A Whittingdale scandal timeline and comments,

Timeline updated 

What did he know and when did he know it?

2013 in his 12/4/16 statement Wittingdale says they met  on Match.com in August in the year

November 2013  Latest date that Byline suggests relationship starts, although it could be at any point before then

November 2013   People Investigation into Whittingdale commences

November 10 2013 MTV Europe awards the couple attend

December 2013 Sport Ball attended by couple

New year 2014 Westminster New year party attended

January 2014 People concludes investigation according to Private Eye as it appears person selling story then moved on to trying to sell story to the Sun  this must suggest that  they must have been told the story was not going to happen at the first paper. after all you don't blow the exclusive fee

February 2014 Mail on Sunday investigation starts

February 2014  Whittingdale  finishes relationship according to statement

spring 2014 point where  reporters inform Whittingdale of  investigation and relationship ends according to Wittingdale Statement. According to Telegraph this was reporters from the People
is the Telegraph mistaken about which papers minions were involved? If not  then why would reporters from the People turn up to confront him weeks after the story was cancelled

January 2015 last point at which Byline suggests relationship was known to be still running

May 2015 Independent starts Investigation

October 2015 Independent gains information on MTV Europe attendance

20 October 2015 Independent shuts down its  Investigation

April 1 2016 Nick Mutch Byline Article appears 

April 6th hacked off  launches   Camerons Broken Promises campaign, doesn't mention 

Whittingdales problem. (if they were part of an organised attack, you would think it would top their list)

April 10th 2016 two Byline articles by James Cusick appear   at Midday  here and here 

April 10th 2016 Senior Hacked Off people appear to notice at around 7:30 pm

April 10th 2016  First official hacked off Comment  10:30 pm

April 12th Private eye appears with large Whittingdale article, story appears in line with Byline version

April 12th Whittingdale produces a public statement about the affair 

April 12th Newsnight first Brings Whittingdale story to wider audience Brian Cathcart on for an interview, over the affair, but apart from that hacked off have no involvement in the segment.

April 13th press commentators begin to suggest  that  Hacked off are behind the Byline stories  here and here

April 13th onwards a selection of journalists take it as read and comment as if it is proved that hacked off are the Machiavellian figures behind the stories on Whittingdale

Comment

Mail goes as far as claiming Hacked Off funds Byline, something that Byline and Hacked off emphatically deny. Telegraph manages to blame the BBC and calls the story a smear, quoting a minister, he suggests that there is no public interest in running the story.  If the story was purely about the ministers sex life this might actually be true, Unfortunately there are  also suggestions that this situation has resulted in pressure upon the minister to make political decisions in a way that would result in advantage for the people who he is meant to be regulating. It is difficult to see how  any story produced by newspapers in the last six months was less in the public interest when you take this into account.

Much of the presses attack on hacked off comes from the suggestion that they have Hypocritically changed their position on the privacy of individuals,  It looks as if the press are using this scandal as  less a problem, and more an opportunity to attack their opponents.  Place your opponents on the defensive when they should be rightly holding you to account is a good strategy, however if further information appears the whole situation could reverse very quickly, with fleet streets PR fronts looking even more grubby than they usually do.

If we look at  what Hacked off and its senior people have said in the past we find theres actually a considerable difference from the  "privacy at all costs" fanaticism that the newspapers suggest they espouse. When asked about public interest and privacy in front of Lord leveson the following reply came back

PROFESSOR CATHCART:  Yes, I would also say, with George's

            18       assistance, Hacked Off is looking at these issues and

            19       will in due course, I hope, with City's co-operation, be

            20       producing a proposal for you on these issues of

            21       a definition and where it might apply.

            22           On the issue of privacy legislation, I'm more with

            23       Steve.  I'm doubtful about the need for new legislation,

            24       and I think one of the reasons we debate the need for

            25       new legislation is because the media, which have

             1       a vested interest in wrecking what there is now, have

             2       hogged the debate for so long and have shouted at us all

             3       through their mighty megaphone for so long that we

             4       believe there's something wrong, when I'm not convinced

             5       there is.

