Tories handed nearly £300 million of PPE contracts to businesses associated with a religious cult, the PBCC

15/08/2020



John Penrose MP

House of Commons

London SW1A 0AA




Dear John


On this page of Byline Times https://tinyurl.com/y6xy7cou is an account of how 11 companies have been awarded contracts for PPE totalling nearly £300 million. Here is a list of the companies: Unispace Global Ltd., Tower Supplies, Techniclean, Blueleaf Ltd., Denka UK Ltd., Accora, ToffeIn Ltd., Orcagel, Oska Care Ltd., Clandeboye Agencies Ltd., and Medco.



The striking thing about these companies is that all of them are more or less closely linked with a small religious group commonly known as Exclusive Brethren, now calling themselves the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (PBCC). This is a small fissiparous sect numbering some 22,000 members in the UK.



The PBCC can fairly be characterised as a cult. They believe themselves to be the only true body of Christians on earth, and separate themselves strictly from association with the “world” which they believe to be dominated by the Devil. Members are strictly controlled in their thinking and behaviour, and any behaviour that deviates from their rules is punished by total isolation for a period. If this does not bring about repentance the member will be anathematised. This in effect means losing all their familial, social, and often economic connections, which as you can imagine can lead to catastrophic consequences, including suicide.



Their separation from the world means that voting is forbidden, but they do allow themselves to support and lobby conservative political parties in Australia, the USA and here in the UK. They are expert lobbyists, and have put extraordinary pressure on the Charities Commission with the result that they have been granted charitable status worth some £11 million a year to them.



The fact that companies linked with this cult have been awarded, without a competitive tendering process, such a large number of contracts, demands investigation. How long had each company been in existence before the contract was signed with Government? What was the net value of each company before the contract? What expertise did each company have? Who decided to award the contracts? What was the process? Have they delivered on the contract? Why were so many contracts awarded to so many companies connected to this cult?



I understand that normal tendering processes have been suspended because of the pandemic, but it does look as if due diligence and impartiality has not been adhered to in this matter.



I would be very grateful if you would give some careful thought to this unusual set of circumstances and let me know what action you will be taking to investigate and rectify them.



With kind regards

Richard

How does democracy cope with non-democratic parties?

Mohmoud Salem is a most excellent blogger writing as @sandmonkey on Twitter.

He has been tweeting from the front line throughout the Egyptian Revolution.

Yesterday he kicked off a debate with a thought-provoking series of tweets, which I have copied and  pasted here below. He puts his finger on a real dilemma:

How does democracy  cope with parties that could become undemocratic, 

or have undemocratic features?

He is thinking about the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here are his thoughts:

---

Ok, Sandmonkey prediction: 

If we end up getting democracy through the military, we will end up with the Turkey Model. 

Wanna Take bets? 

They will set up a constitution that won't allow Muslim Brotherhood specifically to come to power & will give themselves coup powers if that [happens].

And that's what the US is probably negotiating with them about. How to be the firm-handed daddy caretaker of democracy 

It's a very attractive balance for them: 

Provide democracy, maintain their hold on power when they deem necessary, & no Islamists.

And it would be acceptable to the majority of the people who are fearful of sharia-based* government taking over for a war on Israel. So u will have a system that's secular, that will advance the rights of women & Christians, but will not provide equal treatment to Islamists

So, the question is, if we are democrats, would that be fair? 

Would we take away some rights from some of us for "the greater good"?  It's conflicting for me, because on one hand I am very much pro individual rights & liberties on very absolutist terms without compromise.

But on the same time, I can see a significant majority of the Egyptian people wanting it this way. It will make many people comfortable.

Which brings us to the question: [does] supporting democracy mean supporting what the majority always want? Or... is it supporting the democratic process instead, even if the majority is against it? 

Let's flip it: if an Islamist government reached power through democratic process pledging to end democarcy, should the army stop it?

Not to mention the bigger problem: what kind of democracy allows a non-democratic entity the power to revoke democracy as they please? 

And what if they look at this is a compromise first-step, letting the system exist & then amending it later like Turkey is doing?

And this is where my mind comes and goes. I know what I believe in, equal rights for all, until some try to take the rights of others. All I know is: if we were put in this situation, what we choose will forever define us as people. It's a huge test

----

An intense discussion followed, which you can find by going here  and scrolling back to Feb 14.

