Imran Ahmed founded CCDH in December 2017. He promotes himself to be an expert in unacceptable online behaviour including identity centred hate, misinformation, extremism, fake news and trolling.
He is a trustee of Victim Support and was recruited to the Steering Committee of the UK Government’s Commission on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force in April 2020.
The CCDH has emerged as a significant player in the debate over online censorship.
At that time the organisations little known founders, Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeny cut their political teeth conspiring with other centralist figures in the Labour Party to destroy the political career of Jeremy Corbyn. The successful assault brought rewards ensuring their retention as advisors to Starmer and with it significant influence shaping the policies of the Labour Party.
McSweeny remained with Starmer and the newly elected Labour Government, whilst Ahmed relocated to Washington DC, the seat of power of the Biden administration. With a shared political vision he speedily established himself and his fledgling organisation in an advisory role to the President.
Ahmed, a man with a mission did not hang about and ruthlessly attacked Biden’s political opponents through the now infamous and discredited,“Disinformation Dozen” campaign.
But activity incurs risk and opponents hit back with leaked emails revealing Ahmed’s unpublished association with and financial backing from Israeli Government officials.
Information also surfaced which showed his liaison with the Israeli’s was not new but was deeply entrenched in the organisation’s operational routine and included financing, victim targetting and assistance with information gathering and reporting.
Facebook was targeted by CCDH and forced to ban Palestinian members from posting any criticism of Israel labelling it antisemitic under the contentious IHRA definition. Ahmed delivered for Israel and silenced Palestinian solidarity movements
The CCDH continues to post financial gains confirming the guarantee of significant profits from supporting the State directed silencing of free speech and censorship.
Money makes the world go around but who is funding the CCHD
Schwab Charitable manages the financial investment portfolios of ultra wealthy clients and provides complimentary advice and services including the use of tax rewarding charitable donations through donor-advised funds (DAF’s).
Donor-advised charitable funding routed through Schwab Charitable, ensures donor privacy thus providing the means through which anonymized contributions can be given over to controversial organizations, such as the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).
Schwab Charitable, is always at or near to the top of the grant givers in the United States, collecting over $4 billion annually in contribution, releasing around $2 billion each year to charity.
The organization employs some 30 staff and pays salaries up to $800k to asset managers and executives. Other staff members are rewarded with salaries ranging between $100-150K.
Ahmed’s CCHD, receives around $1.5 million annually from the Schwab Charitable Fund.
There is increasing political concern in the US about the level of secrecy cloaking the activities of the CCHD but requests for information are being stonewalled using the charitable status as justification benefitting the Democratic Party.
McSweeney resigned from the CCDH board to become chief of staff for Labour Party leader Starmer but the CCHD retains a close working relationship with Starmers Labour Party.
Board members are closely linked to leftish progressive organizations favoured by Starmer:
Simon Clark, is a non-resident senior fellow with the Democratic establishment-aligned think tank Centre for American Progress.
Kristy McNeill, serving as (MP) for Midlothian. A member of the Labour and Co-operative Party, she is also the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
Johnny Oates, is a Member of the House of Lords for the Liberal Democrats party.
Ayesha Saran, who is committed to social change is a migration program manager for Cadbury Trust, an independent charitable foundation. Her work is focused on migration, inclusion, countering extremism and hate. She also serves boards of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, British Future, and Larger Us. Previous experience includes secondment from the Foreign Office working for intergovernmental organisations in policy roles and senior management, in the UK and Albania.
Game show host Rachel Riley is listed as a, “patron.
Ahmed with financial support, recognition and expansion plans in place extended the influence of CCDH bandwagon when he established an base in the US.
Ahmed and his CCDH responded to a Biden administration invitation to set up in the US and with obstacles conveniently removed carved out an influential niche in the Washington DC political swamp gaining formal recognition and registration, as a British NGO. with non profit status
With the favoured organisation status of CCDH in place Ahmed, now CEO firmly ensconced himself with a number of influential Democratic Party politicians and their supporters, including the State Department’s Global Engagement Centre and former House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).
He was also invited to join the “Council for Responsible Social Media” a group that included on it a former CIA director, a former NSA director, and other former US military and intelligence officials.
He shared tactical plans with the influential Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), chairwoman of the antitrust subcommittee and lead officer for matters pertaining to information technology.
Only days folllowing registration CCDH launched a sustained attack on Elon Musk’s recently established social media channel”X”. Documents later revealed that CCDH officers had plotted with Democratic officials to destroy the fledgling enterprise because of its declared support of the Trump presidential campaign.
Not to be outdone Ahmed’s erstwhile friend McSweeney was tasked by Starmer to attend the Democratic National Convention where he discussed and agreed tactics for her campaign with Kamala Harris and her advisors.
He later returned to the US accompanied by a small army of around 100 Labour Party stalwarts and campaigned for Harris in many of the battleground States.
McSweeney’s support of the Democratic Party leadership did not go unnoticed by the Trump team who accused Starmer of meddling in the campaign and filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Ahmed piggy backs and hijacks the fears of the “Great Replacement” and expands the influence of CCDH taking in the US
The “Great Replacement” theory is a phrase first used to describe uncontrolled mass immigration into France and occupies a significant and increasing public profile being actively promoted by its proponents through social media platforms. and is weaponised by an increasing number of mainstream politicians.
Ahmed and McSweeney formed CCDH to combat what they believed to be unacceptable extremist ideology narratives on social media sites. Radically pro-censorship their non-profit organisation abhorred the “free speech” policies of a number of social media providers and actively solicited the support of left leaning politicians and their academic supporters in a crusade the successful outcome of which was designed to be the elimination of free thinking social commentary.
The relocation of CCDH to the US and political association with the Democratic Party brought with it opportunities to expand the political influence of Ahmed and the CCDH who aided the Biden administration by publishing a censorship hit-list known as the “disinformation dozen,”a group of twelve “free thinking” social media users including Robert F. Kennedy Jr, they alleged to be primary spreaders of “COVID misinformation.”
Influential activists soon rallied to the tax-exempt non-profit status organisation, including:
Cynthia Miller-Idris: A director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Laboratory (PERIL) at American University. An organisation partnered with Google’s Jigsaw anti-extremism laboratory, which experiments with Orwellian methods of narrative control.
Research by the Foundation for Freedom Online revealed CCDH to be collaborating with Biden’s government officials and former senior officials of the US military and intelligence community including sharing joint board memberships, anti-disinformation and anti-online hate planning summits, and other activities, including:
A current US special envoy. A contractor for DHS and the State Department. Two former secretaries of defense. Two former directors of the CIA. A former director of the NSA. A former director of Homeland Security. Two former vice chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Two former directors of the National Security Council. A former FCC commissioner. A former director of National Intelligence.
CCDH had close ties to the former House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who took a leading role in generating public panics over, “disinformation.”
CCDH worked with influential lawmakers including former Democrat head of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Jenna Galper, formerly a senior communications advisor for Rep. Schiff, worked for CCDH’s policy team and promoted CCDH’s May 2022 Global Summit to “Address Online Harms and Misinformation.”
In December 2022, Rep. Schiff wrote a letter urging “X” CEO Elon Musk to combat rising “hate speech” on the platform, citing research from CCDH.
Schiff, in August 2023, along with Reps. Lori Trahan (D-MA) and Sean Casten (D-IL), sent a letter to Musk, ridiculing Musks’s lawsuit against CCDH.
In September 2024 a CCDH document cited a Schiff-sponsored bill, the “Digital Services Oversight and Safety Act,” as a bipartisan bill to strengthen transparency requirements for social media companies.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-MN) an anti-Elon Musk advocate took the lead on the bulk of the left’s tech policy. Her office staff attended CCDH’s “Kill Musk’s Twitter” meetings.
Klobuchar was also the chair of the Senate Judiciary Sub-committee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights. Some say, she was the most powerful Democrat on technology policy.
In 2019 she introduced the Digital Citizenship and Media Literacy Act, establishing a censorship program at the Department of Education.
In 2021, she proposed a bill to crack down on alleged vaccine misinformation and sent a letter to CEOs referencing CCDH’s “dirty dozen” report, which noted that 12 people were most responsible for the proliferation of alleged vaccine misinformation.
An America First Legal (AFL) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request found that the State Department’s “Global Engagement Center” (GEC) encouraged federal employees at the State Department to pay attention to CCDH’s work, and revealed that the CCDH was directly briefing White House officials.
The CCDH increased contacts with the State Department. An invite only CCDH gala in Washington, D.C. included an invitation for Erica Mindel, an employee of the consultancy firm, “Guidehouse” seconded to the State Departmen as a “Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism.”
“Guidehouse” also had $2.6 million contract to provide “misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information analysis,” for the “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Ahmed participated in the activities of the “Council for a Responsible Social Media”, a bipartisan group that aimed to influence social media content policy. It membership included major national security officials, namely:
Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense, director of the CIA, White House chief of staff.