Reading the whole of their evidence, Hacked off acknowledged that there were situations where  privacy would come behind the public interest, but favoured a legal definition of what the public interest is so that journalists and the subjects of their stories knew where they stood. this is somewhat different to the ideas that a variety of columnists and reporters have claimed they possess. If there is any sign of a smear, it more appears to be coming from a variety of journalists and ex journalists.

Further Organisational Shuffling

 Just to update the organisation of the YBF/CWF/Cherish Freedom group of companies

Here  I noted that having gone from one monolithic group  it had split into two seeming separate groups.  One being Conservative way Forward, a trading name of a group called  Conservative Campaign Organisation Limited,  and having Two directors, Paul Abbot and Donal Blaney the second being Cherish Freedom Ltd, which was trading as the Young Britons' Foundation. and had one director, Donal Blaney.

Now we find that in the weeks after the first Blog post the structure has undergone a few changes.

Firstly the group behind CWF, the Conservative  Campaign Organisation Ltd has changed its name to Conservative Way Forward Ltd and has changed it's  directors. both Donal Blaney and Paul Abbot have quit,  and the new director is a man called Paul Osborn . Now he has appeared before as he was one of the Founder Donors of the Young Britons' Foundation, and the YBF's former  Director of Strategy. 

Blaney is said to have quit due to his wife's medical problems, and an increasing US legal business, no reason is given for Abbot leaving however.

In further changes, the Young Briton's Foundation is no longer a trading name of Cherish Freedom, but is now a  trading name of  YBF Training Limited.   A company  with a single director,  One Donal Blaney. It would seem reasonable to ask if an organisation with such a newsworthy reputation needed to be separated off from the Thatcher Center and Library, even by implication that its parent organisation was connected to a group which might be seen to have a damaged reputation can't be good for a group that has to rely on a reputation for probity for its fundraising.

Cherish Freedom  is no longer under the directorship of  Donal Blaney,  Instead it is now under the directorship of Connor Burns, however all correspondence is still directed to the offices of  Donal Blaneys Law firm, Griffin Law and it is listed on the corporate paperwork as acting as company secretary. It might be considered that with this strong connection still in existence that the distancing between the YBF and  Cherish Freedom are not as Effective as would seem on the surface.

No doubt any further changes will be viewed with interest.

Is it time OFCOM revisited its fit and proper person test for Sky?

Today we hear the news that James Murdoch returns to  the Chairman's post at Sky   the BBC reports 

He quit after News Corp, his father Rupert's business, failed to push through a takeover of the broadcaster.

News Corp owned 39% of the BSkyB business.

James Murdoch also resigned as chairman of News International after claims that journalists working for the organisation had hacked into phones of celebrities

shouldn't that be he mainly quit in the aftermath of reporting of the Phone Hacking scandal to prevent BskyB failing a Fit and proper person test and losing its broadcasting licence?

Let's look at the Ofcom Report here  In its conclusions  Ofcom says

"33. In our view, the evidence available to date does not provide a reasonable basis to find that James Murdoch knew of widespread wrongdoing or criminality at NOTW or that, by allowing litigation to be settled and by allowing NGN and News International executives to make the representations they did, he was complicit in a cover up. 

34. However, a company director is required to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence in the exercise of his functions. He may delegate, but has a duty to supervise appropriately. We consider James Murdoch’s conduct, including his failure to initiate action on his own account on a number of occasions, to be both difficult to comprehend and ill-judged. In respect of the matters set out above, in our view, James Murdoch’s conduct in relation to events at NGN repeatedly fell short of the exercise of responsibility to be expected of him as CEO and chairman. 

35. James Murdoch has apologised for his conduct. He has acknowledged in a letter of 12 March 2012 to the CMSC that “wrongdoing should have been uncovered earlier. I could have asked more questions, requested more documents and taken a more challenging and sceptical view of what I was told, and I will do so in the future He has said that “I do think - and I share responsibility for this and I am sorry for it - the company took too long to come to grips with these issues. We agree. 

