Hancock’s secret meeting with Zuck

Online Harms

Jo Stevens is a member of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition.

She’s also the Shadow Media, Culture, & Sport Minister.

This tweet is her gloating at finally getting some detail of the clandestine meeting that took place between then Media Minister Matt Hancock and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Stevens is looking keen for the Online Harms Bill.

But what’s this?

Jo Steven’s Labour colleague Margaret Hodge is against online anonymity and backs the Online Harms Bill to protect her from the tens of thousands of abusive tweets she gets a month.

Stevens’ predecessor is Tom Watson, who got on very well with Margaret Hodge.


Watson, like Hodge, spent more of his time attacking then leader Jeremy Corbyn over allegations of antisemitism than he did on scrutinising the way media is governed.

So Watson, Hodge, Stevens, and Labour are all for the Online Harms Bill and dead against Jeremy Corbyn.

They think the Online Harms Bill can help them persecute the more left end of the Labour Party that supported Jeremy Corbyn.

Though Zuckerberg is not known as a Corbynista and Facebook’s advertising policy has been used to benefit the Conservatives far more than Labour, he will still be squeamish about cracking down on freedom of speech.


The double standards are obvious. Some messages are allowed to circulate but others are not.

Online behaviour is starting to be regulated, but who regulates the regulator?

Facebook has an Oversight Committee, sometimes referred to as a Supreme Court. This committee will have the final say over whether a post should be removed and why.

For now the Committee will not look into the issue of questioning deplatforming decisions.

The rationale for deplatforming is opaque – and not currently open to appeal. The left has suffered enormously due to the Facebook algorithm and its decisions to delete accounts.

Murdoch & Leveson

What did Hancock and Zuckerberg really discuss? Can’t have been that much. The real conversation is surely between lobbyists and lawyers.

Hancock made noise about policing Zuckerberg because Rupert Murdoch wanted him to.

Hancock cancelled the Leveson Inquiry to please Murdoch.

He argued that the papers had learned their lessons from the days of phone hacking, surveillance, bullying, entrapment and illegal data capture.

That the real threat to society comes from the online giants and that newspapers need to be protected from the likes of Facebook and Google.

UK tabloids pushed for Google and Facebook to be regulated even while they themselves sought to escape regulation by citing the need to protect the Freedom of the Press.

And there you have it.

Freedom is ok so long as it is for a Billionaire who owns a Newspaper.

Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the barrel

SIR JAMES MATHEW, an Irish judge at the turn of the 20th century, is said to have quipped that justice in England is open to all, “like the Ritz Hotel”.

And the Ritz is still owned by the tax-exile Barclay brothers who also own the Telegraph and the Spectator – publications that have paid Boris Johnson handsomely.

Matthew Gould : Surveillance Capitalism Spook

Matthew Gould was appointed to head NHSX, a digital form of the NHS, without any competition, temporarily, in April 2019.

Matt Hancock appointed him. He’s still there.

Gould obviously operates in a world of spies, mandarins and geostrategic military lobbyists – democracy and the rule of law mean nothing to him.

Before leaving Israel (he was the UK ambassador to Israel from 2010 to 2015) Gould controversially thanked the British Jewish community for the huge support it had shown Israel over the years.

Nothing wrong with stating a fact?

Maybe, but an inappropriate comment all the same.

It would be easy, from that statement, to think Gould was the Israeli ambassador and not the British one.

Conflicts of interest have nothing to do with race or religion. They are a very human condition that can apply to anyone, including Mr Gould.

I would argue that the consequences for the UK of not identifying and dealing with Mr Gould’s moral and ethical breaches have been enormous.

Thousands dead due to Coronavirus incompetence and countless more to suffer due to Gould’s lax attitude to medical privacy and data.

It should come as no surprise that NHSX Gould is more loyal to Silicon Valley than British citizens. His concern has been to promote the Cybersecurity Agenda and the interests of the large tech players.

Health data is of little concern to him. But he is concerned about Online Harms if they disrupt national security.

And by that we mean … Margaret Hodge.

Censorship levels have gone through the roof in 2020.

The UK is the first country to test the vaccine on its citizens and will be the first to deliver an Online Harms Bill.

But what will it contain and how will it be interpreted?

Will it be an excuse to launch raids on any person or organisation who expresses ideas that are at odds with government policy, or will it be used to fine and genuinely police the online giants?

The Great NHS Heist

For more on the connection between economic, health and data policies watch the Great NHS Heist by Dr Bob Gill & Drew McFadyen and featuring the late David Graeber :


NHSX Chief Matthew Gould encourages staff to break the law

This morning a story about NHSX Chief Matthew Gould appeared on the Guardian / Observer website. It never made the physical paper.

Winning Formula

In June at an Israeli health summit Gould, Zionist former UK Ambassador to Israel, was asked how he had managed to use Covid to bring about unprecedented ‘digital health adoption’ in the UK.

In his response Mr Gould appears to have told NHS workers to pay no attention to existing UK legislation. He goes on to suggest that this is a winning formula.


There’s a claim Matthew that Covid 19 was an exceedingly effective accelerator of digital health adoption, maybe the most effective one ever. And
you’ve mentioned some aspects of this earlier on when you talked about the adoption of online care and alluded to some of the symptom checkers.