Congressman Bill Owens, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and US Navy.
Admiral, Michael Rogers, former director of the National Security Agency (NSA).
US Navy Admiral, Nicole Tisdale, former director of the National Security Council.
Tom Wheeler, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), who led the Obama-era net neutrality regulations through the agency.
R.P. Eddy, CEO of Ergo and former director of the White House National Security Council.
The Scottish public are denied their right to active promotion, through broadcasting of cultural diversity with other parts of the United Kingdom and the Westminster government through its politically directed British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is in breach of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – Article 11 – Freedom of expression and information.
The BBC is failing Scots due to the Unionist mindset of its political controllers and Westminster appointed politically biased managers who are indoctrinated to believe that The BBC provides the glue that holds the wobbly Union together and any weakening of the strength of the paste will bring about the end of the Union.
Removal of BBC accountability to the Scottish Electorate
From 1946 to 1991 media affairs in Scotland was subject to the moderating influence of a BBC Scotland Controller who effectively reported to the, “Broadcasting Council for Scotland”, on which many distinguished Scot’s served over the years. But following a Westminster government reorganisation control of BBC output in Scotland was transferred to the Board of Governors of the corporation in England then onto the BBC trust in London.
Special Branch “Deep Throat”
Bias against Scots is endemic and should be rectified
BBC Scotland needs to be removed from Westminster so that it can be truly independent of political interference and the previously successful over arching Scottish body, including members of the public, should be re-established.
31 October 2017: The Cabinet of the Scottish Government provided its civil servants with a “commission” – a formal instruction – which was recorded in the Cabinet minutes under the heading of “Sexual Harassment” as follows:
“While there is no suggestion that the current arrangements were ineffective, the First Minister asked the Permanent Secretary to undertake a review of the Scottish Government’s policies and processes to ensure they are fit for purpose.”
Comment: Sturgeon concluded that the “procedures” in place were effective. Why ask for them to be reviewed? In any event the “procedures” apply to all UK civil servants and as such changes are not remitted to the Scottish Government.
If the Permanent Secretary concluded that policies and procedures were unfit for purpose it was incumbent on her to inform the Cabinet Secretary in London and advise the First Minister of any proposals for procedural changes.
Hynd, who complied the first and subsequent drafts of a “new” and unique procedure did consult with the “Cabinet Office” and was told not to proceed with the matter which required a UK approach and as such it was being addressed in London. But he was apparently instructed to bash on regardless.
There was no mention of retrospective investigations of former ministers, perhaps because there was no legal precedence that would allow it. The recourse open to an aggrieved person wishing to pursue allegations of sexual harassment against a former employee of the Government or a minister was through the police.
The First Minster stated she was guided in her actions by the Ministerial Code, which states:
“It is for the First Minister to judge the standards of behaviour expected of Ministers and by implication ex-Ministers. It is for the First Minister to decide whether there has been a breach of standards. Where the First Minister decides that there has been such a breach, it is for the First Minister to decide what the consequences for the Minister (ex) are to be.
Very explicit!!! No need for any new retrospective procedure Investigations of alleged misconduct against Ministers are to be reported to the First Minister who decides the course of action to be taken.”
The Opening Skirmishes
31 October 2017: Ann Harvey, principal assistant to the chief whip at the SNP’s Westminster Group received 16 text messages, throughout the day, some from SNP HQ, to her private number, fishing for information which could be damaging if used against Alex Salmond.
Many specifically asked for confirmation that Sue Ruddick (a personal friend and ex colleague of Ann) had been physically assaulted by Alex while they were campaigning together during the 2008 General Election campaign. Ann’s answer was a categorical rebuttal, Alec had never physically assaulted Sue Riddick. What’s up? Someone was after getting to Alex even before the Civil Service got involved in drafting procedures providing the means to pursue long extinct and unsubstantiated allegations.
Note: In August 2018 (10 years after the alleged incident). Ruddick reported a common assault by Alex, against her to the police. The police investigated but said there was insufficient corroborative evidence to charge Alec. But details of the long dead unsupported allegations were added to a report to the Crown Office and Procurator fiscal. But they all count!!!! when the time is right!!!!!!!!“
31 October 2017: That day the First Minister instructed the Permanent Secretary to “review” procedures. This was clearly a significant and an integral part of the early skirmishing attacks on the character of Alec Salmond.
31 October 2017: In the course of the day David Clegg constantly pestered his contacts in Holyrood seeking to ascertain, without success if any complaints about harassment had been made about Alex Salmond during his tenure as First Minister. Clegg had been alerted, probably by someone in the group pestering Ann Harvey in Westminster that Alec was being accused of assaulting Sue Ruddick.
A leap forward – At the beginning of August 2020 Swinney contracted James Hamilton to independently investigate past events to determine if Sturgeon had breached the Ministerial Code at any time. The remit for the investigation was decided by Swinney.
The remit for the referral is to:
Review any relevant documentation relating to the meetings and discussions listed. Interview any Minister or official of the Scottish Government, including Special Advisers, who may have any knowledge of the facts and content of the meetings and discussions, to assess whether the Ministerial Code is engaged and, if so, whether the terms of the Code have been complied with.
Interview any relevant person out with the Scottish Government, including the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, who may have information relating to the facts and content of the meetings and discussions.
Determine if there is any evidence that the First Minister attempted to use information discussed during those meetings and discussions to influence the conduct of the investigation being undertaken by the Permanent Secretary into allegations made against Mr Salmond under the Procedure.
Note: Alec Salmond’s legal team lodged complaints that the remit was unnecessarily constricted and designed to limit the activities of the independent investigator. Hamilton responded saying he would fully investigate matters without regard to the Swinney remit but events proved disproved this. He adhered to the Swinney remit!!!!
James Hamilton Observations
The remit for the self-referral to me by the First Minister under the Scottish Ministerial Code was set out by the Deputy First Minister, Mr John Swinney, in a reply to a parliamentary question in the Scottish Parliament.
“It has been alleged that the First Minister breached the Scottish Ministerial Code in that she failed to feed back the basic facts of meetings and discussions she and her Chief of Staff held with Alex Salmond, as required by sections 4.22 and 4.23 of the Code. The meetings and discussions in question took place on:
29 March 2018 – A meeting in Holyrood between Ms Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein, former Chief of Staff to Mr Salmond, Scottish Parliament.
2 April 2018 – A meeting with Alec Salmond on the evening of 2 April 2018 at the First Minister’s home. Mr Aberdein and Ms Lloyd were present as well as Mr Duncan Hamilton who was acting as a legal adviser to Mr Salmond.
23 April 2018 – A telephone conversation between the First Minister and Mr Salmond.
23 April 2018- A second telephone conversation between the First Minister and Mr Salmond.
7 June 2018 – A meeting between the First Minister and Mr Salmond during the Scottish National Party Conference which took place in Aberdeen.
14 July 2018 – A third meeting between the First Minister and Mr Salmond which took place at the First Minister’s home.
18 July 2018 – A final telephone conversation between the First Minister and Mr Salmond.
It is has been (sic) further suggested that, in light of those meetings, the First Minister may have attempted to influence the conduct of the investigation then being undertaken by the Permanent Secretary into allegations made against Mr Salmond under the Procedure for Handling of Harassment Complaints involving Current or Former Ministers (“the Procedure”).
The Scottish Ministerial Code- The key relevant extracts from the Code are:
1.6. Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Ministerial Code and for justifying their actions to Parliament and the public. The First Minister is, however, the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and of the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. Although the First Minister will not expect to comment on every matter which could conceivably be brought to his or her attention, Ministers can only remain in office for so long as they retain the First Minister’s confidence.
1.7. Where he or she deems it appropriate, the First Minister may refer matters to independent advisers on the Ministerial Code to provide him or her with advice on which to base his or her judgement about any action required in respect of Ministerial conduct. The findings of the independent advisers will be published.
Note: Sturgeon studiously avoided a course of action which was available to her. No need for a new untested and illegal procedure. The conduct of Ministers is for their fellow Ministers to decide on. There is no provision in the Ministerial Code that would permit the involvement of civil servants in any investigations concerning Ministers.
Provide the Deputy First Minister with a report setting out the findings and conclusions with regard to:
i. whether the Ministerial Code is engaged regarding the meetings and discussions;
ii. whether there has been any breach of the Code and the nature of any such breach; and
iii. if a breach has occurred, advice on the appropriate remedy or sanction.
The Independent Adviser is further invited to consider and offer views on whether the Ministerial Code might need revision to reflect the terms of the Procedure and the strict limitations it places on the involvement of the First Minister in cases which fall to be considered under the Procedure.
Timing
The Independent Adviser is invited to commence the investigation and submit a report as soon as possible.”
