathbone MS.?
THE Neath- Port Talbot-Brussels-Copenhagen Connection
Derek Vaughan was leader of Neath Port Talbot (NPT) council and would certainly know Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP for Aberavon, the Port Talbot seat.
Vaughan was an MEP from 2009 to 2019, preceded by the late Glenys Kinnock. The wife of former Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, and mother to Stephen.
Stephen Kinnock MP is married to Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former Danish PM. She serves as a director of Danish wind turbine producer, Vestas, reputed to be the biggest in the world.
In 2020 Vestas took a 25% stake in Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. (CIP) which is the conduit for funding Bute projects.
Derek Vaughan’s political background and contacts explain him being chosen as the chairman of Bute’s Welsh Advisory Board. He was a ‘good fit’.
Bute assiduously courted the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society (RWAS). Which makes sense, for the RWAS gives access to many of the landowners on whose property Bute would like to erect turbines and pylons.
This explains Bute’s recruitment of John Davies, who from 2012 was RWAS chairman.
The fourth member of the quartet is John Uden, whose only qualification is being the partner of Senedd Member, Jenny Rathbone, who sits on the Senedd’s Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee.
And so to understand why Bute recruited Uden we need to focus on Rathbone.
Rathbone was born in Liverpool and is a member of the Rathbone dynasty, once very influential in that city. The influence continues through Rathbones Wealth & Investment Management.
Jenny Rathbone and other family members are looked after from the investments made. This presumably accounts for the shares in her Register of interests.
A fascinating connection revealed recently lists Copenhagen Offshore Partners A/S in an office office at 10 George Street, Edinburgh. The same building as Rathbone Investment Management (£60bn assets).
The foregoing serves as an example of how Wales is ripped off by the Labour Party pushers and pimps of the ‘renewable energy’ industry.
The strange case of Hendy Wind Farm and the involvement of Bute Energy in Wind Farms in Wales
To cut a long story short . . .
Planning permission was refused by Powys County Council in April 2017, an occurrence worth recounting.
‘Back in 2017, on April 27 to be exact, there was a curious scene played out at a meeting of Powys County Council’s planning committee. At a point in the meeting after the committee had refused planning permission for Hendy and was about to discuss further conditions for Bryn Blaen, a woman who had been sitting with the developers tried to hand a note to one of the committee members.
The woman had to be forcefully ushered away. She was recognised as a lobbyist, working for Invicta Public Affairs, a company based in Newcastle-upon-Tyne . It was Anna McMorrin, who had been recruited by Invicta in October 2016 for no reason other than she was a Labour Party insider, having joined the party when she was a student, and as a result of her subsequent career, she knew exactly who to approach to get things done.
While she was working for Alun Davies, they began an affair, which resulted in both leaving their long-term partners. They now live together.
In the general election of June 2017, Anna McMorrin was elected Labour MP for Cardiff North.’
When McMorrin became an MP her profile obviously increased, and she could hardly be expected to raise the hopes of elderly councillors by slipping them billets-doux during planning committee meetings.
A replacement would have to be found.
Inevitably, the Hendy developers appealed against the council’s decision but the appeal was dismissed by a planning inspector in May, 2018. Then, just five months later, Lesley Griffiths, Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs Secretary for the self-styled ‘Welsh Government’, overruled the planning inspector.
Here’s the letter Lesley Griffiths sent to Keith McKinney of Aaron and Partners LLP, a firm of Chester solicitors acting for the developers Hendy Wind Farm Ltd. Which is directly owned by DS Renewables LLP and ultimately owned by U + I Group Plc.
In which she provides justification for her overruling the planning inspector, being that Hendy Wind Farm is a Development of National Significance (DNS).
Yet Wales already produces roughly twice as much electricity as it consumes, with the extra going to England for no remuneration. So Hendy and all the other developments planned cannot be in the Welsh national interest. Which means they must be in the national interest of England or the UK.
Suggesting that Wales is being lumbered with an unfair and disproportionate number of the UK’s wind farms.
Take Scotland out of the calculation, and it becomes even more obvious that Wales is suffering an excessive number of wind turbines in order to protect English landscapes.
But it’s OK, because this exploitation is presented as little old Wales saving the planet.
It’s unusual for a minister to overrule the Planning Inspectorate. And because the Planning Inspectorate plays by the same DNS rule-book, Griffiths’ decision made a number of people suspect that other factors or influences might have been at play.
From the ‘Welsh Government’ website; . . . it was noticed that Labour insider David James Taylor had slipped on to the stage. Was he the replacement for Anna McMorrin?
Taylor’s company Moblake was named as working for the developers. Though as I’ll explain in a minute, there are two Moblake companies. And Taylor’s connection to those developers goes beyond Moblake.
Taylor is described in this piece as a ‘Former Labour spin doctor’. To give you some more information I shall shamelessly lift a section from last year’s piece:
‘Back in the early part of 2009 a bright lad in the Labour Party launched a website attacking his party’s political opponents. The site’s name cleverly linking the names of Labour icon Aneurin Bevan and national hero Owain Glyndwr. As background music it even employed Tom Jones’s Delilah.
How we laughed!
But it all came unstuck and caused the bruvvers considerable embarrassment. First Minister Rhodri Morgan was particularly irked because Plaid Cymru leader Ieuan Wyn Jones had been portrayed as a clown. In normal circumstances this wouldn’t have mattered, but Labour was in coalition with Plaid Cymru at the time.
The website itself has long disappeared into the ether, but this old blog will give you a flavour. Though the Aneurin Glyndwr Twitter account lives on.
Taylor canvassed for Lesley Griffiths in the 2016 Assembly elections along with some kids shipped in from England.
Around the same time he stood as the Labour candidate for the North Wales PCC post, but lost. Which would have left him looking for a suitably remunerative position.
Taylor had worked as a spad for Peter Hain when the Sage of the Serengeti was Secretary of State for Wales, and has also served as head cook and bottlewasher to former Labour Assembly Member Leighton Andrews.
