Red Shaz in Bed (& Breakfast) with the Capitalists!

We love an oddity in the mainstream media and are slightly perplexed by offerings featuring local Labour politicians yesterday from Lidl/Aldi house "newspaper", The Birmingham Mail. The pieces were "penned" by the Mail's "Politics and People Editor", Jane "SH" Haynes, who occasionally lifts her head from between the thighs of Jess Phillips MP to spit vitriol at "the Tories" and glorify the Labour Party in general and "leftish" women in particular.

Like many on "the left", SH is a poverty junkie and has been muttering on social media and in the paper -between the multitude of adverts from capitalist companies funding her wages - about the "scandal" of "badly-run, unregulated hostels" in our City. This massive puff-piece for Labour gave SH the chance for some heavy-duty rimming of a batch of dismal "socialists" ie. Liam Byrne, Jack Dromey, Preet Kaur Gill, Shabana Mahmood, Steve McCabe, Khalid Mahmood, Tahir Ali and, inevitably of course for a SH piece, Jess Phillips. Gill was also prominently shown in a photo accompanying this Labour "advertorial".

It was beautifully ironic that as we read this Labour campaign document online yesterday via the Mail website an advert flashed up from "EverFX Regulated Brokers" exhorting cash-flushed Brummies to all invest (or risk) £250 each in, er, uber-capitalist Amazon!

On the very same day SH featured - with photo - Cllr Sharon Thompson, Labour's Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods bragging about the skint Council's brilliant deal with "Staywell Hospitality Management"(SMH) who have sought a slice of the very lucrative council-funded B&B business during the Covid calamity with an "offer" to put-up folk in their, er, deserted "prestige hotels". Red Shaz was beside herself and hailed this a "great move in driving-up standards". 

Bizarrely, SH updated her effort later in the day and all reference to SMH suddenly disappeared to be replaced with references to Birmingham City Council having partnered instead with "Switch Hospitality" - complete with a quote from Switch's "Managing Director" except there is no limited company registered in the UK called by this name. Confused? We were and the Staywell website muddies the waters still further:

Depending on whether you are sane or an adherent of the warped idealogy of socialism, Red Shaz is getting into bed with one of the most successful or alternatively the most rapacious capitalists in Brum, Harj Mattu. Perhaps SH and Cllr Sharon regretted making it so obvious that the taxpayer was about to start shovelling money at a very wealthy businessman and his empty hotels?

Harj Mattu is connected with a huge non-limited company operation, Seven Capital, and you will have seen his large property developments springing-up all over our City eg. the Park Regis Hotel (and look for the black "Colmore Tang" boards). As most entrepreneurs do, he operates through a whole web of companies, not all of which are "limited" and thus required to file public records. But the parent Company of Staywell - which SH and Red Shaz intially claimed the Council has contracted with - is Harj's Colmore Investments Limited. So why would there by coyness and a sudden "switch" to, er, Switch? Surely this cannot be that the posturing "socialists" of the failing Council and Red Shaz don't want you to know that "the ultimate controlling party" of Staywell is none other than Acc Sino Group Limited based in the infamous tax haven of Guernsey!

So well done comrades for doing your bit towards enriching an offshore tax haven Company. At least Red Shaz says the unfortunate punters will get free wi-fi. Power to the people!

Oh and by the way, Labour's Preet Kaur Gill MP has declared a donation of £4,000 from "Capital Seven" in her Parliamentary Register of Interests. By coincidence the address given in Park Lane, Mayfair, London is that of "Seven Capital" and Harj's Colmore Investments Limited. I am sure this was merely an error by the hapless Gill and not done with any intention to deceive (although she has not amended the error). And let's hope wealthy Harj is now a member of the local "Labour Family" and will show his support for the comrades in the time-honoured way...

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Do "Black Lives Matter" at Coutts Bank?

 Anyone with even a passing interest in British history will see the same names cropping-up again and again over the years as royalty and the aristocracy retain their grip over us plebs. Unfortunately "taking the knee" in Britain doesn't refer to the BLM movement but the grovelling of the pusillanimous populace before their "betters".

When you get to "proper posh" in the British Establishment there is usually a sea of white faces. This blog wrote on 10th July, 2018, for example, how the governance of Wimbledon - and not just the kit - at that time was very white:

http://crowmultimedia.blogspot.com/2018/07/all-white-at-wimbledon.html

Our grotesque "royal" family retain huge wealth, patronage and influence but hardly reflect our wonderfully diverse populace. The interaction between the "royals" and black people has hitherto mostly consisted on the former sitting under canopies on thrones whilst the latter jig about in front of them in grass skirts. Baubles are handed out to any "commonwealth" black folk who toe the Establishment line. The current "easing-out" of Ms Markle is instructive.

The head of this ghastly galere, Elizabeth II, is always said to bank with Coutts and Co and so we took a look at their main Board. We will give you one guess how many black faces sit at the top table according to their own website...

Chair: Lord Waldegrave of North Hill - white old Etonian and member of, inter alia, the Thatcher Government. Currently the Provost of his alma mater. In the hierarchical structure of our pathetic undemocratic country where the majority of our Parliament does not face the ballot box, he is now an unelected legislator (although his father was "proper" aristocracy being the 12th Earl Waldegrave). We sh*t ye not but this bastard bastion of privilege likes to lecture us on social mobility lol!

CEO: Peter Flavel - white Aussie alumnus of Harvard Business School. As hate figures of the Left go, Pete ticks all the boxes being a "lawyer-turned-banker"!

Francesca Barnes - white.

Mark Lund - white.

Linda Urquhart - white and, again, a former lawyer.

Andrew Kyle - white.

Matt Waymark - white.

No doubt this disparity is a matter which will be taken up by the slick PR machine representing another of the Bank's multi-millionaire customers, Saint Marcus Rashford, although our money is on the publicity-seeking "royals", always desperate to "appeal to the young", soon having him "taking the knee" before them in return for an expedited knighthood. "Arise Sir Marcus!"