In accordance with the remit I sought and received written observations from persons who included the following:
The First Minister, Ms Nicola Sturgeon; the former First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond; the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, Ms Leslie Evans; Ms Liz Lloyd, Chief of Staff to the First Minister; Mr Geoffrey Aberdein, formerly Chief of Staff to the former First Minister; Mr Duncan Hamilton, Mr Kevin Pringle, Mr David Clegg, Mr Stuart Nicolson, Ms Lorraine Kay and Mr Peter Murrell.
All of these witnesses gave me full cooperation and answered follow-up questions where necessary although I had no power to compel any person to cooperate with the investigation. I carried out follow-up interviews with a number of the witnesses where I considered clarifications were required.
A briefing statement was issued by the Scottish Government to Mr Hamilton providing an explanation of the circumstances that the First Minister considered necessitated a procedure providing opportunity to retrospectively investigate allegations of misconduct by Ministers no longer in the employ of the Government.
It stated that not long after a cabinet meeting on 31 October 2017 a response document had been compiled by civil servant’s for the attention of the First Minister.
It included reasoning of the motive behind the First Minister’s instruction for the policy review, stating that:- “The Scottish Government is a diverse and inclusive organisation and tackling bullying and harassment, sits at the heart of its organisational strategy.”
A 2016 staff questionnaire indicated that a minority of staff (10%) said they had experienced bullying or harassment, the very low number of formal complaints suggested a possible lack of awareness of or confidence in existing processes and procedures. Surely a rebuttable assumption.
This led to the appointment in spring 2017 of a Director to champion at work with a remit to tackle bullying and harassment within the organisation.
The outcome was to gain an understanding of and address cultures which allowed bullying and harassment to occur and to raise awareness about the drivers for positive and inclusive cultures across the organisation.
At around this time a wider societal focus on sexual harassment and sexual abuse had been increasing, and in early October 2017 reactions to sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein brought widespread exposure of the Government to the #Me Too movement, which was seeking to tackle sexual harassment and abuse by making the scale of the problem clear.
A number of allegations of sexual harassment and assault were also reported in Westminster and the Scottish Parliament during October and November 2017. These were a matter of considerable concern across both Governments and Parliaments, as well as among individual MSPs, and the public at large.
The review process also identified a gap in the then existing procedure for dealing with historic sexual harassment claims against against former Ministers. A gap described in the response document as follows:-
Following the identification of a gap in the overall framework, work was put in hand to determine the most effective way to fill it. As a result, Scottish Government officials began work on the development of a new procedure that could be applied in respect of former Ministers.
The first version of the procedure was created on 7 November 2017. This was the beginning of an iterative and collaborative drafting process.
In the course of the drafting of that procedure it was decided to broaden its scope to include serving Ministers so that there would be a single procedure that could be applied in respect of harassment complaints involving Ministers, whether current or former. This was also consistent with existing plans to review the existing well tested “Fairness at Work” policy that had been in place for a number of years.
Later, following a view from the First Minister and Permanent Secretary, the procedure was amended to cover all forms of harassment, not just sexual harassment.
4 November 2017, during the review process, a Scottish Government Minister resigned his Ministerial post, following allegations made from outside the Scottish Government about his personal conduct.
This example reinforced for the Scottish Government the importance of making sure that it had policies and procedures in place which were capable of responding appropriately to such allegations should they arise within the Scottish Government.
Following the perception of a gap in the overall framework, work was put in hand to determine the most effective way to fill it. Scottish Government officials began work on the development of a new procedure that could be applied in respect of former Ministers.
The first version of the procedure, created on 7 November, was the beginning of an iterative and collaborative drafting process. In the course of which it was decided to broaden its scope to include serving Ministers7 so that there would be a single procedure that could be applied in respect of harassment complaints involving Ministers, whether current or former.
This approach was also consistent with existing plans to review the successful “Fairness at Work” policy. Later, following the personal intervention of the First Minister and Permanent Secretary, the procedure was amended to cover all forms of harassment, not just sexual harassment.
Note: A long winded explanatory briefing concocted with the purpose of justifying the unjustifiable. The “Ministerial Code” provides the remedies available to the First Minister for dealing with Minister’s that fail in their post for any reason. Simply twaddle designed to confuse the public.
Indeed Sturgeon defended the Minister who resigned his post stating his resignation had been hasty and unnecessary before changing her mind later on. But her first comments proved to be succinct since it emerged later that he had been the victim of a campaign of disinformation perpetrated by a colleague. I exposed details of the incident in another article.
The Introduction and Implementation of the Retrospective Procedure
It appears that its drafters did not consider that there might be any legal obstacle to applying the Procedure, designed and described as an internal Scottish Government procedure, to former Ministers who were no longer in a contractual or statutory relationship with Scottish Government and in respect of whom the previously existing harassment complaints procedure had already expired at the time of their retirement.
I have not seen any legal advice which may have been provided to Scottish Government at the time but we do know that according to the Response Document the Scottish Government’s lawyers were consulted as part of the approval process of the Procedure. The Procedure did not cover historic claims against former civil servants.
However, when complaints were laid against the former First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond, he disputed the right of Scottish Government to apply the Procedure to him and ultimately sought a judicial review against it.
Among the objections which he raised to the Procedure was the claim that he could not, as a former office-holder, legitimately have been made amenable to a disciplinary procedure which had been introduced as an administrative act without any statutory or other legal basis.
He challenged the retrospective effect of the Procedure and alleged procedural unfairness in the operation of the Procedure.
These issues are further addressed when I discuss Mr Salmond’s claim that the manner in which Scottish Government defended the case which he brought amounted to a breach of the Ministerial Code on the part of the First Minister.
It is not necessary for the purposes of my remit for me to express a view on the merits of any of Mr Salmond’s claims. These were matters of Scottish law which ultimately only the Scottish courts could have decided and to an extent did decide.
So far as concerns the future of the complaints procedure in respect of former Ministers and any amendments that may be required or thought desirable in the light of the failed disciplinary proceedings against Mr Salmond a separate enquiry led by Ms Laura Dunlop QC has prepared a report which was published on 16 March 2021.
Any questions concerning any political responsibility for the events which occurred in relation to the adoption of the Procedure are matters for the Scottish Parliament and I do not express any opinion on these.
Hamilton Outlines his Brief
My brief is to enquire into whether the First Minister was in breach of the Ministerial Code. It has been made clear that in this I am not confined to questions of whether specific paragraphs of the Code was breached but am expected to enquire whether any breach of the Code has been committed by the First Minister regarding her meetings and discussions with Mr Salmond between 29 March 2018 and 18 July 2018.
I am not aware of anything in the conduct of the First Minister in respect of the introduction of or her observance of the Procedure which could be considered to be a breach of the Code.
The Response Document has set out the reasons for the introduction of the Procedure. In my opinion those reasons demonstrated a proper concern for the objective of strengthening the procedures for dealing with cases of harassment and bullying, especially sexual harassment, and it was perfectly proper and appropriate for the First Minister to lead this process and to give it every support possible.
The process was supported by advice from the most senior Scottish Government officials, including the legal directorate, as well as experts in the area of human resources and the handling of complaints.
In my opinion the First Minister was entitled to rely on the advice she received. If there was any error in that advice- and I offer no opinion on that question- she cannot be regarded as personally in breach of the Ministerial Code because she relied on advice which was not correct.
I accept the First Minister’s evidence that at the time the Procedure was adopted she was not aware of any complaints or impending complaints against Mr Salmond.
It is not part of my remit to examine the administrative arrangements for the introduction of the Procedure and I make no comment about these.
A key principle in the Procedure is to avoid any risk of political interference in complaints and in particular to exclude the First Minister from any involvement in a complaint against a former Minister. In my opinion this is a legitimate and a proportionate objective of the Procedure.
As a result of this provision the First Minister excluded herself from being informed of or involved in dealing with any complaints against former Ministers as a result of which she was not informed of the two complaints against Mr Salmond.
In my opinion she was justified and acted properly in so excluding herself. Apart altogether from the provisions of the Procedure her long political association and personal friendship with Mr Salmond would have placed her in an invidious position and left herself open to accusations of bias and partiality had she allowed herself to become involved.
As already referred to Mr Salmond has made a number of very serious allegations about the manner in which the complaints were investigated and dealt with including accusations of serious impropriety.
I make no findings about the truth of any of these allegations which are the subject of enquiries by the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints of the Scottish Parliament.
I accept the evidence of the First Minister that she had no involvement in these matters.
I do not consider that at present the First Minister has any responsibility under the Ministerial Code for any shortcomings or wrongdoing in the behaviour of other persons, if there were any such shortcomings or wrongdoing, in relation to matters from which she has properly excluded herself from any involvement.
Later in this report I raise the question whether Ministers should bear responsibility for the activities of their special advisers.