36. We consider that the events set out above raise questions regarding James Murdoch’s competence in the handling of these matters, and his attitude towards the possibility of wrongdoing in the companies for which he was responsible.

The final paragraph being particularly damning  on James ability to fulfill the role as Chairman.

After Discussing Rupert's lack of Involvement it comes back to say in effect that Because  James has stood down from his position as Chairman, he is just to be considered as an ordinary director, and as an ordinary director doesn't have enough influence to call the broadcast licence into question

45. Sky plc’s board has been subject to several recent changes. In addition to James Murdoch, it comprises 11 non-executive and two executive directors. James Murdoch is no longer the chairman; that role is now held by Nicholas Ferguson. The other non-executives are experienced individuals who would be expected to be capable of exercising effective independent oversight. Only three board members besides James Murdoch hold roles outside Sky plc which are linked to News Corporation. We have obtained an account from Sky plc of its governance structure, including the arrangements for board oversight of risk management and other controls within the business. 

46. In the circumstances, and notwithstanding our views in relation to James Murdoch’s conduct, we do not consider, having taken into account all the relevant factors, that on the evidence available to date Sky is no longer fit and proper to hold broadcast licences. Whilst we consider that James Murdoch’s conduct in various instances fell short of the standard to be expected of the chief executive officer and chairman, we do not find that James Murdoch’s retention as a non-executive director of Sky means that Sky is not fit and proper to hold broadcast licences. We recognise that whether it is appropriate for James Murdoch to be a director in light of the events is a matter for the Board and shareholders of Sky.

But the  decision concludes with the following paragraph

47. Our duty to be satisfied that a licensee is fit and proper is ongoing. Further evidence may become available in the future, which Ofcom would be obliged to consider in order to fulfil its duty. In particular, Ofcom considers that the findings of the Leveson Inquiry and the results of pending criminal proceedings (including evidence given in such proceedings) could be relevant to its performance of its duty under section 3(3).

Surely the re-installation of James in the position of Chairman is something  OFCOM is " obliged to consider in order to fulfil its duty." having criticised him so heavily in the report. as having raised questions to both his competence and attitude to wrongdoing, it is hard to see how the increase in influence gained in this promotion wouldn't cause OFCOM to at the very least ask some questions.

One thing that Might prevent OFCOM from having to make any decision yet might be the second part of Leveson. It could be seen as reasonable to delay till all the  evidence is in from that and that could give James an opportunity to develop a  reputation of competence and business ethics in post that they seem to think he was previously lacking.

Some odd coincidences in the Young Britons Foundation poster campaign

Some days odd details stand out like a sore thumb, and the one really odd detail in the last post was the £55,000 payment from Healthgear Contracts to the YBF. Why odd?  Well looking at it there are several details that ratchet up its inherent strangeness.

Firstly Healthgear contracts, and its successor companies main business appears to be  making  " furniture, furnishings and hardware that is designed to be unbreakable, anti-ligature and tamper-proof." for prisons, secure units and mental hospitals,  That is shower curtains that you can't use to hang yourself. A rather remarkable  coincidence for  a group that funded a poster and advertising campaign that had a main feature of Parliament in a noose. so far so coincidental. and you'd  consider that this could either  be entirely legitimate, or it could be down to one of Blaneys mob faking the details as to where the money has come from. and slipping in Healthgear as an inside joke  and a bit of a giggle for those in the know.

The  next odd detail that stood out was the payments registered with the electoral commission, one of £45,000 the other of £9,999, both in cash and both on consecutive days.  Now leaving aside the total for the moment, the second payment rather stands out, in cash it looks like an attempt to miss Mandatory cash transfer reporting limits, which from a quick search of the internet you'd assume to be £10,000. If you pay  More than the limit in, then you need all sorts of paperwork to suggest where the cash has come from and you aren't part of some organised crime ring. Now the initial £45,000 payment is also cash, and so suggests that it isn't just a joke on the part of one of Blaneys minions, but that it actually has come from Healthgear contracts, but the second payment makes  you think that healthgear is just being used as a collection point for funds, but they are sourced somewhere else and somebody didn't quite get their cash together on time.  all very strange.