(On the subject of Saint Marcus neither he nor his team have yet to clarify the position with regard to his - lawful - mitigation of own personal taxes as reported here and in Private Eye:

http://crowmultimedia.blogspot.com/2020/10/marcus-rashford-tax-mystery.html 

http://crowmultimedia.blogspot.com/2020/11/marcus-rashford-silent-on-company-tax.html )

And don't expect the new Labour "Leader" to storm the palace...

 iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

"GMB Union Official Raped Labour MP" Claim.

An anonymous letter to the President of the GMB Trade Union (a woman) earlier this year claimed that an employee of the Union raped a female Labour MP. This has been splashed all over social media (including the identity of the alleged victim) but the mainstream media has been silent on this - although commenting on other issues raised in the letter.

There appears to be an extensive cover-up of this sordid story by the Union and the Labour Party and it appears - at least from what is in the public domain - that there has been no police involvement in this affair either in respect of the alleged sexual assault or allegations of other serious misconduct including the alleged use of Class A drugs. But other details of appalling behaviour within the GMB Union have been slammed by a QC and raise questions why the Labour Party is continuing to accept money and political direction from such a vile organisation.

We sent the following letter (with minor redactions) to the Leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, by post on 15th November, 2020 and followed up bt sending it again via email. He has not replied. (The first part of the letter refers to shocking misconduct within Sandwell (a dirt-poor Labour Borough in the West Midlands) Labour Party.)

"Rt Hon Keir Starmer MP,

The Labour Party,

Labour Central,

Kings Manor,

Newcastle upon Tyne,

NE1 6PA                                                                                              15th November, 2020

Dear “Sir” Keir,

THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION. PRESS ENQUIRY.

I write with regard to (a) the relationship between The Labour Party and the “institutionally sexist”, “bullying” and misogynistic [4] GMB Union and (b) the role of you and senior Labour MP’s in dealing with an allegation of a “serious sexual assault (rape)”, “drug-use” and “predatory sexual behaviour by a senior man within the GMB” [7].

I shall be referring to the whitewash report of Karon Monaghan QC dated 31 August, 2020 and the page numbers from her Report are shown in square brackets.

I suppose the first question is whether you are supporting misogyny and bullying in your Party despite your lawyerly posturing and thus in a position to comment? There is a rumour sweeping the Labour cesspit that is Sandwell that you are making the mistake of listening to the poison of the Londoner who purports to represent the sole remaining Labour seat, John Spellar (and his NEC puppet, Gurinder Josan).

It is said that Spellar, who has done so much harm to the Borough, is heavily involved in trying to bring back the disastrous former regime in a Labour Council riven by civil war. That horrendous prospect is not for consideration here but Spellar and Josan are also said to be working assiduously to have the Party suspension lifted on former leader [sic] Steve “Spunk Brother” Eling.

Again, this letter is not the place to discuss Eling’s catalogue of misconduct but as we are talking about maltreatment of women you should take time out to personally speak with three local Labour women and listen to how they feel about his behaviour:

Cllr Olwen Jones: Eling and his sidekick set up a WhatsApp feed to attack his perceived enemies including Labour colleagues. The feed suggested that Cllr Jones’s husband, also a Labour Councillor, should “spunk” over Cllr Maria Crompton “in her bikini” as that would be preferable to him “doing” his wife. Perhaps you approve of this sort of obscenity being sent to a journalist by Party members? Why don’t you ask the victims how distressing they found this?

Cllr Maria Crompton: was, as above, subjected to vile and obscene comment. Further, when she tackled Eling about this he lied to her face telling her the Feed was a fake and entirely invented. Cllr Crompton (the current interim Leader who has steadied the sinking ship in the most difficult circumstances) soon found out the truth. What is significant here is that Cllr Crompton was, at the time, also an EMPLOYEE of the Party. Do you approve of party members making such obscene comments against employees and then lying to them about it?

Melanie Dudley: Labour’s unsuccessful candidate for Dudley North in the December debacle. Check out the WhatsApp feed and local blogs showing how Eling forced her out as Assistant Chief Executive of the Council at huge cost to the taxpayer. Does that constitute bullying in your book? Ask her what happened at a funeral some time afterwards?

(The role of Eling in the unlawful suspension of six secretaries at the Council is still unproven but perhaps YOU can identify via your contacts who the bullying Councillor  was shouting “I want the fuckers out and I don’t want the fuckers back”.)

 

No doubt - given your pusillanimity in passing the buck re suspending Corbyn - you will say that all this is for the General Secretary etc but that is not good enough. You are now seised of this information and whether the rumours of your local involvement are right or not you surely have a moral obligation and a duty of care to members and employees to finally listen to Eling’s victims?

Part One - Is the GMB Union a fit and proper organisation to be associated with The Labour Party?

The GMB Union is a major donor to The Labour Party and thereby exerts considerable influence over it. As a QC you will be familiar with the concept of selling your services for cash and having to jump to the payer’s hideous tune which is presumably why you have appointed such seemingly untalented GMB MP’s as Angela Rayner, Lisa Nandy and “Princess” Stephanie Peacock to your top team [sic]. (It is noteworthy that the Union did not back your leadership campaign but you still have to kowtow to them!)

Ms Monaghan not only stated that the GMB is institutionally sexist but stated:

“Bullying, misogyny, cronyism and sexual harassment are endemic within the GMB” [4]

She stated that:

“The culture in the GMB is one of heavy drinking and late night socialising, salacious gossip and a lack of professionalism.” 

Private Eye recently reported that: “One senior GMB Union official went on the piss so frequently he lost not one but six union credit cards in various drinking dens around London - including the Strangers’ Bar at the House of Commons.” The hard-pressed members who pay their dues to this rotten organisation are now having to fork out for a “comprehensive audit” of the Union’s spending by mega-expensive beancounters PWC (whose hourly rates probably exceed even your own). How can a nominally socialist Party take money from an organisation which is financially shafting its own members?

The QC wrote of the “sheer volume of examples of bullying, threats and victimisation” by the boys (and it is almost exclusively boys) running the Union [30].