Comment: Incredulous. Hamilton’s acceptance from Sturgeon that she knew nothing about anything beggars belief since her assertions are at odds with the evidence she gave to the Holyrood Inquiry and to occurrences’ officially recording the input and associated activities of a number of senior civil servants and Sturgeon’s “Special Advisor”
A wee snippet supporting the criticism:
13 November 2017: The person tasked with compiling the procedure was Cabinet Secretary, James Hynd who wrote to senior civil servants about sexual harassment allegations against current Ministers:
“We would need to alert Sturgeon to the fact that a complaint had been received against one of her Ministers and to take her mind about how she wished it to be handled.”
15 November 2017: Hynd wrote a second email, this time to Evans private office, commenting on their suggestion that complaints against Ministers might be resolved by informal means without the need for Sturgeon to be involved:
“I am not at all sure that this … will be acceptable to Sturgeon either generally or in the specific context of sexual harassment. Especially for the latter I think she will want to know straightaway if a complaint against a Minister has been received and will want to decide how it should be treated.”
There is, then, no ambiguity cancelling out the slightest plausible argument that Evans or any of her fellow civil servants could possibly have thought that it was acceptable for them to keep Sturgeon in the dark about any allegation of sexual harassment against any of her current Ministers. Why then would any of them think it would be acceptable not to inform Sturgeon of allegations against her mentor and closest friend of thirty years? Just doesn’t add up !!!!
27 November 2017: Hynd to Richards, (after compiling 8 draft procedures in a few days, burning the clock at midnight rushing to meet a deadline finishing the procedure.) Have looksee at the next draft procedure. All hands to the deck!!! Why so much urgency over one man??
What man is Hynd referring to? His admission that the much amended procedure taking in former Ministers had been rapidly compiled to get Alec Salmond.
Adding insult injury is the recent revelation that John Swinney, tasked the architect of the botched, unfair policy James Hynd, to lead a team of civil servants aiding Hamilton’s investigations.
And Hynd is being investigated by police for allegedly lying under oath to the Alex Salmond inquiry,
Leslie Evans interviewed by Hamilton
I enquired of the Permanent Secretary, Ms Leslie Evans, concerning her actions and involvement in the matters covered by my remit. Her reply includes the following statements:-
You asked for a statement of my actions and involvement in the matters covered by your remit. In providing such a statement, I should make clear from the outset that, as a civil servant, all my actions – including those taken in relation to this matter – are undertaken on behalf of Ministers and in keeping with the Civil Service Code.
I was not aware at the time – nor have I been made aware since – of any attempt by the First Minister to bring any influence to bear on the Scottish Government’s investigation of complaints against Mr Salmond under the Procedure for Handling Harassment Complaints against Current or Former Ministers.
At all times, my engagement with the First Minister was in keeping with the respective roles set out for the First Minister and Permanent Secretary in the Procedure.
Accordingly, I did not inform the First Minister that formal complaints had been made about Mr Salmond when they were received in January 2018.
In line with the Procedure, I did inform the First Minister of the outcome of the investigation at a meeting on 22 August 2018 in her capacity as both First Minister and as Leader of the Party which the former Minister in question, Mr Salmond, had represented.
As I have set out in my response to your specific questions below, the First Minister wrote to me on 6 June 2018, following a discussion on 5 June 2018, informing me of contact that she had had with Mr Salmond. I replied to the First Minister on 7 June 2018 to acknowledge receipt of her letter and to note the information it contained.
In addition, I also wrote to the First Minister towards the end of the investigation on 17 August 2018 to inform her I was seeking legal advice on next steps.
In addition to these exchanges, the only other communication I recall with the First Minister on this matter was a telephone call sometime in mid-July in which she told me that she had met with Mr Salmond on 14 July 2018 and that he had raised the issue of arbitration with her. She made it clear to me again that she had no role in this matter and that I must reach whatever decision I thought appropriate.
Accordingly, my communication with the First Minister on this issue was very limited during the period in which the investigation was in progress. In line with the Procedure, Mr Salmond had a number of opportunities to contribute to the investigation.I address this further in my answers to your specific questions below.
The intentions that lay behind my actions at all times throughout this period were the need to follow the process set out in the Scottish Government’s Procedure for Handling Harassment Complaints against Current or Former Ministers, in line with the Civil Service values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.
This was especially true in carrying out the responsibilities as Deciding Officer assigned to the Permanent Secretary under the Procedure.
At no time did I experience any attempt whatsoever by the First Minister – or anyone acting on behalf of the First Minister – to influence how I undertook that role, or the decisions I came to, either in terms of the process followed or the substance of the matter. Indeed, this point is made explicit in the First Minister’s letter to me of 6 June 2018.
An Empirical Examination of the Myths spun by Leslie Evans
Evans asserted she had been formally notified of complaints of harassment against Alec Salmond, involving 2 members of staff in January 2018 but she did not notify Sturgeon since to have done so would have breached recently published procedures, conveniently put in place only days prior to the receipt of the complaints.
But a review of events betrays the lie in Evans statement since they highlight the concentrated efforts of a team of senior officials of the Scottish Governmment, compiling, discussing and amending 8 draft procedures, in the early hours of each morning, over a few days prior to the hasty introduction of a novel unauthorised harassment procedure purposed to bring down one man.
A review of events leading to the introduction of the procedure allowing the investigation of retrospective allegations against forer ministers
04 November 2017: Lloyd’s statement to the Holyrood Inquiry:
I was made aware on the evening of Saturday 4th November 2017 by a member of staff in an SNP parliamentary media office that they had received a query in relation to Mr Salmond and Edinburgh airport.
They called to alert me to the possibility of such a story running, in case any ministers were on Sunday morning media. I informed the First Minister of the query and that I understood that Mr Salmond would not be responding that evening.
Monday 06 November 2017: I was approached by several civil servants within the Scottish Government who raised concerns that Mr Salmond and representatives of Mr Salmond were reportedly contacting other civil servants directly to ask that they provide supportive statements in relation to the matters raised by Sky News to his legal representatives.
The civil servants indicated that those being approached were finding this contact unwelcome.
I was asked if I or other Special Advisers could ask Mr Salmond to go through appropriate channels rather than approach people direct, however I was informed shortly after receiving this request that the Permanent Secretary’s office had also been approached by staff and were taking their request forward, so made no approach to Mr Salmond.
05 and 06 November 2017: The media released news of the Alex Salmond Show to be broadcast weekly on “Russia Today” (RT) starting 10 November 2017.
This was how Alex announced his return to political journalism after losing his Buchan seat at Westminster in June 2017, following an enforced 6 month sabbatical brought about by his “blackballing” by the unionist controlled media who denied him a the opportunity to carve out a new career in political journalism away from frontline politics.
Sturgeon herself surprisingly joined Unionist politicians in the public criticism of Alex choice of broadcaster but neglected to acknowledge that every other option for employment had been denied him.
Sky News joined the attacks on Alex and launched a “Get Salmond” operation utilizing its over used methodology of immersing its journalists and those to be abused in gutter politics.
05 November 2017: Sturgeon took the bait when at 08.50 hours, she messaged Alex saying: “Hi – when you free to speak this morning?” They spoke. Sturgeon briefed Alex about the query from Sky News “about allegations of sexual misconduct at Edinburgh Airport on the part of Alex Salmond”. He denied the allegations. Sky news did not run a story.
06 November 2017: Evans informed Sturgeon of telephone contact between Alex and unnamed Scottish Government members of staff. She said he wanted to talk to them about an incident at Edinburgh Airport incident that Sky News were investigating, She had been told by two different sources, that they had received this contact and they were a bit bewildered and unhappy about it. She didn’t know what was said, she didn’t ask, she didn’t think it was appropriate to know.”
09 November 2017: Sturgeon contacted Alex to comment on his decision to host a weekly political discussion programme on RT. The content of her message was heavily redacted.
In a previous submission to the inquiry, Ms Sturgeon said the Sky News episode had given her a “lingering concern” that allegations about Mr Salmond could surface.
The query from Sky News was raised previously during an MSPs’ investigation of the Scottish Government’s botched handling of harassment claims made against Mr Salmond.
07 November 2017: Hynd, Richards and MacKinnon exchanged opinions on how to deal with harassment complaints against former Ministers. McKinnon tabled a “routemap” of a policy which suggested application to former Ministers. Hynd not happy advised the need to seek legal opinion. The team were clearly in the early stages of introducing procedures against former Ministers.
08 November 2017: Hynd delivered a first draft procedure applying only to Former Ministers. Referring to his work and that of MacKinnon he said that “neither of the pathways involving Ministers look right”.