The next oddity is  if you look at the Electoral commissions  Register of unincorporated associations making political contributions over £25,000 there are 63 of these registered with the Electoral commission,  groups like the Local Government Association Labour Group, and the Carlton Club all of which  are fairly public spirited bodies, members clubs, Union social clubs, that sort of thing all apart from one. Healthgear Contracts, which rather stands out as something just not like all the others. It makes you wonder how the Electoral Commission allowed this registration in this way. Aren't Unincorporated  associations  legally described as non profit making groups?

Healthgear Contracts appears to have changed post 2010 into a group of attached companies under the same Management, one Mr Rodney Dummer and a Mrs Jane Dummer. Of the four companies, three appear to be only just  trading, with at  most  £50 in the bank.  and the fourth appears to be  gradually working its way through its cash reserves at a rate of about £20,000 a year.  Hardly the sort of group that would have £55,000 knocking around to throw away on a political campaign unconnected with the business.

So where did the money come from? I've rung to ask but  although I've been promised replies, nothing has happened yet.

Another Chain of Coincidence

When the Liberal democrats first spotted a group of odd people turning up in their constituencies delivering the leaflets paid for by the Young Britons Foundation, and donated for by Healthgear Contracts,  there was much discussion of  whether  the  unrecognised groups delivering the printed work were agency staff, and cheap Immigrant workers employed by them working for the Tory Party at that.  however as with many other disagreements, between the two parties, any attention to this vanished after the  Coalition was formed. It wasn't in the LibDems interest to suddenly  point out  that the party that they shared Government with had links to some extremely unsavoury practices just before the election that had swept them into power.

An election later we find out via the Times that the people delivering those leaflets appear to have been  members of a group called the "PlymouthBrethren Christian Church" 

further articles suggest the same   as here

Many of the MPs who supported the Brethren’s cause had already received valuable help from the sect in marginal seat campaigns, however. Since 2009, Brethren members have been strongly encouraged to distribute political leaflets on behalf of mainly Tory MPs to thousands of homes across their constituencies. “When David Cameron was coming to power, the Brethren were suddenly told to leaflet as many areas as possible,” said one ex-member, who left in 2012. “They were told from the very top. There was a letter read out after one of the local meetings that we must help the Conservatives.”

 Looking further, at around this time the Plymouth Brethren  were involved in a Feud with the Charities Commission,  it was reported that a massed letter writing campaign took place to the charity commission, and to Mp's who then put further pressure on the commission. 

Now the minutes  of  the Brethren Committee discussing this appear to have been leaked and are available at http://wikipeebia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/RC-Meeting-Notes.pdf and here we have a strange  coincidence.  Mentioned in the middle of  these minutes is the phrase "Rod Dummer email is a warning." as the Plymouth Brethren have a doctrine of separation, that would suggest that Rodney is a member

.

 Rodney Dummer isn't a common name, according to the Registry of Births Marriages and Deaths, there were only one born since 1900, and there are no Roderick Dummers either, so what are the links between Rodney Dummer and the Plymouth Brethren? could they be the people who provided the cash that Rodney Dummer  passed on to the YBF for use in their poster and advertising campaign?

Why is this significant? well the Brethren, under their former name the Exclusive Brethren got into trouble over a Poster campaign trying to fix the election in New Zeeland back in 2005

The New Zeeland Herald said this at the time

Costly anti-Government leaflet drops throughout the country have been identified as the work of a conservative offshoot of the Brethren faith.The revelation is a surprise, as the Exclusive Brethren supposedly divorce themselves from worldly matters and do not normally vote.Exclusive Brethren socialise only with other Exclusive Brethren and eschew technology such as televisions, computers and cellphones.The anti-Green and anti-Labour leaflets printed by Business Printing Group in Onehunga are estimated to have cost between $30,000 and $40,000. New Zealand Post estimated distribution to major centres alone to cost between $55,000 and $60,000.The Green Party's own inquiries confirmed the identities of five people listed on the smear pamphlets as Exclusive Brethren.