With regard to sexual harassment by the Union of its own employees Ms Monaghan says women are warned that they may face disciplinary action if a complaint is made and not believed and that “this is particularly inappropriate in the GMB because making complaints of sexual harassment is anyway so difficult, and the risk of retribution so great."

In a specific case a person was investigated following “a serious incident of sexual harassment” and found to have committed an act of gross misconduct but a senior male within the GMB intervened and helped the perpetrator move to a new employer with a payment of £30,000 of Union cash. The QC states, “I also heard that complaints were frequently dealt with by moving people or shuffling them out”. 

On page 51 of her Report Ms Monaghan repeats her damning charge: “The GMB is a very masculine organisation in which misogyny, sexual harassment, bullying and cronyism are endemic.” The working environment within this appalling organisation can be poisonous and “horrible” where meetings can be held in an “aggressive” and “testosterone fuelled” way, and a bully-boy atmosphere prevails. She heard “much evidence of cronyism” and an “ingrained” drinking culture. At Congress free alcohol is available [52]”  I assume by “free” the QC means “paid for out of members’ dues”?

Whilst the report was principally concerned with sexual harassment Ms Monaghan skated over racist conduct with the weaselly “I am satisfied that the GMB is not a comfortable place to be for many employees and members [my emphasis] from Black and minority ethnic groups.”

It is necessary to quote at length from pages 54/55 about the Union of Rayner, Nandy and Peacock (mentioning incidentally that Ms Nandy herself is widely described in male Labour and GMB circles by a very abusive and derogatory nickname):

“Sexual harassment is common in the GMB. Examples of sexual harassment I heard about included touching hair, leering, commenting on body shape and clothes, placing hands around a woman’s waist, staring at a woman’s breasts or “tits”, propositioning young women, “sloppy kisses”, “lip kisses”, “sticking a tongue” in a woman’s ear, touching of knees, bottoms and hips, hugs and slapping of a backside.”

The QC heard of sexual harassment being used as a form of bullying and she heard “of more serious sexual assaults”. She also heard that there was a general “predatory” attitude to women in the GMB. There is also “a demeaning and misogynistic narrative that women who do succeed in securing senior roles in the GMB have done so through having sex with a senior man” [55]. How can Labour take instructions and money from such a filthy, disgusting, outfit?

Being a wealthy QC yourself I do not anticipate that you will agree with me that, whilst the Report does make significant  recommendations for reform, it was a ruse to draw a line under the lurid allegations sinking the Union [see also Part 2 below]. Heaven knows how much the Solicitor and QC have been paid for the so-called “investigation” - as ever from the funds of hard-pressed members - but you are unlikely to push back against fees for your learned legal elite. The whole thing smacks of the usual “lessons have been learnt” guff and the can of reform has been kicked down the road. Ms Monaghan states that, “the reality is that the culture and practices and culture of the GMB are so entrenched that a complete transformation if required”.  

I do not intend to write much about the former General Secretary, Tim Roache. I comment in passing of his closeness to Tom Watson once they cosied up together. I believe [Watson's] relationship with [GMB female offical] started before he jumped onboard the GMB gravy train. But what did he know of the appalling state of affairs with the Union since he never said anything?

There have been some very lurid allegations against Roache but that is for others to investigate. However, Private Eye have again reported that he received a pay-off from this vile Union in the region of half a million pounds. Whatever the position regarding xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the ordinary members - many of whom are likely to be Labour supporters - have been financially raped by this shower.  I appreciate that a woman has only been President of the Union for two years but Barbara Plant has not resigned in respect of anything to do with this grotesque saga and so one has to assume she condones what has gone on and/or the curtailment of the terms of reference to the QC and/or the huge pay-off to Roache.. Do you? Do you think that a Union ripping off members £164.40 a year to pay for all this is remotely acceptable and should Labour continue to take a cut of members’ dues  until the “fundamental reform” has actually occurred?

 I am shortly launching a campaign to scrap  Facility Time ie. where the taxpayer is forced to pay the wages of a large number of Union officials. It cannot be right  that the taxpayer is paying the salaries of ANY GMB officials at any time but certainly not when the Union has misbehaved so egregiously and is so unfit to play a role either in the workplace or in public life.

Of course, the Monaghan report is farcical anyway because it does not deal with the allegation of serious sexual assault/rape of a Labour MP made by the “GMB Sisters” as we shall see further in Part 2. The reason given by the QC for this astonishing omission is that any investigation of this was barred by her terms of reference from the Union. 

Again, a woman was President at the time the terms of reference were framed so what on earth is going on here?

Part Two: Alleged Sexual Assault/Rape of Labour MP

The anonymous “GMB Sisters” letter addressed to Barbara Plant and widely circulated on social media alleged that an official of the Union sexually assaulted/raped one of your MP colleagues.  You come across, to me at least, as a cold and calculating individual but maybe you have sought to assist the alleged victim privately? I cannot trace any public comment from you on any of this shaming saga. Maybe there are criminal investigations going on behind the scenes which I do not know about (though see further below)?

You have, however, been very publicly bragging about your former role as DPP/Head of the CPS* Surely you of all people cannot be satisfied with the apparent lack of investigation into an alleged serious offence? Surely you cannot approve of the way the GMB have simply tried to brush this sordid allegation under the carpet?

There are, as you will know, seven employees of the GMB Union publicly named by “The Sisters” who it is alleged “have knowledge of the incident” and so why is there not, at the very least an enquiry by the Union itself? (I should add that it is not alleged that any of the seven are themselves involved in any wrongdoing.) [See further below.]

Maybe you and/or some of your colleagues have referred this matter to the Police for investigation. Three female MP’s (none of whom are the alleged victim) Louise Haigh, Angela Raynor and Sarah Owen are said by “the Sisters” to “have knowledge” of this incident plus Jonathan Ashworth. Have they referred this matter to the Police (and, incredibly, Haigh was Shadow Policing Minister!)

The Sisters say people at senior levels of the Labour Party and TUC knew of the allegations. Are you and the others involved in a massive cover-up here and, if so, why?

I appreciate that it is not easy for a victim to report such an awful crime to the Police herself but Labour MP’s (quite properly) proselytise about the efficacy of so doing? Is the Party diluting its own message to women victims of male sexual assault?