07 November 2017: Allison received a telephone call in the course of which Ms B, made allegations against Alex. She said she was responding to a 2 November 2017 email headed, “Sexual harassment – message from the Permanent Secretary” which had been distributed to all Scottish Government staff. At the end of the conversation Allison telephoned Evans office and arranged a telephone conference so that she could personally advise Evans of the details of Ms B’s allegations. That the first contact was made to Allison remains a mystery given she was the Director of Communications, Ministerial Support and Facilities having given up her position in human resources some time before.
09 November 2017: Allison briefed Evans. They judged that whilst the information provided by Ms B was of concern no further action was needed since a formal complaint had not yet been made.
09 November 2017: Evans failure to brief Sturgeon breached the “Ministerial Code”.
09 November 2017: Evans later convened another meeting with and discussed the allegations again with Allison and then met separately to brief Richards. An email from Evans private secretary was circulated that evening appraising recipients of the content and outcomes of the earlier meeting and the actions that were to follow from it. One action was: “Evans would like to have conversation’s tomorrow with: Allison, Russell and Richards.”
In her evidence to the inquiry, Allison summarised how, after that initial phone call, she continued to be involved with Ms B and her concerns. “I had early contact with Ms B. The contact was a series of texts. I also had, I think, three telephone calls with her, but no meetings. No written record was ever taken of any of her concerns.”
All but one of the contacts were in the period 08 November to 29 November 2017.
In this period Allison was Director of Communications for the Scottish Government, in addition to whatever responsibilities she had for Ministerial Support and Facilities, and given that a plethora of much more qualified support was already in place for someone in Ms B’s position, with even more about to be added, one might legitimately wonder how she became involved.
10 November 2017: Evans called Russell and Allison separately and assigned appointments, roles and responsibilities to each of them and advised Richards of the details.
Russell’s revised role was:
“To provide a further choice for staff as a confidante and sounding board (in addition to established mechanisms such as HR / TUs / EAP etc) to help them consider options.”
Staff wishing to take things forward should be passed to Mackinnon. But the boundaries were unambiguous. To keep this manageable the focus is on those who have had experiences of sexual harassment. And the line of communication of “issues” through HR to Evans was clearly defined:
“It would be helpful if you could give regular updates to Richards/ MacKinnon if issues are raised with – anonymised if that is the person’s wish. They will then provide Evans with updates as required.”
Afternote: There was a flurry of email exchanges around these dates. Well worth a read:
Barbara Allison’s new role? At 12.40 hours: Evans private secretary updated the earlier Richards note which related to what was being asked of Allison with a warning added in blue highlight. “Bear in mind this may become public.”
Evans evidently thought “pastoral care.” aptly described her duties”.
Allison later told the Holyrood Inquiry that pastoral care was in place in case anyone wanted to say, “I am concerned that things are coming out. This feels tough, so where can I go for support?’ Trade unions, the welfare officer and the employee assistance programme and so on might be advised.”
But Allison’s real role was to cocoon Ms B and her “concerns” about Alex until hastily prepared unique procedures for investigating and deciding on historical harassment complaints was in place. She admitted to this when she told the Inquiry that: “I felt at times I was trying to hold a space open for her.”
The pastoral care of Ms B:
13 November 2017: Evans sent a message to all staff headed: “Sexual harassment at work Permanent Secretary update” intimating the important new roles of Russell and Allison. A comparison is instructive.
The Russell reference was clear providing her contact details and a description of her role as a “confidential sounding board for those who have experienced sexual harassment.” but with an added rider “current or in the past”.
The Allison reference was starved of description saying: “I am aware that some staff have been contacted by the media. It is standard practice to redirect journalists to submit requests through the news desk. If you have concerns please contact Barbara Allison”. That’s it!!!! No mention of “pastoral care”.
And Russell was just as much in the dark on the matter. She told the Holyrood Inquiry: “To be honest, at the time, in November 2017 as the documentation will demonstrate, I was not aware of Allison having that role of pastoral care. I was only aware of the role that the permanent secretary asked me to do.”
And she was not alone in that respect given that Russell, in common with almost all of her Scottish Government colleagues, had no idea of the top secret role Allison was performing for Evans:
13 November 2017: Allison copied Evans office staff a message she had sent to Ms B containing Russell’s contact details and her role. She then told Russell that someone might be in touch with her, but provided no details.
Russell’s evidence to the Holyrood Inquiry is enlightening. She advised: “After I took on the role on 13 November 2017 there was an engagement with Barbara Allison, in which she advised me that somebody might want to come and speak to me.
I advised Barbara that the text number for that purpose had been made available to staff and that, if anyone wanted to contact me, I would obviously be happy to see what I could do to support them, as had been set out in the note…. She said that she had been approached by somebody who wanted to speak. That was all I knew.”
Russell was not contacted by Ms B. The entire process from “concerns” to formal complaint to ultimate decision, was handled exclusively by Evans through Allison, Richards and Mackinnon.
Indeed, even as late at the time she gave evidence to the Holyrood Inquiry Russell she still assumed “wrongly” that the “somebody” Allison had been referring to on 13 November 2017 was Ms A.
A revelation that prompted a need for the Inquiry to ask Allison to write to them on 9 December 2020 to correct the misunderstanding, and point out that the “somebody” was actually Ms B.
About Allison: Her appearance before the Holyrood Inquiry was a masterclass in the art of subterfuge. Uninformed observers were underwhelmed with the evidence of the well presented elderly lady who was clearly nearing the end of a long and distinguished career. Her contribution to events was minor and ended soon after she passed Ms B on to MacKinnon. But the truth is that Allison possessed presentation skills finely honed over many years. and she was able to disguise the level and influence of her input. She was in fact the lead officer of the Scottish Civil Service LBGTQ movement charged with the rapid implementation of the policies of the now discredited Stonewall organisation. See:
13 November 2017: Cabinet Secretary James Hynd wrote to senior civil servants about sexual harassment allegations against current Ministers:
“We would need to alert Sturgeon to the fact that a complaint had been received against one of her Ministers and to take her mind about how she wished it to be handled.”
15 November 2017: Hynd wrote a second email, this time to Evans private secretaries, commenting on a suggestion that complaints against Ministers might be resolved by informal means without the need for Sturgeon to be involved:
“I am not at all sure that this … will be acceptable to Sturgeon either generally or in the specific context of sexual harassment. Especially for the latter I think she will want to know straightaway if a complaint against a Minister has been received and will want to decide how it should be treated.”
There is, then, no ambiguity cancelling out the slightest plausible argument that Evans or any of her fellow civil servants could possibly have thought that it was acceptable for them to keep Sturgeon in the dark about any allegation of sexual harassment against any of her current Ministers.
Why then would any of them think it would be acceptable not to inform Sturgeon of allegations against her mentor and closest friend of thirty years? Just doesn’t add up !!!!
Pen Picture of Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans
The Permanent Secretary is the most senior civil servant in Scotland and head of the civil service supporting the Scottish Government and the principal policy adviser to the First Minister and Secretary to the Scottish Cabinet.
Not a lot of experience in procedural development or personnel management. Input limited to the approval of final documentation for the signature of the First Minster, acting on the guidance of senior managers in Human Resources.
A feminist with a fascination for gender politics. Dating back to a study of Queen Elizabeth of England and her speech at Tilbury, “I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman but I have the heart and stomach of a king”.
Work experience shaped her politics and values, and views about diversity, equality and inclusion. Enthusiastic supporter of the now discredited aims and aspirations of the “Stonewall” organisation.
The estimated £2million cost of the sordid debacle will be charged to the taxpayer an adding insult to injury Sturgeon promoted Evans increasing her final salary lump sum and pension by around 10%. Evans disappeared on gardening leave for a few months and retired.
Evans final act was to disrespect a Holyrood Committee chaired by an SNP MSP.
10 March 2022: Former Permanent Secretary Evans disrespected a parliamentary committee and ghosted into retirement with a massive lump sum gratuity and huge pension.
Evans was a key figure in the Alex Salmond affair, overseeing the disastrous internal probe into sexual misconduct claims against the former First Minister.
Her decisions contributed to Alex being able to overturn the findings in a judicial review case that saw him awarded £512,000 in costs. Sturgeon stood by Evans throughout and refused to sack her.
As part of its work into the running of the Scottish Government, Holyrood’s finance and public administration committee approached Evans in October 2021 about her sharing with the committee her reflections and insights into her role.
She was repeatedly reassured that the committee did not want to re-run the Salmond affair or revisit events examined by a previous Holyrood inquiry into it. Instead, the focus would be on “how government functions, the capacity and capability of the civil service, culture, and how policies are developed and implemented”.
The Office of the Permanent Secretary belatedly replied to the committee on Evans behalf refusing the invitation.
The letter stated: “Evans is on leave and she is effectively no longer a post-holder within the Scottish Government and is not able to speak on behalf of or represent the views of Scottish Ministers”.
In his reply the committee convener Kenny Gibson MSP wrote to Evans making clear the committee’s displeasure, and releasing the correspondence to the public.