Taylor joined the party while still in nappies and chaired his local constituency association before leaving kindergarten. In short, he is Labour through and through, and is very well connected in the Welsh branch of the UK Labour Party.
Additionally, he knows Lesley Griffiths personally.
There was something of a changing of the guard in 2017/18. Not only did we see Taylor taking over from McMorrin as the Labour Party/lobbyist presence, but those originally behind the Hendy wind farm were overshadowed by new players.
The linkage between the new and the old can be found in the company originally named Windward Generation Ltd, then Bute Energy Ltd, and finally, RSCO 3750 Ltd.
The first two directors were Oliver James Millican and Lawson Douglas Steele, both using the address of the Edinburgh Solicitors’ Property Centre at 90a George Street. They were joined 6 days later by Steven John Radford of Hendy Wind Farm Ltd.
Radford left in December 2019 and in the same month Stuart Allan George joined. Millican, Steele, and George will dominate this narrative from now on through a galaxy of companies under the Bute Energy umbrella.
I include a table, with working links, thttps://nopylons.wales/docs/Bute%20Energy%20and%20Associated%20Companies(May2023).pdf that shows the various companies involved at the outset of the Hendy scenario and how, since they appeared on the scene, Millican, Steele, and George seem to be planning wind farms – now renamed ‘energy parks’ – all over Wales.
Since April 2020 there have been 20 new companies. Most of them location specific. See how many you can identify.
Earlier I mentioned David Taylor’s two companies called Moblake. These are Moblake Ltd (formerly Moblake Wind Ventures Ltd), and Moblake Associates Ltd. Despite the suggestion in the name of the second, Taylor is the sole director of both.
The latest unaudited financial statement for Moblake Ltd (not to be confused with audited accounts) show a healthy balance of £765,000. The ‘Nature of business (SIC)’ says that this company deals in ‘specialised construction activities’.
From the latest accounts, y/e 30.04.2021. We can guess where the money came from. Moblake is just a conduit. Money goes in one end and Taylor takes it out at the other end.
The Moblake companies were formed a week before Lesley Griffiths wrote to the developers’ solicitor advising that the Hendy Wind Farm was going ahead. What a coincidence!
Which I find curious. Taylor has neither qualifications nor experience in the field of construction. I’ve read somewhere that he took time out from being a political fixer to study cybersecurity in the USA.
To further the pretence of Welsh involvement in or benefit from these projects, Bute recruited or appointed a Welsh Advisory Board headed by former Labour MEP Derek Vaughan.
UPDATE 15.10.2021: Senior Labour MS Jenny Rathbone‘s partner is a member of the Advisory Board.
John Uden.
What expertise does he bring? Or is his real benefit that he’s the partner of a Senedd Member who sits on the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee?
Having touched on Taylor’s background, it’s worth adding that Millican, Steele, and George have never driven a digger for Wimpey either. Their expertise is in real estate and equities.
Which raises a number of possibilities.
Until he discovered an interest in wind turbines, Millican was a director of companies under the Parabola label. Companies such as Parabola Estate Holdings Ltd operating out of the same London address as his more recent wind farm ventures.
A director of this and many other companies is 72-year-old Peter John Millican, who I assume to be the father of 40-year-old Oliver Millican.
Given that Millican junior is in ultimate control of all the wind farm companies, I can’t help wondering whether he has really branched out on his own or whether he’s still working for daddy. Or perhaps fronting for someone else.
To summarise, we have the three musketeers from Caeredin, and their man on the ground in Wales, David Taylor, none of whom has any obvious background in engineering or renewables. Nor are they believed to be card-carrying members of the Greta Thunberg Fan Club.
Which suggests to me that they’re just in it for the money. With that money assured through being able to influence the ‘Welsh Government’.
For it wasn’t Taylor’s sparkling repartee that persuaded the Bute gang to make him a member of Grayling Capital LLP, and a shareholder in Windward Enterprises.
All of which leads me to wonder if this lot will erect a single wind turbine.
Because having apparently secured the rights to so many sites, all they need to do on each is spend a few thousand for a planning application and, once that’s secured, each site becomes worth millions.
And we are talking tens of millions of pounds, possibly nine figures, for a total outlay of less than a million pounds, and without having to do any real work.
Not far from Hendy Wind Farm, nearer to Llangurig, we find Bryn Blaen. A modest affair of 6 turbines with a tip height of 100m and a potential output of just 14.1MW. This too was launched by Steven John Radford, the man behind the Hendy project.
The latest accounts (to 30 September, 2020) show ‘Tangible assets’ of £35,567,344. And this figure has been reduced by the estimated cost of removing the turbines when their days are done, and restoring the site.
I predict it will be a hard job getting those responsible to restore wind farm sites and.we might see companies locating offshore, as we saw with those seeking to avoid cleaning up opencast coal sites.
I conclude this section with a bit more information on Bryn Blaen.
Radford and other directors left the company in February 2020. They were replaced by Stephen Richard Daniels, Edward William Mole, Benjamin Alexander Phillips, and Roger Skeldon.
Together, the three hold 1,647 directorships, and a hell of a lot of the companies are dissolved.
The Scottish Parliament was confronted with the problem of “cross my palm” misconduct in the first years of the Labour/LibDem government, and after protracted debate, introduced rules governing the conduct of lobbyists and politicians, which appeared to resolve the issue.
The failure to account for £billions frittered away on goods and services attributed to the Covid pandemic revealed that lobbying had not been disabled by the legislation introduced many years before. Politicians were well aware of the weakness.
Telephone lobbying was not covered by the changes, and as such, there was no need for a Minister of the government to report any discussions or contractual agreements
Woodside School, Glasgow, has been sold to the pro-Iran regime Islamic organisation, The Ahl al-Bait Society. The Society bought the property for £2 million. The SNP Government contributed £400,000 towards the purchase. Is the Scottish Government’s financial support of the purchase of property by a non-public body with a questionable political record legal, and does it place Scotland at risk of adverse reaction from the wider community of nations in light of recent events in Iran and increasing public concern about the level of Islamic immigration and the increasing criminality attributed to them?