Could you tell us a little bit more about your experience in the UK and
how which digital health transformation aspects were accelerated during Covid 19? And what actually changed that allowed it?

Was it regulation that changed? Was it acceptance by the physicians and by the unions that changed? Or maybe it was acceptance by the patients or just bare necessity?

Matthew Gould:

One of the things we did earlier in the crisis that i think made a massive difference was we produced a really simple one-page guide to information governance for people working in health and care saying essentially if you are in good faith trying to look after your patients and acting in sensible ways then you’re not going to get into trouble.

And that was endorsed by our information commissioner, by the national data guardian and it had a really positive effect.

Because it sent a signal: look just be sensible do the right thing, don’t get yourself caught up in knots over um sort of the massive detail of law – but just get on with it. And that was extremely positive and we need to capture that can-do spirit and sort of bottle it and keep it for the future

Who is Matthew Gould?

Matthew Gould is an old school friend of George Osborne.

He worked on foreign affairs directly for Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Miliband.

He was involved in the Liam Fox / Adam Werrity arms lobbying scandal.

Gould’s friend George Osborne was on the advisory board of Atlantic Bridge which part-paid for Werrity’s travel expenses as he pretended to be a member of the Ministry of Defence.

Anti-Jewish Sentiment

Straight-talking MP Paul Flynn apologised for suggesting that Gould should not have been appointed UK Ambassador to Israel on account of him being Jewish.

Flynn said that Gould was vulnerable to accusations “of having Jewish loyalty” and that the position should be given to “someone with roots in the UK”. Flynn said, “there hasn’t been a Jewish ambassador to Israel and I think that is a good decision – to avoid the accusation that they have gone native.”


Upon returning from Israel Gould was UK Cabinet Office Head of Cybersecurity and then worked for Matt Hancock at the Media Department, specialising in the digital economy.

Gould was appointed Head of Cybersecurity by George Osborne after the Talk Talk cyber attack in 2015. Talk Talk was then headed by Conservative Peer Dido Harding who now runs Public Health England’s replacement organisation as well as NHS Improvement.


Gould’s Twitter profile mentions showjumping – a passion for horses that is shared by Dido Harding, Matt Hancock, & Owen Patterson – all of whom have done very well out of the Covid crisis.


Sadly Owen Patterson’s wife died mysteriously on his birthday in June.

Anti-Corruption Tsar

Harding also runs Track and Trace with Gould. She was also appointed without any interview process. Bizarrely Harding’s husband John Penrose, also a Tory MP, is the UK’s anti-corruption tsar.

Given that Matthew Gould has boasted of instructing NHS workers to ignore the law, perhaps he should be prosecuted for corruption himself.

Double Standards

But don’t hold your breath. The UK Government has shown no regard for international, human rights and employment law on so many occasions lately that we have to accept that normal laws simply don’t apply to them any more.

Maybe one day things will change, but certainly not without a fight.


French SANOFI to give new Vaccine to AMERICA FIRST

French Pharma giant SANOFI will give the first doses of its new coronavirus vaccine to patients in the US according to its CEO.

This is because the US helped fund the vaccine’s development.

But Sanofi is a French firm and many of the scientists who work there were educated at French universities with money that was paid in by French taxpayers.

French politicians have lined up to say the vaccine should be distributed fairly around the world.

Will Bill Gates step in and resolve the situation?

President Trump has created a task force called Operation Warp Speed to stimulate the pharma industry, the government and the military in the hunt for a vaccine.

In the comment section of the business press there is a view that France did not invest in the vaccine so it should not complain about fair access.

Others are saying that of all the stimulus money that has been handed out in the last few weeks, surely some can be used to pay for the vaccine.

The fact that the US has taken the risk is justification for many that US gets priority access.

But as the US has the Federal Reserve, deep and liquid stock markets, and a huge Government budget, does this mean that America will always have priority access to new drugs?

And look at the US death rates for corona virus.

They are capitalising on the vaccine but death rates are enormous.

The regulatory framework in the US is more favourable for vaccine manufacturers as, since 1986, they cannot be prosecuted for harm.

Once favourable data has been collected, Sanofi could then market the vaccine in Europe and the rest of the world.

The firm in question SANOFI are not exactly angels either.

Their epilepsy drug sodium valproate was prescribed to women of child bearing age for many years and has caused enormous abnormalities in many of these women’s children.

Though SANOFI are being investigated by French prosecutors and Abbott, the US firm that manufactured the same drug, have been sued in the US — in the UK mothers and families affected by SANOFI’s valproate still await justice.

Many have been denied legal aid because the Legal Aid Agency decided they didn’t stand a high enough chance of winning their case.

A review is being conducted into drugs and medical devices by Baroness Cumberlege.

These include sodium valproate, primodos and vaginal / surgical mesh devices.

Cumberlege is a former Tory Health Minister and was appointed to head the review by then Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

This is the evidence that was given by Emma Friedmann of FACSaware.

WARNING: this evidence is well presented but very disturbing.

Big pharma have enormous influence in Parliament and in Washington DC.

Let us see if they can do the right thing – when encouraged.