Given the seriousness of the alleged offence and the apparent cover-up I personally referred this allegation to The Metropolitan Police under reference CDS-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx many months ago but have heard absolutely nothing. Perhaps you can use your influence to have them respond?

There are further allegations relating to drug-use.

The victim, the four above-named MP’s and yourself are aware of this allegation. That is at least six Labour MP’s and I am sure there are many more who have heard the gossip or seen the social media commentary. How on earth can you allow this to be brushed under the carpet and keep on accepting funding from such an apparently sick organisation? Have you - or the others - no scruples or moral fibre? 

Can you commit here and now that there will be no dealings by Labour whatsoever with the GMB until:

1   There has been a police investigation into the allegation of sexual assault (rape) of a Labour MP by a GMB official; and

2   The recommendations of the Monaghan Report have been implemented by the GMB Union IN FULL?

If you cannot give that commitment, why not?

* I should add that ex-Cllr Eling tried to convince West Midlands Police to prosecute me after I exposed some of his misconduct and when he was dissatisfied with their response he wrote to your alleged mate Spellar asking him to intervene with the CPS. Spellar had refused to say whether he actually did so. Is this wholly inappropriate behaviour something else you condone - especially given your previous position?

Yours faithfully, (End of Letter)

With regard to the employees of the GMB Union referred to in the above letter we are aware that one of them has - with GMB funding - instructed solicitors who are sending letters to any identifiable people who retweeted the "GMB Sisters" letter on Twitter. And the GMB are fishing to try and discover the identity of "the Sisters" rather than getting on with root and branch reform.

We have also written (again by post and email) to Angela Rayner, Louise Haigh, Sarah Owen and Jonathan Ashworth asking giving them the opportunity to respond to the allegation that they had knowledge of some of these lurid allegations but, like their Leader, they have not seen fit to respond.

Upon receipt of the Monaghan Report (which did not report on the allegations of serious criminality) the GMB Union claimed that it had taken the recommendations on board and would change its atrocious behaviour. To the outsider there is precious little evidence of that too date and, in the unlikely event that members are stupid enough to remain in this repugnant union after reading this, they need to demand change and find out how much of their money has been lavished on pay-offs to errant officials and for the all these investigations.

In the meantime a Trade Union that has accepted the QC's view that it is "institutionally sexist, bullying and misogynistic" still feels able to tout for business with sick tweets like this!

Published by Ian Crow Multimedia Limited

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Track and Trace - Are You Appy?

"Mr and Mrs Crow" were ordered into self-imposed house arrest by the NHS App recently. They are law- abiding folk and immediately complied even though there was a curiosity as the App only asked them to self-isolate for 10 days rather than 14.

The Crows wondered where they had come into close proximity with the infected person but was told that the information was unavailable and even the alleged date could not be supplied. He duly wrote to Baroness Dido Harding, the Government's unelected Track and Trace supremo; Sir Simon Stevens CE of NHS England; and the Crow's MP, Sajid Javid:

Dear Lady Harding,

NHS Track and Trace

THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION

In the early hours of 4th November my wife and I (both constituents of Sajid Javid MP)  separately received notice to self-isolate for 10 days via the NHS Track and Trace app.

We like to think we are responsible citizens - hence why we downloaded the app in the first place - and if we have been in contact with a Covid carrier then we are obviously prepared to self-isolate for the greater good. We also understand that the app system works on the basis of anonymity.

However, there is nothing on the app which tells us where and when the alleged contact is supposed to have occurred. The system is ordering us into self-imposed house arrest for 10 days with no information whatsoever - a big ask noting the multiple reported failings of the app to date.

We scoured the app but there is no contact point we could find. There are confusing references to receiving contact by email or text but neither of us has heard anything. There is reference to a PHE website but you cannot even sign into that without a mythical “code”.

I contacted the app via the technical query link and received a message back to dial 119. I duly called that line today to be told that my query has nothing to do with them as they only make appointments for tests etc.

We are two days into the house arrest without any information as to when and where this alleged meeting occurred and this is wholly unsatisfactory. All three addressees to this letter have been garlanded with titles for  “public service” and so perhaps one of you can tell us the information we seek?

There has been no response from the Baroness so far but NHS England referred Mr Crow to the App people. They duly responded that the whole thing works on the basis of anonymity and they can't provide ANY information.

Sajid Javid also responded:

"As I understand it, The Track and Trace Service, for data protection reasons, will not release any information about where you may have come into contact with someone who has tested positive for coronavirus, to protect the individual and/or the establishment." [Our emphasis.]

Quite why the App cannot even state the date of the alleged encounter remains a mystery.

All well and good you may think but then this from the BBC News website concerning the Prime Minister:

Mr Hancock also commented in the same BBC piece and did not demur when it was said that a specific meeting was the location of the contact:

It would seem (?) from this that Mr Anderson quite properly contacted Track and Trace who duly contacted the Prime Minister (and others). If that is correct then it is clearly not a data protection breach for the NHS to phone one up and say where the contact occurred and even who it was but this is NOT allowed via the App! What madness is this?

We are, of course, assuming that this is what happened here and wonder why neither the MP or PM apparently use the App (apart from possible security reasons for the latter) which is not a great advert for it. If we are wrong and the App was used then clearly the NHS CAN provide information to those on high like Boris but not to mere plebs.

Given that this whole system relies of public confidence and the government is asking its citizens to deprive themselves of their liberty we still feel that some sort of explanation from Number 10 or Baroness Harding is warranted here!

(We are happy to report that Mr and Mrs C self-isolated and didn't succumb to any symptoms other than a nasty taste in the mouth.)

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Trolls Backed Again By Twitter and Google!

 In 2013 local campaigning journalist, Julian Saunders, started a controversial blog, "In The Public Domain" - more commonly known as "The Sandwell Skidder". He sought to expose fraud, corruption, cronyism and incompetence at Labour-controlled Sandwell Council and has done so with some considerable success. Needless to say this has the local Labour politicians greatly exercised and so Julian has been the subject of everything from death threats to industrial-scale social media trolling almost right from the off. One virulent Twitter trolling network centred around a former Councillor is still highly active in attacking him (and others) today.