Grok analysis
The sale of the former Woodside Public School in Glasgow to the Ahl al-Bait Society Scotland (also referred to as the Scottish Ahlul Bayt Society or SABS) for £2 million is confirmed through multiple sources, including property records and news reports. The organisation, a registered Scottish charity (SC025046 and SC042568), focuses on advancing Shia Islam, promoting interfaith dialogue, education in Arabic language and Islamic studies, community harmony, and initiatives like climate action and health campaigns. It has relocated to the Ashley Street site (the former school) after outgrowing its previous premises.
Funding Details: The Scottish Government has provided grants totalling over £400,000 to the organisation over the past decade (primarily between 2016 and 2022). These funds were allocated through programs like the Climate Challenge Fund, aimed at supporting Middle Eastern communities in Glasgow to reduce carbon emissions via activities such as energy efficiency, waste reduction, upcycling, sustainable cooking, and educational workshops on climate change. Additional grants supported interreligious dialogue and representation of the Arabic Muslim community. No direct government contribution to the property purchase itself is documented; the society’s funding appeal raised over £26,000 publicly, but the bulk of the £2 million appears to come from other sources, including potential donations or loans (a charge was registered on the property in December 2025). Legality of the Funding. Under Scottish law, as outlined in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Act 2023, the government can legally provide grants to registered charities if they align with public benefit and charitable purposes. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) oversees charities, ensuring they operate within legal frameworks, and the government is responsible for the policy environment. The grants in question were for environmental and community integration projects, which qualify as charitable activities promoting education, environmental protection, and social cohesion. There is no indication that these violated any laws, as the organisation is a legitimate charity with no formal sanctions or deregistration. If concerns arise about misuse or affiliations, OSCR has powers to investigate, but no such action has been reported. Allegations of Political Affiliations and Record. The organisation has been described in some media reports as a “front” for the Iranian regime, partly due to its Shia focus (Ahl al-Bayt refers to the family of the Prophet Muhammad, central to Shia Islam, and Iran is a Shia-majority state). Specific claims include hosting a vigil in 2024 for Iran’s late President Ebrahim Raisi (known critically as the “Butcher of Tehran” for his role in 1980s executions) and alleged ties to Iranian influence networks. However, the society positions itself as an independent Scottish entity serving local Shia Muslims and the broader society, with no explicit affiliations mentioned on its website or in its charity filings. It has participated in UK-based interfaith events, such as the Glasgow Multi-Faith Declaration for COP26 and World Blood Donor Day campaigns. Regarding links to Iran: There is no direct evidence tying it to the Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly (ABWA), an Iranian NGO founded in 1990 by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to promote Shia Islam globally. ABWA acts as an umbrella for Iranian-backed institutions worldwide, but the Scottish group is not listed as an affiliate.
Some reports note overlaps in events, such as conferences attended by Iranian representatives or figures linked to Khamenei, but clarifications in media (e.g., from The Times) state that SABS has “no connection” to certain Iranian entities mentioned in investigations. The society’s activities emphasise Scottish integration, not foreign policy advocacy, though critics argue its Shia orientation inherently aligns with Iranian cultural influence.
If proven to have undisclosed ties to a foreign regime, this could prompt OSCR review under charity law, but current public information does not indicate illegality. Potential Risks to Scotland. This is a subjective assessment, but based on available facts: Diplomatic and International Reactions: Scotland (as part of the UK) could face reputational scrutiny if the organisation’s alleged Iranian links are substantiated, especially amid heightened tensions with Iran. As of March 2026, recent events in Iran include a major escalation: US and Israeli strikes on Iranian military, nuclear, and leadership targets starting February 28, 2026, resulting in the reported death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, widespread protests, and threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. These have led to global security alerts, oil price spikes, and embassy closures. Funding a group perceived as pro-Iranian could draw criticism from allies like the US or Israel, potentially straining UK foreign relations or inviting sanctions scrutiny under counter-terrorism laws (e.g., if links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were established, though none are proven here). However, the grants predate this conflict and were for non-political purposes.
Community and Domestic Concerns: Public concerns about Islamic immigration and associated criminality (as mentioned in your query) are often debated in media and politics, fueled by broader UK trends in migration, integration, and isolated incidents of crime. However, there is no evidence linking this specific organisation or its funding to increased criminality, extremism, or immigration issues. Statistics from sources like the UK Home Office show that crime rates vary by many factors, not solely ethnicity or religion, and most Muslim communities in Scotland contribute positively. If the funding is seen as favouring one group, it might exacerbate domestic divisions, but the society’s interfaith work aims to mitigate this.
Security Risks: No direct threats to Scotland from this transaction are evident. The UK government monitors foreign influence via bodies like MI5, and charities must comply with anti-terrorism financing rules. If risks emerge, they would likely involve broader Iranian proxy activities (e.g., in the Middle East), not local property purchases.
In summary, the funding appears legal and purpose-driven, but the allegations warrant transparency. For official advice, contact OSCR or the Scottish Government. If you have more details or concerns, I can help refine this analysis.
European society is being irreversibly changed, through the aggressive transfer of religious and political power away from Christianity and Laws, to the Islamic Faith and Sharia Law. Are there parallels to be drawn between today’s uncontrolled mass movement of people from the East and similar migration in the 1930’s? Apparently driven by political fanatics who have control of the World Economic Forum agenda for change? Is violence and civil disobedience an inevitable consequence?
The “Grok” rebuttal
The user’s query raises several interconnected claims about migration, societal change, historical parallels, and potential outcomes in Europe. I’ll address each part based on available evidence, aiming for a balanced, fact-based analysis without endorsing unsubstantiated assumptions. Note that while migration patterns and integration challenges are real topics of debate, the framing here appears influenced by conspiracy narratives, which often exaggerate or misrepresent data.