This pamphlet campaign (similar to the YBF leaflet campaign eventually is thought to have lead to the resignation of the Leader of the NZ opposition.  and all together the Brethren spent over $1.2 Million NZ on their election campaign. After the  collapse of this campaign in New Zeeland, is it really so far fetched to think that the Church tries the same in the UK, only disguising its actions by using  the YBF , Media Intelligence Partners and Rodney Dummer as cut outs to disguise their campaigning? It is all coincidence, but are there too many all pointing in the same direction for it to be just fantasy?

 Have the YBF an apparent right wing entryist group trying to force the Conservative party down a right Libertarian line actually been taken advantage of by a group described as a religious cult?

Questions must be asked,

Some background about the Young Britons' Foundation and associates.

In the current flare of details coming out about the  Tatler Tory bullying affair, one group more than others has been scrambling for cover, and that is the Young Britons' Foundation.  Mark Clarke is reported to have been its Outreach Director, ( and several other figures  closely connected  have popped up in the various stories.  India Brummitt was  the YBF's  Operations Director.  Alexandra Patterson  had Public speaking training and TV training at the Young Britons’ Foundation Summer Conference in Washington DC Washington DC

 Now all the main people connected to  the YBF are distancing themselves as much as possible. Twitter feeds have been cancelled , any mentions of Clarke are being wiped from  feeds of people who had merely met him, facebook pages are being shut down and erased. The YBF initially  removed any mention of Clarke being on its staff, and having received an award, then went over to  removing access to parts of its site, and has now limited itself at least temporarily to a single page discussing the cancellation of an upcoming training weekend, and tries to deflect any blame for bullying to the  BBC.

The YBF was formed in 2003 and introduced to the world at a conference of the Young America's Foundation in Washington, D.C.  and according to it's since taken down  history was originally funded by  a group comprising Kevin Fallon,  John & Laura Midgeley,  Paul Osborn, Paul Shea,  Tom Scott, Chris Walsh and  Sarkis Zeronian. However  they were soon to attract funding from  amongst others The John William Pope Foundation   This foundation  is one of the biggest funders of Right leaning pressure groups in its state, and pushes against any influence of the left in University education.   From then there is very little sign  of any financial activity publicly available for the next seven years, although we know there must be some as the YBF was running along conducting training courses..

The next time they come to notice publicly taht can be found is in  2010 when the YBF were the Eighth biggest non-party electoral campaigner  spending  £134,860 on an advertising campaign  which consisted of printing 800,000 posters to be put through doors in LibDem/Con marginal seats, and full page adverst in  News International newspapers. The adverts appear to have been arranged  through Media  Intelligence Partners, a conservative  PR and advertising agency, we know this as that was where the resulting job invoices were sent.   This was the only campaigning that the YBF did according to its  paperwork registered with the electoral commission, and so any  declared election donations must have been towards this. 

Media Intelligence Partners is owned by Nick Wood, formerly Press Secretary and Media Director for Conservative Party leaders Ian Duncan-Smith and William Hague. and at the time  this happened  Christian May, a former YBF director of Operations, and now editor of City AM was an account manager there. it may be that he is the obvious connection between the two organisations.

A formal complaint was put in to the police about the YBFs advertising campaign reportedly  by at least one returning officer  as The Liberal democrats thought that the YBF were not properly registered with the Electoral Commission as a third party campaign, however this came to nothing when it emerged that the correct registration papers had been submitted by the  group. Although the formal process had not been completed, it was perfectly legal for the YBF to campaign as soon as the paperwork was in. No further action appears to have been taken, maybe because the Lib Dems were firmly ensconced in the coalition and didn't want to upset the neighbours. so didn't push for anything.

Looking further at electoral commission records, a  single contributor who is registered gave the YBF   a pound short on £55,000   now looking at the address mentioned in the  electoral commission, you'd think that College street is a nice leafy solicitors and doctors type of place. But when you go and look, it's actually an industrial estate that faces out onto the main railway line.  it seems an unlikely place to have had £55,000 spare  to throw away on a political campaign., especially in the  early years straight after the financial crash when things for most businesses were tight.