In addition to the main Skidder blog Mr Saunders is collobaratively involved via a small news team in others - one of which is devoted to recording the history of the various trolling campaigns against him. For the same purpose he set up a Twitter account some years ago but was advised by Twitter that, incredibly, exposing Twitter trolls was, in fact, a breach of its own Terms of Service so that he took the account down.

Last year Mr Saunders acquired a stalker - a resident of Sandwell. Julian says:

"Prior to the General Election a source was passing me Regional Labour Party information that they were is trouble which I duly shared. Suddenly a local woman, whom I have never met, contacted me demanding that I reveal my sources which I obviously refused to do. She then started trolling me, initially through her own Twitter account."

[Of course, the information was mixed but fundamentally true and Labour lost the two West Bromwich parliamentary seats.]

Needless to say the Stalker soon ran into trouble and the Twitter account was closed down. But as is the way with trolls a new "anonymous" account appeared and started a prolific campaign against Julian (from what we have seen at least 95% of the prodigious output was specifically directed at Mr Saunders).

The troll was only followed by a few anonymous troll accounts all of which were seemingly connected with the above-mentioned former Councillor. A Labour source (though currently suspended by the Party) told Julian that he was also communicating with the network and the Stalker although he had never met her. He also said that a currently serving Labour Councillor is involved. 

Of course, the Stalker soon began to give herself away and got nastier and nastier. Mr Saunders takes up the story again:

"I do some voluntary work mostly connected with arts and heritage projects. For the last couple of years I have helped out at an annual South-Asian Dance event. When I tweeted about this the Stalker tweeted that I am "racist" and tagged the organisers of the event. The stalker is also aware that my wife's work is principally with BAME artists and so this was a particularly evil, unfounded and malicious attack."

Twitter eventually took the new trolling account down but in a particularly bizarre twist the Stalker herself broadcast that they had matched the phone number of the trolling account to the personal account that had already been taken down! And, of course, a new Twitter account appeared within hours.

The stalker appears to run a micro-business in a self-employed capacity although even this is unclear since in the first Covid lockdown she was tweeting that she had been "furloughed" and that she is a member of Unite the Union - both things indicative of employed status. She also said she was paying tax, national insurance and pension whilst furloughed which again makes it look like the micro-business is not her main occupation.

For those unfamilar with Twitter it is usual to place a very small profile picture in a small disc at the head of the account. We cannot show you the Stalker's profile for reasons which will become apparent but here is the header for Julian's account:

The picture in the roundel is very small. Unless the reader has very good eyesight it is difficult to define detail. Again for non-Twitter users this picture features against each short message, or "tweet", on the site. Where a Tweet contains originallly-created material it is, theoretically, copyrighted to the author. Here's one from Mr Saunders again:

But the whole point of Twitter (and, indeed, Google Blogger) is freely-sharing information - world-wide. Thus, to take the example of the above "tweet", other users can tap the screen to "retweet" or pass on the "tweet" to their own circle of friends and followers. Twitter's Terms of Service provide it explictly, and other users implicity, with a licence to publish and share material (subject to certain other constraints eg in respect of obscene or abusive material) via retweets, comments etc. In the above example, if Times Radio had retweeted the post Julian would not have been able to claim copyright due to the implicit Twitter licence.

However... The Twitter terms also say that a profile of header photo CAN be copyrighted and sharing it even via Twitter can be "unauthorized" subject to American copyright law (the big tech companies mostly being based in California) and to a "fair use exemption". 

Some time ago a particular person was involved with another massive trolling campaign against Mr Saunders and he started to make various claims relating to copyright in respect of his abusive output. By coincidence (or not) the Stalker has hit upon the same strategy. In the small roundel profile picture she has embedded a tiny watermark claiming copyright of her picture to her micro-business. Thus anyone in the whole wide world who retweets or otherwise copies any of her tweets is theoretically in breach of her copyright (subject to legal US "fair use" exemptions). This, of course, is directly against the whole rationale of Twitter and its business model yet they have upheld her activities! At least to date.

We have seen the Stalker's current profile. Quite frankly we could not see the miniscule watermark with the naked eye. Even when clicking on the profile image to expand it the mark was tiny. This appears to be a crude attempt at entrapment of other Twitter users whom the Stalker disagrees with and a direct assault on the "spirit" of that social media site.

Needless to say the Stalker soon felt able to comment on Julian but when he, and the local community activist she was also commenting on, copied her tweets she immediately claimed copyright infringement on the basis of the unreadable watermark! As is so often the case with Twitter they turned the tables and threatened Mr Saunders and the activist that Twitter would close their accounts if there are "continuing" breaches of copyright!

The moral of the story for Twitter users is to examine all profiles with a magnifying glass before retweeting or commenting on a post and victims of trolling must find other means of redress outside Twitter itself.

In a further twist, the Stalker complained to Google Blogger about the blog exposing the troll accounts and Google removed the entire blog without providing any real reason. Just think about that for a moment. Google, who do not own Twitter,  have stopped a site from showing the public Twitter troll accounts ie posts which the trolls themselves have freely placed in the public domain. Until now, there has been no right of appeal (although Mr Saunders is finally in touch with Google's Legal Department).

Another extraordinary feature of this episode is that the Stalker has used Twitter anonymously and yet we must assume that she has disclosed her identity to Google in making her complaint to them. One would have thought from this that Google must be satisfied that the abusive anonymous troll posts were written by the complainant who has otherwise sought to conceal her identity. They are seemingly prepared to trample on Mr Saunders's right to freedom of speech under UK common law and pursuant to Article 8 Human Rights Act 1998 on the "evidence" of an anonymous troll. Surely the fact of the complaint is an admission by the Claimant that she is the author of the abusive posts or are we missing something here?

In any event, Google have not only taken down the posts relating to the Stalker's output but the whole blog which seems to indicate that any media outlet publishing copies of abusive Twitter accounts has somehow infringed its own policy.