On Claims of “Irreversible Change” through Transfer of Religious and Political Power, Europe has seen significant immigration from Muslim-majority countries (e.g., Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia) since the 2010s, driven largely by conflicts, economic disparities, and climate factors rather than an “aggressive transfer” of power. This has led to demographic shifts: Muslims now make up about 5-6% of the EU population (around 25 million people), concentrated in countries like France, Germany, and Sweden. However, there’s no empirical evidence of a systemic “transfer” away from Christianity or secular laws toward Sharia. Europe remains overwhelmingly secular or Christian in its legal and cultural frameworks—Christianity influences about 70% of the population, with declining practice but stable institutional presence.
Sharia is not implemented in any EU country’s legal system; isolated calls for it (e.g., in some community contexts) are marginal and often rejected by courts and governments. Integration issues exist, including cultural tensions, higher unemployment among some migrant groups, and occasional demands for religious accommodations (e.g., halal food in schools or prayer spaces). But these are managed through existing laws, not supplanted by them. Studies show that second-generation immigrants from Muslim backgrounds often adopt more secular European norms, with religiosity declining over time.
Claims of “irreversible” Islamization echo far-right narratives but aren’t supported by data; Europe’s history of absorbing waves of migrants (e.g., post-WWII labor from Turkey and North Africa) shows adaptation rather than overthrow.
Parallels Between Current Migration and the 1930sThe 1930s saw mass movements due to economic depression, political persecution, and rising fascism—most notably Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany and Eastern Europe, with about 300,000-500,000 escaping to places like the U.S., UK, and Palestine before borders tightened. Other flows included ethnic exchanges in the Balkans and Russians fleeing the Soviet regime. These were often forced displacements amid violence, not “uncontrolled mass movements” driven by ideology in the way the query suggests. Parallels to today’s migration from the “East” (e.g., Middle East, Africa, Asia) do exist, but they’re largely in the humanitarian context: Both eras involve refugees escaping war, persecution, and instability (e.g., Syrians fleeing civil war mirror Jews fleeing Nazis). Public responses also echo: 1930s xenophobia led to closed borders and tragedies (e.g., the MS St. Louis ship of Jewish refugees turned away), similar to today’s anti-migrant sentiments in Europe amid the 2015-2016 refugee influx.
However, key differences undermine direct equivalence:Scale and drivers: 1930s migrations were smaller and more Europe-internal; today’s are global, with ~1 million arrivals annually to the EU, driven by post-colonial ties, globalization, and conflicts like Syria’s war (not a coordinated “agenda”).
1930s flows were often westward/outward from Europe; current ones are inward, primarily economic or asylum-seeking, not an “invasion” to impose religion/law.
1930s refugees integrated despite prejudice (e.g., Jewish contributions to Allied war efforts); today’s challenges include slower assimilation in Europe vs. North America, due to welfare systems and cultural gaps, but not parallels to aggressive power shifts.
No credible sources link 1930s migrations to “political fanatics” in the way described; that era’s crises stemmed from fascism and economic collapse, not a supranational body like the WEF.Role of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and “Agenda for Change”The WEF, a nonprofit forum for global leaders, has discussed migration as part of broader issues like sustainability and economic recovery.
Its “Great Reset” initiative, launched in 2020 post-COVID, focuses on rebuilding economies through stakeholder capitalism, green tech, and equity—not engineering mass migration or cultural shifts.
Core pillars include fairer markets, ESG metrics, and innovation; migration is mentioned in contexts like addressing labor shortages from aging populations or climate displacement, but not as a tool for “transferring power.”
Claims of WEF “fanatics” driving Islamization or uncontrolled migration stem from conspiracy theories, which misinterpret vague statements (e.g., “build back better”) as plots for global control.
The WEF advocates for managed migration as a “model for sustainable development,” emphasizing benefits like economic growth, but critiques it for elitism without evidence of orchestrating crises.
EU policies on migration (e.g., border controls, asylum pacts) are set by member states and the European Commission, not the WEF.Is Violence and Civil Disobedience Inevitable?
No, violence is not an “inevitable consequence” of migration; data shows no causal link between immigration levels and increased societal violence in Europe.
Studies in Germany, Sweden, and the UK (post-2015 influx) find no statistical rise in violent crime tied to migrants; integration policies, education, and community support mitigate risks.
Migrants are often victims of violence (e.g., exploitation on routes, pushbacks at borders) rather than perpetrators.
That said, tensions can arise: Isolated incidents (e.g., riots in France 2023 or anti-migrant protests) stem from socioeconomic factors like inequality, not migration alone.
Populist rhetoric amplifies fears, but overall, migration correlates with economic benefits (e.g., filling labor gaps in aging societies) more than conflict.
Successful integration (as in post-WWII Europe) reduces risks; failures (e.g., poor housing, discrimination) can exacerbate them, but inevitability is overstated.
In summary, while migration poses challenges, the query’s premises aren’t borne out by evidence. Historical parallels highlight humanitarian lessons, not conspiracies, and outcomes depend on policy choices like better integration, not predestined violence. For deeper reading, sources like UNHCR reports or academic analyses on European demographics provide neutral insights.
Christian crusaders won a long battle against the madness of Islam, ensuring religious freedom for its citizens. But the erosion of behavioural norms encouraged by corrupt politicians brought about the unfettered release in the West of the evils of Islam and its evil purpose. Islam is now firmly in control of the political direction of the UK and many other former Christian cultures. A very recent example is the by-election win of yet another non- English speaking immigrant Muslim to the Scottish Parliament. A success gained in a community dominated by Christians. The success, against all predictions, was achieved through the abuse of the unlimited powers of the Imams and Islamic activists ever present in Mosques who dictate with whom the Islamic votes are placed. Such actions are now commonplace in immigrant communities throughout the UK, and the perversion of Christian-led political systems by Islam is nearing completion. What comes next?.
Nov 2010: Jack Straw Labour MP for Blackburn alerted the UK to the sexual abuse of young white girls by Pakistani men
A gang of men were convicted of systematically grooming and sexually abusing teenage girls in Derbyshire. Many of the victims were given alcohol or drugs before being forced to have sex in cars, rented houses or hotels across the Midlands. One girl described a sexual assault involving at least eight men. The nine men were convicted during three separate trials at Leicester Crown Court.