He wrote: “We are extremely disappointed at the discourtesy shown to the Parliament by your failure to engage directly with the Committee at any stage regarding our invitation, despite our best efforts. When we finally received a response, it was not from you, but from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, stating that, as you are now on a period of leave (dating from 31 December 2021 until you retire from the UK Civil Service on 31 March 2022), you are not able to speak on behalf, or represent the views, of Scottish Ministers. At no point have we asked you to do so. We have been absolutely clear at all times that our interest lay in your own reflections, not those of Ministers, to support the Committee in developing a clearer understanding of the workings of government in our new public administration role.
Very few people have the opportunity to gain your level of experience in government, which we considered would have been beneficial in informing our future scrutiny.
We are firmly of the view that it is in the public interest for the Committee to hear from civil servants as part of our public administration remit.
You remain in the employment of the Scottish Government and we do not accept that your period of leave exempts you from giving evidence to a parliamentary committee, in the way suggested, adding given the time that has elapsed since our original approach to you and the response of 7 March 2022, we do not however intend to waste any more of our time pursuing this matter.”
An independent political observer commented: “This is the latest example of secrecy from a tired and out-of-touch government. The committee deserved to hear from the Permanent Secretary, but she has turned her back on the committee and on proper scrutiny as a result. This sets a very dangerous precedent as civil servants are obliged to appear before our parliament’s committees. This is a disappointing postscript to the former permanent secretary’s public service. It is clear that the culture of this government is to hold the parliament and the people that it represents in contempt.”
In December 2017 the Scottish Government adopted a new procedure entitled “Handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers” (subsequently referred to in this report as the Procedure) which is described as an “internal procedure agreed in December 2017 and published in February 2018 on the Scottish Government intranet”.
Mr Geoffrey Aberdein, former Chief of Staff to Mr Salmond, met Liz Lloyd on or about 5 March 2018. He said that she informed him that two complaints had been made against Mr Salmond and named one of the complainers. She disputes this. Where and why?
Having discussed the matter with other persons Mr Aberdein decided to inform Alec Salmond of what he had been told and did so by telephone later that week. By that time Mr Salmond had already received the letter of 7 March 2018 informing him that complaints had been made.
Afternote. The duties and responsibilities of Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff are very clearly explained in her terms of employment. She is not a civil servant but is expected to adhere to the Civil Service Code of Conduct. She is not permitted to freelance and cannot fart without the authority of the First Minister. That being the case her meeting and agenda for discussion with Aberdein would be previously agreed with Sturgeon’s authority.
Did Hamilton gather the aforementioned very relevant information?
CCDH’s funding comes from 17 funders, many operating through Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs), such as Prism the Gift Fund, which obscures donor identities.
Key funders include Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, and Schwab Charitable Fund alongside seven anonymous contributors through Prism.
The UK Foreign Office played a key role advising the Biden-Harris administration on censorship strategies, marking a global push to curtail free speech under the guise of fighting hate.
In an alarming push against free speech, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) appears to have received significant funding from a network of 17 dark money organizations, many of which operate through Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs).
These financial mechanisms allow donors to contribute anonymously, shielding their identities and intentions while enabling CCDH’s aggressive push to target Elon Musk’s X platform and shape public discourse.
CCDH lists its funding structure on its website, noting: “Center for Countering Digital Hate (UK) Charitable Fund is a restricted fund operating under the auspices of Prism the Gift Fund, Registered Charity Number: 1099682.”
This fund facilitates anonymous contributions from a range of sources, many of which are difficult to trace. CCDH openly solicits the public for DAFs on its website at:
Through Prism the Gift Fund, seven additional UK-based funders contribute anonymously to CCDH:
STP Ecclestone Foundation: A private family foundation associated with the Ecclestone family, focusing on various philanthropic initiatives.
The Genie Trust: A charitable trust with limited public disclosure, primarily engaged in undisclosed philanthropic activities.
Kohn Foundation: Supports scientific research, educational programs, and various cultural projects.
Edith and Ferdinand Porjes Charitable Trust: Focuses on humanitarian causes, particularly in supporting vulnerable communities.
The Harbour Charitable Trust: Provides grants for healthcare, education, and social welfare projects.
The Vail Foundation: Primarily funds environmental conservation and community development initiatives.
The David Goldman Foundation: Focuses on supporting arts, education, and cultural initiatives.
These funds, obscured by Prism’s DAF structure, can earmark donations for specific campaigns like targeting Musk’s platform or influencing U.S. policies regarding free speech.
The Primary 10 Funders of CCDH
These 10 organizations are integral to the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s operations.
Paul Hamlyn Foundation: Amount: £100,000 (2021) Purpose: Supporting CCDH’s digital growth and expanding its reach.
Esmee Fairbairn Foundation: Amount: £213,333 (2021-2023) Purpose: Core costs and digital strategy.
Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust: Amount: £53,400 (2020) Purpose: Whistleblower portal for social media.
Oak Foundation: Amount: $100,000 (2020) Purpose: Combatting digital misinformation on climate change and social justice.
Barrow Cadbury Trust: Amount: Undisclosed. Purpose: Social justice initiatives.
Laura Kinsella Foundation: Amount: Undisclosed. Purpose: Mental health and inclusion projects.
Pears Foundation: Amount: £150,000 (2019-2022). Purpose: Supporting anti-Semitism initiatives and social equality.
Hopewell Foundation: Amount: $15,000 (2021) Purpose: Progressive social causes.
Unbound Philanthropy: Amount: Undisclosed. Purpose: Advocacy for immigration and social justice.
The involvement of UK-based charities, such as those funded through Prism the Gift Fund, raises significant concerns about undue influence in U.S. affairs.
These organizations, while operating under the banner of philanthropy, are funneling dark money into the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which has launched targeted campaigns against free speech platforms like Elon Musk’s X.
The anonymity provided by Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs) allows these donors to shape U.S. discourse, potentially undermining constitutional freedoms and influencing domestic policies without transparency or accountability.
Indeed, the Trump campaign filed an offiicial complaint with the FEC against the British government on Oct. 21st due to their clear interference in US elections.
According to CDC internal documents obtained by America First Legal, the UK Foreign Office was instrumental in providing the Biden-Harris administration with a masterclass in censorship in August 2021. This meeting, involving 20 bilateral organizations and 5-Eyes nations, was part of a broader international effort to curb free speech under the guise of regulating online hate.
This global effort utilizes organizations like CCDH to enforce speech restrictions, making platforms like X primary targets for deplatforming.
The 17 funders behind CCDH form a dark money network that collaborates with international governments to suppress dissent and influence public discourse.
Global Influence and Erosion of U.S. Civil Liberties
By using Prism’s DAF system, foreign donors and U.S. contributors alike can shape domestic policy in the U.S., undermining constitutional rights to free speech. This funding model enables donors to remain anonymous while wielding influence over legislation and digital platforms. As Elon Musk seeks to protect freedom of expression on X, CCDH’s funders are pushing to discredit and de-platform him.
Conclusion: A Call for Transparency
The dark money network backing CCDH is part of a coordinated effort to silence free speech under the guise of combating disinformation. The use of DAFs and international coordination allows funders to avoid accountability while influencing U.S. policy. To safeguard civil liberties, the public must demand transparency from organizations like CCDH and their financial backers.
References
“9 Dark Money Sources Funding CCDH: A Foreign ‘Digital Hate’ Group Which Used the White House to Quash Free Speech” Published on: July 31, 2023
“killing” the X platform under Elon Musk was the top agenda item and included reference to a “meeting with 16 congressional officers … to give updates on an Elon lawsuit” which accused the CCDH organization of manipulating data to claim that X hosted hate speech.
Tactics discussed included CCDH’s possible contact with Thierry Breton, then-European commissioner for internal market and services. The French politician and former business executive had singled out Musk for attack during his time as a senior official with the EU in Brussels.
Breton had reiterated in a letter in 2022 that Musk had a “legal obligation” to censor “harmful content” on X. and would need to operate within the EU rules.
CCDH’s founder is British political operative Morgan McSweeney, chief of staff to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and an advisor to the presidential campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris.
CCDH also maintains ties to key Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) who has introduced multiple bills to regulate online “misinformation.”
“The CCDH documents carry particular importance because McSweeney’s “Labour Together” political operatives have been teaching election strategy to Harris and [Minnesota Gov.] Tim Walz, leading to a general acceptance that Labour and the Democrats are now formally “sister parties.”
Eon Musk Battles Back Against the Imposition of Regulatory Restrictions Constricting Freedom of Expression on the Internet Required by the UK and EU Through the all Embracing Digital Services Act
The European Union is poised to impose a fine exceeding $1 billion on Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, for alleged violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA), marking a significant escalation in EU’s digital regulation efforts.
X is accused of refusing to share data with external researchers, lacking transparency about advertisers and verified accounts, and adopting a lax approach to content moderation, which the EU argues makes the platform susceptible to abuse and foreign interference.