By yet another amazing coincidence, after the Stalker managed to attack the troll blog the serving Labour Councillor made a complaint to Google and they took down a post from The Sandwell Skidder news blog several months after it had been published. Google have only taken down the one post but have failed to say why. This appears to be in direct contravention of UK and EU law (and we are still in the EU - just!) Once again they appear to have discriminated against a well-read local journalism service without proper explanation.

We will let you know how Julian Saunders gets on with Google Legal Department but please email below if you have any comment, legal thoughts etc (unfortunately our small team has had to remove the direct comment section from this blog - because of the same Stalker!)

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Marcus Rashford Silent on Company Tax Affairs!

 On 7th October, 2020 we raised the question why Marcus Rashford was seemingly paying such a low rate of tax via one of his companies (where he has stashed at least £3.5m). Before publishing the post we attempted to ask Mr Rashford if there was an explanation for the apparent anomaly but received no response. The original post can be found via this link:

http://crowmultimedia.blogspot.com/2020/10/marcus-rashford-tax-mystery.html

On 26th October, 2020 we wrote to Marcus, this time sending the letter by post to The Manchester United training complex at Carrington. Judging by "his" Twitter output he has a very professional PR team working for him but we have still not received a response. Here is the letter:

"Dear Mr Rashford,

Tax - MUCS Enterprises Limited

We have unsuccessfully tried to contact you via your website concerning the amount of tax paid by your above-named Company and also tried to bring this to your attention via social media. May we ask that you pass the enclosed article on this subject to your advisers or Grant Thornton and we look forward to hearing from you or them.

Yours faithfully,"

We hope that he will now get his team to respond!

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Britain's Worst Wetherspoons?

Refresher: 21st August, 2023. Since writing this piece there has been a cull of some of the Houses of Horror in the 'Spoons estate. I am delighted to say that The Pear Tree in Kings Heath, Birmingham, has gone. It was undoubtedly the worst from my own personal experience. The almost-as-bad Rising Sun has set in Redditch, and West Brom's Billiard Hall has been potted too.

To be fair, the vile Kings Heath hell-hole has been replaced with The Navigation in Kings Norton which, so far, is a cut above (pun intended).

However, I did have the misfortune of visiting the ghastly White Swan in Solihull on Saturday. This appalling pub was rammed at lunchtime but my companion and I found it so depressing we beat a hasty retreat after one pint.

Here's the original post. Anymore I should add to the list?

It is easy to mock Wetherspoons and so I should start with bouquets before brickbats. Like most drinkers I use the chain from time to time where I cannot find a suitable "independent" alternative. In the years before the plague, I enjoyed The High Constable of England on Gloucester Docks, Goodman's Field near the Tower of London and, for exceptional service in a busy environment, The Sir John Hackshaw at Cannon Street Station - again in London (although my judgement of the latter may have been clouded by the stunning beauty of the serving staff!)

However, most drinkers have suffered the interminable wait for service prevalent throughout the chain only to be presented with a badly-kept, undrinkable, ale from what had appeared to be a mouth-watering range. And the usual vertiginous climb to the lavatory is the stuff of legend.

Sometimes the chain manages to present both good and bad in the same town. In Redditch (the apex of North Worcestershire's Bore-muda Triangle) the Mulleted One presents the relatively civilised The Royal Enfield on the one hand, and the dire mouth of Hades The Rising Sun on the other!

Yesterday I opinied on social media that The Pear Tree in the Kings Heath suburb of Birmingham must surely me the worst Spoons in Britain. Respected commentators on the pub scene soon suggested alternatives for the tarnished crown with the two stand-outs being The Dragon Inn, Weston-super-Mare (described as "beyond grim") and The George Hotel, Whittlesey (near Peterborough.)

Bubbling under the top three are The Old Swanne Inn, Evesham and the unimaginatively named, er, Wetherspoons at Piccadilly, Manchester (surely destined to soon become the Saint Marcus Rashford.)

The Billiard Hall, West Bromwich surprisingly escaped condemnation although the state of the Gents leaves a lot to be desired!

Image - City A.M.

Please email with any thoughts for other entrants to the Hall of Shame or with comments generally! 

To follow the thoughts of erudite pub-lovers on Twitter do try:

@oldmudgie

@WestBromEL

@RogerProtzBeer

@NHS_Martin

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Marcus Rashford Tax Mystery!

Before the usual suspects reach for the digital equivalent of the green ink bottle may we say that we are are great admirers of the playing skills of Manchester United and England star Marcus Rashford. We wish him well and fervently hope to see him and his England team mates lift the World Cup one fine day. Neither are we perverted socialists embittered with envy. We do not begrudge him what the market dictates he is worth. To quote Labour's Peter Mandleson, "we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes".

Young Marcus has hit the headlines recently by campaigning for working people much poorer than himself (many of whom are struggling themselves due to Covid) to subsidise meals during the school holidays for parents who cannot feed their own kids. Mr Rashford describes these meals as "free" but, of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch and it is us hard-pressed taxpayers who must actually shoulder the additional cost and cough-up the dosh.

We came across this small piece recently (alas we did not record the source and can give no attribution):

(Please keep in mind the 19% Corporation Tax rate.)

This led us to take a look at Companies House records with a rather surprising result. Unlike the web of limited companies and "limited liability partnerships" set up by rich as Croesus striker turned "left-winger" Gary Lineker, Rashford has just three limited companies to his name - all registered at the Manchester offices of the large accountancy firm, Grant Thornton. In 2019 he set up a property development company like Red stars Gary Neville and Ryan Giggs before him. He also set up a separate property company which has charges registered against three properties, all situated in the Cheshire "footballer belt".

The Company that concerns us is the third, MUCS Enterprises Limited. We will just note in passing that Rashford has clearly been very well advised (which is good) since he became director of this company as long ago as June 2015. The latest accounts were filed in February of this year for the year ending 30th April, 2019 (and one assumes that Marcus's worth continues to increase). 