Straw said increasing numbers of Pakistani Muslim men view white girls as “easy meat” for sex abuse and highlighted it was endemic in Blackburn and in many other areas with significant Muslim populations across England.
Aug 2014: Pakistani Grooming gangs reportedly raped near a million underage non-Muslim girls and the CPS failed their pleas for justice
Jack Straw’s warning was ignored by the DPP and the CPS. Four years and 1 million more rapes later the UK public was outraged and angered by party political attempts to shift the blame away from the State onto the victims.
Reports suggested that there were around 1,400 raped Yorkshire children, (a conservative estimate) given there were multiple rapes on each child.
Adding in the Pakistani Muslim grooming operating in Oxford, Bradford, Rochdale, Newcastle and other cities in England takes the count of rapes committed by Pakistani Muslim men against white children into the millions.
The judge in the Oxford case said the brutal rapists demeaned their victims because they did not share the men’s “religion and culture”.
Nor is it a “small number” of Muslims. It is an endemic problem in Muslim-dominated towns and cities.
The UK public needs to see justice. That means more than “historic abuse” “no blame game” “no party politics” “look to the future” and all the other rubbish politicians wheel out. We don’t need “the police”, “the council”, “the CPS”. We need names and prosecutions.
Police officers who abetted the rape of children need to go to jail. And another thing who will be responsible for prosecuting members of the CPS for their misconduct?
Keir Starmer, the highly politicised Director of Public Prosecutions, said his CPS did not prosecute because they made assumptions about the credibility of the evidence of victims.
So the DPP and the CPS took on the role of judge and jury and failed the abused children. Why?
It was Labour who did this in Rotherham and Rochdale to win Muslim votes. The police, Labour PCCs, Labour councillors, Labour-leaning prosecutors.
The Rotherham report says a Conservative councillor brought his concerns to the leader but was told not to make it public.
The Head of Children’s Services Joyce Thacker told The Times she would punish the leaker and in 2008 Labour gave her an OBE for her Services to Young People.
Labour’s greedy, sleazy pandering to Muslim votes brought about the introduction of Sharia tribunals. Labour set them up in law.
Postal vote fraud, uncontrolled immigration, Trojan Horse schools, and now this sick hell.
The Pakistani immigrant community has not fully integrated into British life. Instead of spreading out over the country and adopting British values whilst retaining their own religion, they have been encouraged to massively dominate many towns where they impose their culture on others.
Social planning needs to address the undesirability of one community” taking over an English town or city. We have seen that with our mixed Afro-Caribbean heritage Britons, with Jewish-heritage Britons and all classes and races up until now.
Politicians, the Media and the Press are persistent in their use of the expression “The Pakistani Community” providing confirmation of the failed immigration policy of the Labour Party who actively encouraged mass uncontrolled immigration of Pakistani immigrants so that they would be able to gain their votes in future elections.
Reference to “the community” should address all citizens regardless of ethnic origin. (The Sun)
White girls abused by Muslim child-rape gangs should shut their mouths for the good of diversity
Labour Party leader, Sir Keir Starmer promoted MP Naseem ‘Naz’ Shah, who infamously shared a tweet stating “Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths for the good of diversity”.
The British-Pakistani Labour MP for Bradford West liked and shared a tweet in 2017 admonishing white, English girls who spoke out about being raped and sexually enslaved by organised gangs of Muslim paedophiles.
The UK was rocked to its foundations by the never-ending stream of scandals involving predominantly Muslim men targeting white English girls from working-class backgrounds for sexual exploitation.
Most shockingly of all is the fact that authorities and the mainstream media were aware of this for years if not decades but refused to act, even when girls and parents pleaded for help, for fear of being accused of racism by PC fanatics.
The Labour MP for Rotherham, a town where Muslim child-raping gangs were allowed to operate for years with impunity, Sarah Champion, has said that up to 1 million English girls are likely to have fallen victim to Muslim rape gangs as of 2016.
Political activist and author Lindsey German endorsed Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign in the Labour Party leadership election.
In 2019, she wrote that there was little evidence for an epidemic of antisemitism within the Labour Party, with a “very small number of cases proved, and a small number of accusations made”. Such allegations were “political attacks – against Corbyn and his left wing politics, and against all those who criticised the state of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians.
“The Fraud”, written by respected investigative reporter, Paul Holden, lifted the lid on the deceitful, secret campaign inside Labour to destroy Corbyn and install Starmer as it’s right-wing Labour leader.
Lindsey German’s review
It could hardly be a better week to review a book whose subtitle is Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney, and the Crisis of British Democracy. I was reading the last chapter when the news broke that Downing Street advisers were briefing against Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who was allegedly planning to challenge Starmer for leader. The furore that followed demonstrated that the dysfunctionality of Starmer’s administration was on a par with the sheer chaos that has engulfed recent Tory governments.
Paul Holden’s detailed and extensive book is a very important primer for all of us who want to understand what is going on. His case is clear that there ‘is compelling evidence that the political project which propelled Keir Starmer to first party and then national leadership was authoritarian, deceptive, and open to corporate capture, and that it lacked a principled approach to the struggle against racism. As this book shows, the Starmer project has also repeatedly skirted the edges of the law. “This is the machine that now runs the UK”.
Holden identifies the two overlapping projects – what he calls the Labour Together Project and the Starmer Project – that were key to Starmer succeeding to the leadership and then to government. He also identifies the person at the centre of them, his adviser Morgan McSweeney, who is now under fire over the latest briefings. He and the people around him set up Labour Together, aimed at destroying Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and the Labour left which had grown during those years. It was set up in autumn 2015 but was not effective until after the 2017 election.
McSweeney has gained the aura of a spectacular evil genius, but it’s much more likely that he will end up like other such characters in Downing Street (Dominic Cummings, anyone?) who thrive on political manoeuvring, swim comfortably in the pool of Westminster gossip and briefing, but who lack a political understanding of what is actually happening beyond their rarified world.