The core of the dispute lies in X’s commitment to free speech and minimal moderation, clashing with the EU’s stringent regulatory approach that emphasizes centralized moderation and data transparency.
Elon Musk has vowed to fight the EU’s ruling in court, framing the potential fine as an act of political censorship and an attack on free speech. He accuses the EU of using the fine as a political tool and criticizes the DSA as a source of misinformation.
Conclusion
As the EU prepares to levy a potential $1 billion fine against Elon Musk’s X, the stakes are high. The case is not just about one platform or one billionaire; it is about the principles of free speech, the role of government in regulating the internet, and the future of digital discourse. The coming months will reveal whether the EU’s regulatory muscle can bend one of the world’s most influential tech platforms to its will, or whether Musk’s defiance will spark a broader movement against what he and his supporters see as an overreach of power.
The Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) a non-profit organisation, NGO founded in Great Britain with close ties to Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, made headlines recently after a leak of internal emails revealed its top current goal is to “Kill Musk’s Twitter.”
Founded by Morgan McSweeney, the top aide to Starmer, whose Labour party recently won a large majority, CCDH was from the beginning a partisan project masquerading as a neutral non-profit. Its earliest activities focused on undermining Starmer’s rivals inside his own political party, the left-wing populist supporters of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
McSweeney, along with Starmer’s Labour party, is accused of meddling in the 2024 presidential election. The Labour party paid for McSweeney to attend the Democratic National Convention in August, where he met with presidential candidate Kamala Harris. The Labour party is also the subject of a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint filed by the Trump campaign, after sending nearly 100 party activists to campaign for Harris in battleground states.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and its use of Antisemitism – the tried and trusted weapon of zionist activists
On May 23, 2024 US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt hosted a symposium to combat online antisemitism, which was touted as the “first of its kind.” CCDH was, by then, well enough regarded by the State Department to warrant an invitation.
White House Domestic Policy Council Chair Neera Tanden, White House Deputy National Security Advisor Anne Neuberger, as well as big tech platforms such as Google, Meta, and TikTok, other special envoys from Canada, Israel, and Germany, as well as NGOs such as CCDH, Cyberwell, and the American Jewish Congress attended the meeting.
One day later, a press release noted that big tech platforms promised to address antisemitism, “including establishing dedicated expert positions on policy teams, implementing antisemitism training for key personnel, and increasing transparency by publicly reporting on trends in antisemitic content.”
Combating antisemitism was the founding pretext of CCDH, before it broadened its approach to target other forms of alleged hate and “disinformation.” The purpose of this focus was political: CCDH’s founder, Morgan McSweeney, masterminded the takeover of the UK’s Labour party by the current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, with the issue of antisemitism playing a key role.
Starmer’s rise to the top involved undermining the authority of the previous leader, left-wing populist Jeremy Corbyn, whose leadership of the party was marred by constant accusations of antisemitism. CCDH amplified these accusations at every turn, while McSweeney also sought to bankrupt the UK’s leading pro-Corbyn news site – as well as right-wing populist website Westmonster – through advertiser boycotts.
Antisemitism is no longer the sole focus of the CCDH, and it now enjoys influence not just with the current Labour Prime Minister, but also with the leadership of Starmer’s opposition in the Conservative party. Kami Badenoch, who was recently elected as leader of the Conservative party, praised CCDH’s work on “anti-Muslim hate” while she was a minister in the previous Conservative government.
CCDH’s board includes Damian Collins MP, who led the previous Conservative government’s efforts to regulate so-called “online harms.” Collins served as the former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Tech and Digital Economy at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS). He left his post in October 2022. He also served as the chair of the DCMS committee from 2016 to 2019.
Collins also met with the CCDH while he was drafting the government’s Online Safety Bill” as part of “stakeholder engagement.”
In October 2024, Collins joined Orbis Business Intelligence as a non-executive director; the founder of Orbis is none other than Christopher Steele, the creator of the Steele dossier against former President Donald Trump.
Collins has frequently commented on the need for social media companies to take action against content that allegedly incites violence and harassment.
Despite broadening its focus to cover “anti-Muslim hate,” “disinformation,” and other forms of “online harm,” CCDH’s original pretext of combating antisemitism remains an effective weapon for online censorship. One day after the State Department’s symposium, a press release noted that big tech platforms promised to address antisemitism, “including establishing dedicated expert positions on policy teams, implementing antisemitism training for key personnel, and increasing transparency by publicly reporting on trends in antisemitic content.”
The full article can be found here. It is a revealing expose of criminals posing as politicians. A murky world indeed.
The Society of the Friends of the People was an organisation in Great Britain that was focused on advocating for parliamentary reform. It was founded by the Whig Party in 1792.
The Society in England was aristocratic and exclusive but Friends of the People groups in Scotland and Ireland, drew their membership from the upper and lower classes in equal numbers.
Members wanted parliamentary representatives to reflect the population of Great Britain, which could be achieved by making voting more accessible, by granting more men the right to vote, and by making it possible for a broader variety of men to take part in the government.
Attached is a record of events in Scotland including the show trials of a number of Scots on charges of sedition (usually printing and distributing leaflets and pamphlets) and their draconian sentencing (14 years).
Minded of the progress being made including the petition to the UN seeking recognition of Scotland’s colony status I spent some time reading the article that explains events that occurred in 1793 – 1794. It was not a pleasant read but I commend it to you.
The website, address below, provides details of the sterling efforts of dedicated volunteers who freely give their time and expertise to the task of gaining independence for Scotland.
The Al Jazeera Labour files programmes show the party is corrupt to the core
5 October, 2022: An Al Jazeera investigation highlighted the unlawful use by Labour party officials of data stolen from “Inside Croydon”, the local blog.
“Inside Croydon” recovered other documents including a chain of email correspondence between the Croydon Councillor, Jerry Fitzpatrick a retired barrister and Alex Barros-Curtis – Director of Legal Affairs and Labour HQ, indicating that knowledge of the illegal hack attack was sourced to the headquarters of the Labour Party.
David Evans, the party’s General Secretary, and Labour HQ’s lawyers had chosen to ignore the incident that should have been notified to the police.
Fitzpatrick’s warning were ignored
Before his retiral Councillor Fitzpatrick had been the local Labour group chief whip. In early 2021, he inherited from his predecessor, “Thirsty” Clive Fraser, a file of emails and documents that were being used selectively to persecute three fellow councillors who had blown the whistle on the dysfunctional council that had gone bankrupt in 2020.
The Al Jazeera programme makers had also displayed an extract from Fitzpatrick’s correspondence to Labour HQ written after he had had a chance to assimilate the information that Fraser had hoarded and which the Labour official – a close ally of discredited ex-Council leader Tony Newman and Blairite MP Steve Reed – had for some reason failed to hand over to the police. Other documents produced later by “Inside Croydon” showed that Fitzpatrick had indeed written to Labour HQ on a number of occasions seeking guidance. The correspondence was acknowledged by both Evans and Alex Barros-Curtis, Labour’s executive director of legal affairs.
About Alex Barros-Curtis – Director of Legal Affairs
A shadowy operator he secretly set up the companies that ran the Smith and Starmer campaigns and claimed to be a trusted adviser to Smith and the campaign’s chair and vice-chair. His contribution to the Owen Smith leadership campaign commenced with the ill advised “Chicken Coup” which sought to undermine Jeremy Corbyn, the democratically elected Labour leader, prompting the local membership to re-elect Corbyn with more than 61per cent of the vote.
Prior to taking up his post at Labour HQ, Curtis was employed for four months in a senior position in Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership campaign. His political affiliations are well known but in the case of stolen data the recently retired barrister is no stranger to the law. His duty required him to report the incident to the police.
Councillor Fraser
“Croydon Council Labour Group – disciplinary issues – legal advice sought – legal confidentiality applies”.
In March, 2021, Barros-Curtis’s was the recipient of the first in a series of emails from Councillor Fitzpatrick who wrote: “I am chief whip of the Croydon Labour group. I am a retired barrister, having practised for 20 years at the family bar. I am writing to seek legal advice.”
Noting he had not succeeded Fraser until 17 March, he wrote: “On 10 March 2021, I embarked on a disciplinary investigation, writing to three Group members who allegedly passed (and continue to pass) confidential matters relating to Group business to Steven Downes, the editor of, ‘Inside Croydon, the editor of the blog and the three councillors are aware that their emails were hacked and given to Clive Fraser.”