Despite the amount of money sloshing around here the law provides for fairly limited information to be publicised. A limited company has two main accounting documents - a profit and loss account (which is not publicly disclosed) and a balance sheet (which is). There is a mention of trademarks in the accounts and so it is possible that this relates to income arising from his image and other rights (in addition to his pay for playing football.)

The balance sheet shows a transfer of monies in from the profit and loss account of a stonking £3,546,352. Rashford has been allowed to claim deferred taxation of just £1,468. There is reference to "accrued income" which may or may not be relevant but on the face of it he should have been paying 19% Corporation Tax of the profit and loss figure ie. £673,806.88 of which £1,468 has been deferred. Yet the accounts show the sum of corporation tax actually handed over to the taxman as just £266,867 - well below the headline rate. On the face of it, the tax paid appears to be over £400,000 "short" which would pay for an awful lot of "free" school meals!

There is no suggestion by us of any impropriety by Mr Rashford since he is expertly advised by professionals. We are not accountants (thank god) and so we wrote to Marcus's management via his website querying this apparent anomaly but they have not condescended to reply. Perhaps they will now ask Grant Thronton to explain this mystery to us all?

[If you have found this post interesting please consider a donation to Save The Children.]

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Me and A Miner's Son....

Terry had only recently moved into No. 9 in 2001 when he took in two packages for me. On my return from work he called me into his porch to collect them. One was a very tall and thin package and the other a heavy rectangular one. In those pre-Amazonian times I was not expecting anything and was anxious to disgorge the contents. But the social niceities had to be observed and a neighbourly chat ensued until Terry himself asked me if I was going to open the curious parcels.

I sh*t ye not but Terry gasped in amazement as I ripped away the cardboard on package one and he was confronted by the grinning face of Nicholas Parsons. I went on to reveal a life-size figure of the great man. Of course, I was then obliged to explain to my new neighbour that I had "history" with Parsons and that I had asked Woolworths for one of these magnificent figures which had been used for promotional display bearing the legend, "Nick's Pick of the Day". (I had him in the doorway greeting guests at house parties as shown in the pic below.) Alas, only the disembodied head remains.

I then opened the second package to reveal a lovely letter from The Rt. Hon. Lord Jenkins of Hillhead O.M. together with a present from him of his biography of Gladstone. "Oh", I said casually to Terry, "it's just a present to me from a Lord." I gathered my booty and left him standing open-mouthed, wondering what sort of nutter was living next door.

The fact is that I have always been something of a fan of Jenkins, that grandest of political grandees in my younger days. Whilst he became a hate-figure of the, er, hate-filled "left" he was, of course, a great reformer and chalked up two major "wins", the decriminalisation of homosexuality and abortion.

In a single sentence he laid down what would now be called a "roadmap" for what used to be called "race relations" and we might have all been better off had we heeded his words: "I define integration, therefore, not as a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance".

Jenkins certainly enjoyed the good things in life. He liked to describe himself as being of humble origins but his father had made good. A biographer famously stated of Jenkin's claim to be a miner's son that this was true, "but only in the way that it is true to describe Mrs Jackie Onassis as the widow of a Greek merchant seaman." The same writer said of his super-posh accent that he made Sir John Gielgud sound like "rough trade"!

I came late to his books but, for the most part, he writes in a breezy and very readable - if sometimes "High Edwardian" - style. In his political biographies his own considerable experience allows him genuine insight into parliamentary dramas of yore and to vouchsafe secrets of the dark political arts.

In 2001 I happened to listen - accidentally - to a ghastly phone-in, "Call Nick Ross". Nick (or his stand-in) lost their marbles and excitedly announced that "Lord Jenkins" was holding on the line. Of course, it was absurd to think that his Lordship would put down his fine glass of claret and bandy words with the hoi polloi on the "wireless". High farce duly followed. "Is that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead calling?", the presenter gasped. A bemused Welshman responded, "No, sorry - it's Lloyd Jenkins of Wrexham"!

I wrote to Roy describing this nonsense and making favourable comment on some of his writing. A lovely letter was returned with the book.

After the bouquet, the brickbat. During lockdown I read Jenkins's "Twelve Cities". It was a charity shop purchase as it had a chapter on Birmingham. But it is a terrible read which should never have been published. This lightweight tome - money for old rope - astonishingly bore an original retail price of £25! The work is a series of super-lightweight essays describing his sojourns in various places, the agreeable places he slept in and, of course, his fine dining experiences.

In the last few days I became aware that the incomparable Craig Brown in Private Eye had satirised this shocker in 2002 in his own brilliant style. As a devotee of the Eye for more than 40 years (and the supplier of occasional titbits to the "Rotten Borough" column) I wrote to them and in double quick time they have very kindly supplied me with the article. Craig Brown substitutes the "12 Cities" for tube stations and takes us a wonderful flight of fancy mocking Jenkins's patrician style. I particularly liked "Roy's" thoughts on Totteridge and Whetstone which includes this:

"I was never a Cardinal myself, though I cannot claim this omission causes me a very great deal of regret. In the late 1950's, I was for a short while Archbishop of Verona but, for all its splendid sartorial opportunities, I found the post in the main tiresome, and communication with the Lord Almighty for the most part haphazard and tiresomely one-way."

Note: Craig Brown STILL writes for Private Eye and there is a sparkling piece in the current edition on John Bolton. GO OUT AND BUY THE EYE NOW!

The "12 Tube Stations" piece marvellously mimicks Jenkins's style which does have the tendency to lurch towards the, well, pompous. Craig Brown's only "miss" is that Lord Roy rarely writes a piece without using the word "eleemosynary" (Google it!)

We could do with a few more like Roy Jenkins in the political sphere now. We have recently lost Nicholas Parsons but happily Craig Brown is still strutting his splendid stuff.

By the way, Terry moved away shortly after the above incident......

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

A Life In Pubs #1 - Refurbs #1

Such is the vandalism visited on our UK public house house estate by "pubco's" and other hooligan owners that one hesitates to recommend establishments for fear that philistines have torn the beating hearts from once-fine and chersished haunts.