At root in understanding McSweeney’s motivation, we have to place his hatred of the left. Corbyn’s leadership win in 2015 (McSweeney’s political judgement can be demonstrated by the fact that he managed the campaign of Liz Kendall, who came last with 4.5% of the vote) struck terror into the hearts of Labour’s right. It tried everything to damage the highly popular leader, including the ‘chicken coup’ of summer 2016, when shadow cabinet ministers resigned sequentially, trying to force Corbyn out. There was the pathetic leadership challenge from Owen Smith. There was the constant gossip, innuendo and attack from the bulk of the mainstream media.
Corbyn’s success accelerated plotting.
None of this worked however. When Theresa May called the election in April 2017, no one predicted that it would end in a hung parliament, a Tory government only held together by a sordid deal with the Ulster Unionists and with Corbyn already in receipt of the biggest Labour vote in a general election for a long time.
As Paul Holden demonstrates, McSweeney had already been involved in ensuring that party money and resources were channelled to right-wing candidates and denied to constituencies where such resources might have turned narrow defeats into wins
Now, however, the forces of the right, even more terrified by Corbyn’s relative success in the election, turned towards strategically destroying his leadership. McSweeney took up employment with Labour Together the day after the election result. ‘It was then that McSweeney came on board and started working to undermine the Labour left’.
Money poured into the organisation, an estimated £849,429 between June 2017 and March 2020, especially from two sources, hedge-fund manager Martin Taylor and businessman Sir Trevor Chinn. This covered exactly the period from Corbyn’s near win to the culmination of Starmer’s campaign to be leader. The aim was to defeat Corbyn and to ensure that the left lost convincingly.
There were two main lines of attack against the left, both evident before 2017 but exacerbated in order to ensure the right would triumph. One was the clamour for a second referendum on Brexit, which helped Labour lose a swathe of ‘Red Wall’ seats in 2019.
The other was the campaign on antisemitism, which was weaponised against Corbyn.
Paul Holden examines this important topic thoroughly, demonstrating the role of Labour Together, its determination to use accusations of antisemitism to destroy the left, its close alignment with Zionist organisations and its targeting of the left, including those many Jewish people in Labour who identified with Corbyn. It transpired that many such activists were themselves accused of antisemitism because of their anti-Zionist views and the growing criticisms of Israel from the left. This led to the suspension and expulsion of Jewish activists (some in Jewish Voice for Labour) for alleged antisemitism, and of the black activist Marx Wadsworth on charges which were politically motivated on the part of their opponents.
The mud stuck and the accusations of antisemitism were used to deny Corbyn the parliamentary whip and eventually force him out of the party.
But that was after the 2019 defeat and Starmer’s successful campaign, orchestrated by guess who: McSweeney. As was clear to many of us at the time and as Holden documents very well, this was fraudulent. Starmer would never have won the leadership if he had even whispered the kinds of policies he stood on during the 2024 election.
In the aftermath of Corbyn’s defeat, there was still huge affection for him and, more importantly, respect for his policies. Starmer’s ‘ten pledges’ were a recognition of that. His 2020 campaign video included ‘shots of Stop the War’s march against the 2003 Iraq war; grainy footage of historical trade union confrontations with the police; and, most notably, shots of Starmer standing with Diane Abbott or being embraced by Corbyn’.
None of this lasted past his election. Once anointed, he moved steadily and quite rapidly to the right, ditching his pledges, shadowing Tory policies and continuing his war against the left.
Corbyn’s defenestration in the wake of his perfectly reasonable and honest response to the EHRC report on antisemitism in Labour was one of the most shocking and dishonourable acts by Starmer. It demonstrated how far the Starmer Project and its architects were determined to go to eradicate the left.
Lurching to the right.
Research from Labour Together in 2023 highlighted how far the party was prepared to move right. In Red Shift, it discounted those it claimed would always vote Labour and argued it had to appeal to the ‘Patriotic Left’ and ‘Disillusioned Suburbans’. This meant adopting Faragist policies on issues such as crime and immigration.
As Holden remarks: ‘Having crushed the left and disempowered the membership, the Labour Together and Starmer projects were then free to lurch to the right on policy’.
Accompanying this is the scandalous treatment of a number of individuals: respected MPs like Beth Winter deselected from safe Labour seats, likely successful candidates such as Faiza Shaheen, bumped by a Zoom call because she was too left-wing. At the same time, a series of Labour Together figures and other allies of McSweeney were parachuted into seats without so much as a word to local party members. The worst example has to be that of Diane Abbott, who resisted being forced out of her Hackney seat but who has been treated really shabbily by the party leadership.
Holden tells us of the ‘Leaked Report’ and its allegations of racism and misogyny on the part of various staffers at Labour Party headquarters. Some of the worst examples were those aimed at Abbott. Yet when one of the examples of this from The Fraud was leaked to the press, and it led to the departure of Paul Ovenden, by now a Downing Street adviser, there was barely concealed sympathy for him from the media and anonymous colleagues.
This is a sorry tale of opportunism, deceit, dishonesty and at the very least political fraud. It reflects very badly on Starmer and McSweeney but not just on them. Many of the present cabinet members played a key role in Labour Together, including Wes Streeting, Steve Reid and Lisa Nandy. They have all presided over a brutal attack on the left, a sharply rightward-moving politics and a cosying up to big business and employers, which prevents any challenge to their power and influence.
Starmer, of course, won a big majority, but he is spectacularly unpopular and his policies disastrous. His course on Gaza led to some prominent Labour figures, including the unlamented Jonathan Ashworth, losing their seats to independents, and others seeing their huge majorities slashed (this is the case with Streeting and Shabana Mahmood, both tipped as future leaders but who may lose their seats at the next election).
So too may Starmer, if he gets that far. Left independent Andrew Feinstein took nearly 20% of the vote in 2024 while Starmer’s fell dramatically. Despite the triangulation of the right, Labour is losing votes to both left and right, with Reform in a strong position and the Greens and the nascent Your Party on the left.