Fitzpatrick also attached a copy of an email, (hacked from “Inside Croydon”) that he had sent to Hamida Ali, the leader of the Croydon Labour group at the time. Ali had not responded. In the email he had written: “In the past I have reported how Fraser repeatedly failed in his public and legal duties to report crimes to the proper authorities. On this occasion, his actions and abuse of my documents open you all to accusations of criminal conduct. The documents appear to have been obtained in breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Data Protection Act 2018. You appear to be guilty of an offence under these Acts, either as a principal or an accessory. I have reported this matter to the police and to the Information Commissioner. If you should decide to do the right thing and have all the documents handed in to the police and provide evidence in a statement, you might wish to note that the Metropolitan Police’s crime reference number is xxxxxxxxx.” ‘What he provided does not even begin to dispose of my concerns’
Hamida Ali
In his initial email to Barros-Curtis’s office, Fitzpatrick confirmed that Fraser had previously sought advice from Labour’s London regional office. The London office had provided him with a step-by-step guide on how to share hacked data. Fitzpatrick wrote: “This [is] no criticism of [the named London region official] but what he provided to Fraser does not even begin to dispose of my concerns. The information he has given does not answer the legal questions which need to be considered. I am not acting with judicial powers either criminal or civil… I am not assuming that someone conducting an investigation within the Labour Party has the same power as a judge to review illegally obtained evidence. But case law does suggest that there is a public interest in the right of a journalist to protect confidential sources and the right of an elected representative to put into the public domain matters in which the public may have a legitimate interest. unfortunately, Croydon has received criticism from auditors and a government team in respect of opaque decision-making processes. These decisions have had disastrous financial consequences for the borough… This makes it politically more difficult for those in the leadership of the Croydon Council Labour group to say that those who acted to put information in the public domain are wrong-doers. Should I deliver up to the police the evidence in the party’s possession (and which it continues to receive) which has been obtained illegally?”
He also raised the possibility that any disciplinary taken against the officials using the hacked data, might prejudice any future police criminal inquiries and sought reassurance from Labour chiefs on telling points: would he be indemnified by the party for pursuing the disciplinary cases using the hacked data, and will the party meet all reasonable legal costs?
On 25 March 2021, Barros-Curtis’s department forwarded Fitzpatrick’s email to the party’s “Data Protection! department.
On 11 April 2021, with no response to his initial email, Fitzpatrick sent a reminder.
On 19 April, Fitzpatrick wrote directly to Evans “seeking to expedite a response.” He later wrote: “David kindly responded… committing to ask [Barros-Curtis] “to see where we are and what we might do.” Clearly, the General Secretary of the Labour Party had knowledge of the case, but did nothing to stop stolen data being used to purge Labour councillors.
Evans’s “history” in Croydon, his past relationship with Alison Butler, Croydon Labour’s deputy leader until October 2020, his backing of Tony Newman’s council, and the £200,000-plus that his company, The Campaign Company, received from the council following Labour’s 2014 Town Hall election victory, has been well-documented elsewhere.
Yet by May 3 2021, Evans had still not managed to summon up a reply for Fitzpatrick.
19 April 2021: Fitzpatrick wrote to Barros-Curtis again, updating that since his email to Evans on April 19, “I have become aware that someone has hacked into the email accounts of at least two members of our group”. Blind copies of emails were being whizzed off to Fraser and Ali.
Fitzpatrick had additional questions. Did Fraser and Ali have “a legal obligation to inform the councillors whose account has been hacked”? And “Do Cllr Ali and Cllr Fraser have an obligation to inform the police that they are receiving information which appears to have been illegally obtained?”
There’s nothing further in the Labour files from that email chain. It seems that David Evans never did find out “what we might do”, or get back to Fitzpatrick to assure him that, if he and Fraser were to be sued for handling stolen data, the Labour Party would pay their legal costs.
No one from the Labour Party in Croydon, nor current group leader Stuart King – has ever handed over the stolen data files nor made a statement to the police about how they received them.
Later in 2021, Fitzpatrick stood down as Croydon Labour group chief whip, officially on “health grounds”. He did not seek re-election to the council in May 2022.
Clive Fraser was de-selected as a candidate for the 2022 local elections by Labour Party members in his home ward, South Norwood but incredibly managed to get selected to stand for the party in the May 2022 elections in Addiscombe West– the third different ward he had sought election at in three successive council elections. The current leadership of the Labour group at Croydon Town Hall have appointed Fraser to the council’s ethics committee…
Lawless Labour: Keir Starmer and his chum, Croydon MP Steve Reed, who ordered spying on party colleagues in 2012
Not long after the General Election Sue Gray quit her role as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. Her departure came after she was caught up in rows over her pay, which at £170k is higher than the Prime Minister’s, and claims of tensions with other staff. Retaining her salary she will take up a newly created post as the PM’s envoy for nations and regions. She was replaced by Morgan McSweeney, who was previously chief adviser to the PM.
Starmer’s political mastermind was duly rewarded for his campaign planning and delivery which delivered a landslide victory for Labour. But tempering the plaudits the number of votes gained by the party was well below that achieved by Jeremy Corbyn in the 2019 GE.
The deciding factors assisting McSweeney was the abysmal performance of the Tory Party whose voter base collapsed under the assault of the fledgling Reform Party and the unpalatable antics of a number of SNP, WOKE, MP’s whose “Stonewall” led LGBTQ commitment scunnered the Scottish electorate.
And what of his wife Imogen, the former actress and philosophy graduate of Edinburgh University, whose political career, to date had been carefully nourished in London.
She was “parachuted” into the safe Hamilton and Clyde Valley constituency, just up the road from her and her husbands newly purchased, near £1m home in the Clyde valley.
But London Labour’s manipulative “shoo-in” was very nearly derailed by local party activists who preferred their man, Gavin Keatt. Walker’s victory was narrow, 62 votes to her opponent’s, 55.
Noteworthy was the hustings count which much favoured the local man but Walker won through with a larger number of postal votes prompting one wag to remark; “Voter ID and no postal voting is the only way to be sure of an honest outcome.” An astute observation or a hint of skulduggery!!!
Her coffers boosted by a £10k campaign donation from her husband’s “Labour Together” organisation she went on to win the seat easily defeating a very young and uninspiring SNP WOKE candidate with a majority of 9,472.
Walker had only just settled into her new office at Westminster when she received a call from Rachel Reeves, the newly appointed “Chancellor of the Exchequer” who congratulated her friend on her promotion to the post of Parliamentary Private Secretary to herself. Walker’s well used “eyes and ears” skills are a known and useful asset.
Rumbles in the Jungle – Accusations of Cronyism
Walker was at the centre of a “cronyism” row after she was allocated a Westminster office located near to her husband’s place of work, in addition to an office in another part of the parliamentary estate which she shares with a fellow MP. And this despite her only being elected as MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley in July 2024. The recently appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to Chancellor Rachel Reeves enjoying the perks of the job perhaps.
A disgruntled senior Labour source said: “the way in which MPs’ offices are allocated has long been a mystery. The decisions are made by the whips as part of the dark arts which they use to reward some and punish others. It shouldn’t be like this. Occasionally office allocations by the whips give raise to serious accusations of favouritism or nepotism because the MP is related to someone more senior. This should not happen, especially when more senior MPs get worse treatment.”
Back to Hamilton
And an opportunity for advancement opened up for Walker’s defeated opponent, Councillor Gavin Keatt (who took on the role of her caseworker) after the recent death of SNP MSP Christina McKelvie which means there will probably be a June by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse.
This is the leading SNP candidate whom walker beat in Hamilton
Labour Together Think Tank
Steve Reed from Lambeth Council and Morgan McSweeney formed the think tank in 2017. McSweeney was appointed director of the influential policy group with the primary aim “to move the Labour Party from the hard left” and replace the then leader, Jeremy Corbyn. McSweeney ruthlessly removed supporters of Corbyn soon after his arrival in the leader of the opposition’s office after Starmer’s leadership victory in 2020.
McSweeney’s wife Imogen Walker received £10,000 from the organisation which donated £210,000 to members of Starmer’s top team in 2024. The group was fined by the Electoral Commission for failing to declare £730,000 in donations.
Sarwar’s Dilemma – toe the line or your’e out – or packed off to the Lords like daddy
Relations with the increasingly right wing Westminster based Labour politicians and the left leaning Party members and leaders in Scotland is always tense and unproductive with cracks appearing early on when Scottish MSP’s failed to support Starmer’s decision to cut winter fuel payments.
Scottish leader Sarwar was all over the place in his failed attempts to steady the ship and a number of Labour MSP’s voted with the SNP when the Scottish Parliament voted by 99 to 14 in favour of a motion (ignored by Westminster as expected) insisting the Labour government at Westminster change course and reverse its decision to means test the support.
The perpetual diminishing of the electorate and its politicians by Westminster is not, as yet compelling enough to persuade a majority of Scots to consider the option of independence but the British body politic is mindful of the fall of of Rome and other similarly ill-fated empires which were poisoned with nepotism and cronyism and withered morphing into kleptocracies masquerading as democracies. Scots would be much better off as an independent nation.
caltonjock 