The Donal Blaney organisational Maze

If we look at the  Bottom of the YBF webpage we see the following  text

The Young Britons' Foundation and YBF are trading names of Cherish Freedom, a company incorporated in England & Wales under company registration number 08355124 and whose registered office is at Griffin Law, 60 Churchill Square, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent ME19 4YU. 

a quick check of companies house and we  find that the single director is  Mr Terence William Donal Blaney  the company secretary is Griffin Law, a company with one director, a Mr Terence William Donal Blaney 

Political scrapbook noted the Cherish Freedom trust receiving Charitable status last year and noted that at the time

Both ‘Conservative Way Forward’ and ‘Young Britons Foundation’ are trading names of his company Cherish Freedom Ltd. 

According to the registration lodged with the Charities Commission, Cherish Freedom Ltd is a  trustee of the charity Cherish Freedom trust whos aims are

"(i) To advance education by promoting public knowledge and understanding of the history of the 20th Century and more recent history, particularly in relation to the life and work of the Rt. Hon. The Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven LG, OM, FRS,..."

It is a wonder that the charity commissioners allowed the registration of a firm that is so closely connected to an incredibly similarly named firm to the back end of two overtly political organisations, the YBF and CWF, one of which had in effect  spent over £130,000 attacking a political party during a general election. Surely by this act alone Cherish freedom should disqualify itself from being considered by the charity commissioners, and thus not receive the tax free status it has gained by its classification.

Looking further there is a US Cherish Freedom organisation, the Cherish Freedom Foundation, run from an office in  Alexandria Virginia. here are itsdetails  According to the tax forms included the company president is one T.W Donal Blaney.

To connect the two companies together,  the YBF's webpage advertising its US trips talks here about how they will 

" experience American culture by going to see a Washington Nationals baseball match, attend a cigar reception hosted by YBF supporters,"  

Now the treasurer of  the Cherish Freedom Foundation (the US version) is one William J McCarthy and his  companies webpage  has a news section about the  " 4th Annual Cigars, Beer and Pizza Party for Young Britons’ Foundation"  WJM associates specialises in direct marketing, fundraising and advertising primarily for conservative causes. It is noticeable that the Cherish Freedom Foundation also claims links to the Margret Thatcher center, indeed through the Centers website  you can donate through either of the Trust or the Foundation, depending which section of the world you are in for tax purposes.

 In June this year  Blaney appears to have split CWF and YBF so that they each have their own separate back end company . YBF has stayed as part of  the  Cherish Freedom arm, but Conservative way Forward  has now become the trading name of Conservative Campaign Organisation Limited, a new company set up with two directors. Donal Blaney and Paul Abbott.Paul Abbott is Grant Shapps' former chief of staff and was one of the first people to say that he had complained about Mark Clarke.

It would be interesting to find out how the money travels between the several companies, and if it is possible that money raised by the US foundation could be spent by the YBF in projects like  the Election poster and advertising campaign.

A final corporate detail, at the same time that Blaney and Abbott were setting up  Conservative Campaign Organisation Limited,  Mark Clarke was setting up a company called Transatlantic Educational Alliance Ltd with Matthew Richardson who is Party Secretary of UKIP and  Executive Director of the YBF. The two companies were set up within a couple of weeks of each other.  Was there an organised handover of the YBF due to take place from Blaney to Clarke and Richardson?  or was it more a Putsch? Clarke and Richardsons new company seems to compete directly with the YBF  if there was any conflict it would be hard to explain the  Chummy photo on the  steps of the supreme court taken in August

With the Clarke situation falling apart Transatlantic Educational Alliance, Richardson and Clarkes company is in the process of ceasing to be.

Could it be that the whole situation has come about through petty corporate politics and backstabbing? and will it unwind taking the entire Blaney Thatcherite organisation with it? It is hard to see how the money can keep flowing into the Thatcher Center while investigations  into some of the surrounding people are ongoing. And with a charity like this, once trust is gone you have nothing.