Now this venal and incompetent government is heading for another fall, this time over the tax-raising budget they promised never to introduce. That’s because, despite the supposed genius of McSweeney and his mates in Downing Street, they have failed to see what nearly everyone in the country can see; that attacking pensioners, or the disabled, or children on benefits, is not popular. Nor is sucking up to billionaires and hedge-fund managers. Nor is supporting Israel’s genocide. Nor is alienating ethnic-minority voters, who don’t like being scapegoated.
Time for a change from the left. That will be a struggle and, in the process, will mean a fight against Starmer and all he stands for. Paul Holden’s book is well worth reading and covers a huge amount, impossible to deal with in one review. It gives us plenty of ammunition about why and how things have gone so badly wrong.
Building an alternative means breaking not just from this party and these individuals, but from the whole idea of Labourism, which delivers less and less under neoliberalism, and which scapegoats and marginalises those it is supposed to represent.
01 Nov 2017: James Dornan MSP, without consulting Ms “A”, sent details of a twitter exchange between Mark McDonald and Ms “A”, to John Sweeney, which he had retained for over a year without the knowledge or permission of either person.
02 Nov 2017: Mark was invited by John Swinney and Liz Lloyd to a meeting at which he was informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “Me2” movement.
03 Nov 2017: Lloyd then convened a second meeting with Mark at which she showed him a copy of his messages to Miss A. She did not provide the name of the person that had supplied it to her. but she did say that a complaint that had been lodged against him by an SNP Party member (Dornan). She advised him that his position as a minister of the government was no longer tenable and he would need to resign.
05 Nov 2017: Mark resigned as minister for childcare and early years.
07 Nov 2017: In a weird turn of events Sturgeon dismissed the notion that Mark should resign from Holyrood claiming that “Some may well have thought it was not serious enough to resign for.” Sturgeon’s statement suggested Sweeney and Lloyd acted against Mark McDonald without her knowledge or authority.
08 Nov 2017: Alerted by Sturgeon’s intervention of her belief that the reasons for Mark’s dismissal from his minister post was probably without foundation the SNP “hit squad” identified an urgent need to establish a “Moorov doctrine” pattern of harassment against Mark without delay to prevent his escape from the justice they had decided on.*
(*) The Moorov doctrine is a mechanism which applies where a person is accused of two or more separate offences, connected in time and circumstances. In such a case, where each of the offences charged is spoken to by a single credible witness, that evidence may corroborate, and be corroborated by, the other single witnesses, so as to enable the conviction of the accused on all the charges.
11 Nov 2017: A special investigation team, including an ex police officer was contracted, at considerable cost, to “dig for dirt” on Mark.
16 Nov 2017: A third potential complainer surfaced. Mark’s Party membership was immediately suspended and a team of private investigators including an ex-policeman were contracted at considerable expense, to complete investigations and report their findings to the Party’s Compliance Officer by 3 December 2017.
05 Dec 2017: Mark was summoned to meet with representatives from the SNP following which they issued a surprising “no further action” statement saying there was no criminality involved in the allegations against him. But the allegations although trivial were not dismissed. An expensive investigation had revealed nothing of note. Or so it seemed!!!!! The “Moorov Doctrine” manouvre had failed to produce results.
But Dornan continued his unfair pursuit of Mark and demanded that the full content of the allegations forming the “Moorov Doctrine” should be sent to the Ethics Commissioner for decision.
Mark was suspended from Holyrood for one month but left politics at the end of parliament in 2021.
Weeks later the incident came under scrutiny of the press and revealed the bad faith of the “witchfinders” in the upper echelon’s of the SNP who claimed to be fair minded.
The heavily canvassed and reluctant complainant and many other Party members attended the Party’s 2015 Xmas function.
The complainant was a young researcher new to the Party scene who underestimated the adverse effect of over indulging in alcohol consumption. She became quite enamoured with a much older married man Jamie Hepburn, MSP and left the party to continue their tryst.They were away for some time.
Later in the evening Mark noted her behaviour and condition had further deteriorated due to the alcohol and he decided to remove her to the safety of his nearby accommodation. She slept on his bed and he curled up in a quilt on the floor. The next day the young lady had no recollection of the previous evening but witnesses confirmed the accuracy of events to the SNP investigators. Ms A , when interviewed by private investigators, said her overnight stay in Mark’s bedroom had been uneventful and had no cause to register a complaint against him.
She then spoke to Hepburn who suggested she shouldn’t mention anything about the evening to anyone.
Hepburn was subsequently summoned to attend a meeting with very senior SNP people.
The content of the meeting was not recorded but a dossier was compiled and sent to Bill Thomson, the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, for decision. There was no mention in it of the Xmas party or of Hepburn’s inappropriate behaviour. His abuse of a young vulnerable female researcher was whitewashed from the probe.
That left a minor matter of the loan of the deposit on a flat of £476.14 that Mark had asked his staffer to pay for him in May 2016, and a three week delay in reimbursing it.
The Standards Commissioner’s investigation found that Mark’s conduct had “showed a lack of respect” over the flat deposit. That was it!!! No complaint registered and the incident could not be judged by the ethics Commissioner on a single weak case.
Comment: The absence of any judgement by the Ethics Commissioner on Hepburn’s tryst with the young vulnerable staffer leads to the conclusion that Hepburn’s role in events had been excluded from the dossier for political purposes.
The Commissioner’s opinion that Mark had shown a “lack of respect” in paying back the loan was subjective and warranted no mention in his summary opinion and its inclusion reduced the charges against Mark to a farcical level which was unpalatable when combined with the knowledge that Mark had been under severe stress at the time as he was waiting to find out if his father had terminal cancer.
Ms A was not offered up by the SNP investigation team to speak to the Ethics Commissioner because of the risk of exposing her disgraceful behaviours at the Xmas party.
Her evidence provided to the Ethics Commissioner, via a solicitor nominated by the SNP, stated she did not wish to participate in the investigation, except to confirm her agreement to the factual information set out in the report. The report made no mention of the conduct of Jamie Hepburn whose career blossomed at the expense of Mark’s.
16 November 2017: James Hynd- Head of Cabinet, Parliament and Governance Division, emailed (Private Secretary 1 to Evans). (Policy on Complaints Against Ministers.)” As requested”. James.