On Twitter some excellent commentators are currently listing favourite places of assignation. Look out for the likes of @oldmudgie and @VauxWanderer. Dare I join in? Or will I get that, "why on earth did he rave about that dump" look from those who have been disappointed after following one's blandishments that they simply MUST imbibe at The Old Crow or The Barker Arms.

Back in the day I spent much time in Banks's pubs. There were generally basic but buzzing with life - proper pubs. In the 70's and 80's they employed probably the worst interior designers [sic] available and nothing struck more terror in customers than the news that their pub was to be "done up." 

I spent 6 months in the early 80's working in an office in Walsall in the days when having a pint at lunchtime was not a capital offence. On day 1, wearing a suit, I entered the bar of The Prince Blucher. As in the classic Western movies silence befell the chattering mass inside. I edged to the beautiful long oak bar, ordered a pint of Banks's bitter and a bloke leaned across and asked me what I was "up for" assuming my attire presaged a visit to the nearby Magistrates' Court.

I became a, temporary, "regular". The wonderful landlady, Rose, expended much effort trying to persuade me to use the Lounge Bar as my suit clearly identified me as a "gent". But I was happy as I was and loved the place (currently, and probably terminally, kaput.) I left Walsall but heard that The Prince had been given the Banks's "treatment". I eventually went in to find an almost completely deserted whitewashed bar. The superb wooden counter was no more. All character - and customers - had disappeared. But dear Rose was still there and, this time, physically dragged me into the Lounge chirruping about how beautiful it was. I sh*t ye not but I encountered a small room gormlessly decorated with vivid wallpapers - including flock - and featuring, in pride of place, that ghastly print of white horses in the Camargue which was so inexplicably popular in those days. As the reporters used to write in the, also now defunct, "News of The World", I made my excuses and left.....

Should I mention a classic and one of my all-time favourites but which I haven't visited since the 80's? Has it too been despoiled? Pictures suggest not so here goes - The Olde Ship Inn, Seahouses. This place - visited many times during two Northumberland excursions - was run by an incredible chap called Alan Glen. Not only did he attend brilliantly to punters in the small crowded bar but every single week he religiously cleaned the mass of nautical memorabilia festooning every available inch on the walls and ceiling. Is it still a classic? Do let me know when the pumps start flowing again....

                       @CrowMultimedia                        

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Libel Law - a curious decision?

A controversial local blogger has found himself in hot water concerning allegations he made regarding the allocation of council housing. This is a David v Goliath contest as the Claimant is funded by a very large Trade Union.

The Blogger writes about the doings of a council in the West Midlands - until the general election a Labour fief with that Party holding, at times, as many as 71 of the 72 council seats.

The Blogger wrote regarding the allocation of a council property to a married couple (the couple) who were both employees of the council. More particularly, they were both full-time trade union officials via facility time and very active in the Labour Party. They were also both closely connected to one of the Labour MP's representing the area (and a very powerful one at that.). Importantly they were already resident in the council area.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not apply to council house allocations. The Blogger informed the High Court that he had attended a meeting with three serving Labour councillors who informed him that one or more councillors had intervened during the allocation process on behalf of the couple. He also received an anonymous phone call about a different matter where the information provided proved to be accurate. During the call the same allegation of intervention was also made and recorded by The Skidder in a file note. A Land Registry search established that the address was indeed council-owned.

The Blogger told the Court all the above in Affirmation evidence. He stated that in the absence of the ability to do a FOI check he had decided that he could not make a direct allegation of wrongdoing by any party.

In any event (and see also below) it was not initially clear which councillor or councillors had allegedly intervened.

The Blogger decided to write about this matter and fell foul of innuendo rules. He didn't write that the couple HAD received assistance but reported that three serving councillors (of the same political party) had SAID that they had received help from an unnamed councillor. He questioned the couple's eligibility (as two employees of the Council) and joked that he hoped they had "not spent too long on the waiting list."

No complaint was made and the Skidder repeated the allegation (in fact no complaint was made for 211 days.)

On a hearing as to meaning the High Court has decided, to the bemusement of the Blogger, that the publication means that the claimant obtained a council house CORRUPTLY by exploiting her political connections. At present the Skidder's lawyers say there is no prospect of appealing this.....

This raises some important issues for journalists and bloggers. Firstly, as FOI's are not allowed it seems to us that a reporter can only get evidence of the mis-allocation of council (etc) houses via leaks - which are, we assume, potentially illegal? The journo/blogger would then have to decide whether there was a public interest in publication. Yet such allegations are frequently promulgated - see two recent ones from The Sun and Private Eye set out below. Is there a significant legal difference in what the Blogger said and the Sun article? If so, what is it?

Secondly, the Skidder says he always understood that councillors assist would-be tenants on a daily basis. In evidence to the High Court he referred in evidence to The Allocation of Housing (Procedure) Regulations 1997. The Blogger was of the view that councillors may assist local residents obtain housing unless they are ward councillors for the ward where the applicant already lives OR represents the ward where the council house is located.

Is this wrong? If so, the Skidder is not the only one labouring under this misapprehension since other councils take this view. For example, this is from the Wrexham Council website very recently:

At no point did the Skidder publish that a ward councillor was involved. (As it happens a non-ward councillor provided a written statement to the High Court specifically stating that he HAD intervened to assist the couple's application but even though this was a preliminary hearing and the witness was not called to give oral evidence and be tested under cross-examination the Learned Judge  seemingly discounted that evidence.)

This seems to us to create a massive elephant-trap for reporters. If there is suspicion as to how someone has seemingly "jumped the queue" via the assistance of a councillor which a journo/blogger thinks reportworthy s/he will have to ascertain (1) whether the councillor was a ward councillor and (2) whether the applicant has "political connections" with the Councillor or Council.

Whatever the actual facts of the present case it would have been totally legal for them to ask a non-ward councillor to assist them but because the Blogger suggested that help was allegedly given because of political connections this amounts, in libel law, to an allegation of corruption liable to damages (in the absence of other defences!)

If any legal eagles out there have any comment on this please email iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com asap.

Incidentally, the case continues.....

From "The Sun":

From "Private Eye":

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com