Afternote: In his statement to the Holyrood Inquiry Hynd said he had been charged with developing a new complaints procedure policy by the Cabinet on 31 October 2017. and “for the avoidance of doubt” Sturgeon was keen that the new policy should be overhauled to include former ministers.
Comment: But Hynd later responded to Mackinnon talking about the “route map” she had sent him following her meeting with Evans asking if the pathway concerning former ministers was informed by legal advice. Hynd was not the person who raised the “former ministers” aspect of the new procedures
16 November 2017: Hynd forwarded a copy of the draft policy to the office of the UK Government, Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood seeking approval to implement the new procedure. It was not forthcoming. See the exchange of heavily redacted mail correspondence and transfer of the draft procedure to London.
Leslie was keen that you had the chance to see the proposal a) for any thoughts/advice you could offer and b) to make sure that any approach of this sort would not cause difficulties at your end of things. Very happy to discuss on the phone if that would be easier and quicker for you.
17 November 2017: Hynd circulated to the Scottish Government civil service senior management team, and Lloyd (first sight, at her request) a second draft procedure titled “Handling of sexual harassment complaints involving current or former ministers.”
17 November 2017: Approval was not forthcoming. Instead the response expressed grave concerns about implications for politicians throughout the UK if the Scottish Government would be permitted to act in isolation from the other governments of GB and Northern Ireland introducing a process for complaints about ministers and former ministers which had not been universally approved.
The cabinet Office instructed that the policy changes should be deferred until such time as the other governments had completed their own reviews.
Reference was also made to the unfairness of the revised policies which demanded standards of personal conduct for Scottish politicians greatly in excess of those for civil servants which remained unchanged. Double standards were not acceptable. The document was unfit for introduction.
Afternote
Afternote 1: 16/17 Nov 2017, Hynd /Somers and the Cabinet Office in London exchanged views:: The “Cabinet Office” in London exposed the hypocrisy of the intent behind the proposed changes and rightly blocked the proposals.
16 Nov 2017, 22:27: Hynd: to: Cabinet Office, London “As we have just briefly discussed, I attach a draft paper setting out the process to be followed in the event that we receive a complaint of sexual harassment against a former Minister. For completeness, the draft also describes the process for dealing with a complaint against a current Minister. As you will see, there are a couple of areas still in development where we have still to decide between alternative options but hopefully overall you will get the gist of what we are seeking to do. Leslie was keen that you had the chance to see the proposal:
(a) Any thoughts/advice
(b) to ensure that our approach , if implemented, would not cause difficulties at your end. Very happy to discuss on the phone if that would be easier and quicker for you.
16 Nov 2017, 22:35: Cabinet Office, London: to: Hynd: “Of course. I can’t see a paper attached.”
16 Nov 2017, 23:29: Hynd: to: Cabinet Office, London: “Thanks. I sent it from my iPhone. Hopefully it’s come through this time.”
17 Nov 2017, 10:48: Cabinet Office, London: To: Hynd:
“Hi James. This feels very uncomfortable to be highlighting a process for complaints about Ministers and former Ministers. I am doing a quick review for Jeremy on whether our processes have kept pace with developments/concerns – would it be possible to wait?”
17 November 2017: Hynd forwarded the Cabinet Office response to Sturgeon’s Principle Private Secretary (PPS), John Somers.
17 Nov 2017, 11:03: From: John Somers: To: Hynd. “Oh dear, I did wonder if that would be their reaction. Not sure how long their review will take but FM and Perm Sec. keen to resolve quickly and to discuss on Tuesday.
I suspect we don’t have a policy on former civil servants.
But we are looking at this in the context of the overall review of policies and the justification for having something about Ministers is the action that Parliament is taking in light of allegations about MSP conduct –which includes a recent SG Minister?
Might be worth getting Nicky’s take on the question about civil servants…”
Afternote 2: Questioned by the Holyrood Inquiry Hynd said: “Sturgeon was keen to take national leadership on the matter and delaying implementation of the new procedure was not an option for her.”
Comment: Of note was that the procedure for civil servants was not updated to include retrospective consideration of harassment allegations.
Afternote 3: Lloyd in her written statement to the Holyrood Inquiry said the inclusion of herself in the circulation of the draft procedure created a requirement to identify and amend the ministerial code since the code was Sturgeon’s responsibility.
Comment: But the Ministerial Code and the proposed complaints procedure was the business of the Civil Service and Lloyd had no legitimate input.
Afternote 4: So there it is. A complaint of sexual harassment against a former male Civil Servant, would not be investigated, It would be for the complainant to inform the police.
17 November 2017: Somers and Evans exchanged notes of progress with Liz Lloyd.
20 November 2017: Somers, Principal Private Secretary, to Sturgeon met with Ms A, at her request, in the First Minister’s office. She told him the purpose of her informal meeting with Sturgeon was to relate to her information that she thought would improve the organization. She stressed she was not making a complaint, she simply wanted to assess with Sturgeon her options on how she could best share her experiences.
Ms A was denied access to Sturgeon by Somers but was thereafter subjected to intense pressure from senior civil service managers and other senior political and legal persons to register a complaint against Alex given assurances that all of her concerns would be resolved to her satisfaction through use of “newly drafted” all-encompassing procedures, which she would have a hand in compiling. In this regard she placed her trust in and was used by the Scottish government as a sacrificial lamb in a political vendetta against Alex.
Afternote: Somers (gatekeeper to Sturgeon) told the Holyrood Inquiry that he had not briefed Sturgeon about his meeting with Ms A or her request for a private meeting with the her upholding his commitment to her to keep the details of their conversation secret. He said: “I wouldn’t tell Sturgeon because it wasn’t my experience to share. That was my first priority. Secondly, had I done that, I would have put Sturgeon in a state of knowledge about something she couldn’t have taken action upon at that point.”
The last sentence of Somers statement revealed the true intent of cruel denial of access to Sturgeon by Ms A since the decision to prevent Sturgeon from access to any knowledge of a complaint had been taken beforehand.
caltonjock 