So this is the problem: how does democracy cope with its non-democratic or anti-democratic constituents?   

We have a Western example here: Hitler's Nazis were voted into parliament, but then took over the state by the Enabling Act of 1933 which allowed him to exercise dictatorial power. 

One defence against this is a good constitution that forbids that kind of thing. However, a Constitution can be overthrown (the Egypt Revolution is having to do that). But a well-designed democratic constitution does draw a line in the sand.

Funnily enough, the USA Constitution, with its separation of Church and State, and separation of powers between the Legistature, Executive and Judiciary, is a good model for anyone flexing their fingers in front of a blank screen entitled EGYPT CONSTITUTION. 

Benjamin Franklin did not expect the USA to last as long as it did. The neo-cons have undermined the Constitution with their accursed Patriot Act, and the nation is so infested with fundamentalists, of both free market and Bible varieties, and so brainwashed by Murdoch's Fox News, that it is clearly going down the pan.

However, back to Sandmonkey's question. 

First, the price of freedom, and democracy, is continual vigilance. Democracy is something that exists in the doing, not in the theorising.

Second, Democracy is not a Thing that Exists anywhere. It is just the assertion that the power of any state resides ultimately with the people. The Egypt Revolution has just demonstrated that to perfection. When enough people say No to the state, the state has to back down.

Failed revolutions, as in Iran after the elections, and in Burma in 2007, fail because not enough people take to the streets, whether out of fear or because they have not yet suffered enough. As a general rule, it takes a generation to pass before people say "enough".

Having said that, the manifestations of democracy are variable. In the UK we have a clapped out voting system a feeble Parliament, a sclerotic Civil Service and an out of touch Government. But we do have the ability to kick one set of idiots out and let in a different set of idiots.

The virtue of this Box and Cox arrangement is that at least the Prime Minister gets changed. Being in power for too long damages the brain. The leader gets used to being surrounded by sycophants. The amygdala of the brain probably becomes overactive. That's why the Pharaohs and many other rulers became "gods", and why triumphant Roman Generals has a slave whispering "Remember Caesar that thou art mortal" to them.

So the number one virtue of any vaguely functioning democracy lies in the ability to truncate the term in office of the resident. That is why no US President is allowed to serve more than 8 years. We should have the same rule in the UK. But then, we do not have a written Constitution.

Addressing the Egyptian problem, if they go for a more truly democratic system of voting, Proportional Representation, the Muslim Brotherhood is unlikely to form a Government outright.

If they use the crap FPTP system, they could do so.

The trade off is that under PR, the MB is likely to form part of many Governments.

Here I should say that the Muslim Brotherhood is more like a Muslim Bogeyman to be used as such by the US right. Their speaker comes across as a cuddly teddy bear, and he is continually distancing himself from extremists. We can accept that, but have also to accept that it could change in future. I have been debating with a US Navy doctor, right-wing as they come, and a fundamentalist Christian. His position is that a Muslim country cannot be entrusted with democracy, in case it comes up with an Islamist Government, as in Gaza. There are two problems with an MB dominated Egypt: one is that they could terrorise women, gays &c. The other is that the loonies in the State Department will be itching to bomb the country back to the stone age.


The power of the MB is likely to be greater if Egypt generates a shed-load of secular political parties, which will split the secular vote, and let the MB walk through. The best outcome in my view is to form an umbrella group from the activists of Tahrir Square, to fight the coming election on the basis of addressing unemployment. This national unity group would outnumber the MB.

In a second Parliament, it is likely that the umbrella group will split naturally into a few major political parties.

So the approach to the democracy puzzle set out by @sandmonkey is firstly pragmatic: Just do it. Do your best, use all your passion and intelligence to persuade the people that a democracy with separation of religion from the state is the best way forward. Then, when in, revolutionise the economy to address unemployment, poverty and the real ecological issues in the country, especially water and food.

Go for unity and pragmatism, not ideological purity and perfection.

Finally in addressing the riddle of democracy: what to do if the people vote for anti-democratic forces?

The Constitution is one defence.

Debate is the second defence.

Which requires a forum for clear public debate, that is, a truly free press and broadcasting system, that is open to all comers, including the non- or anti-democratic forces.

In the end, the question is an antinomy - a contradiction between two statements that seem equally reasonable. There is no intellectual resolution to the question. The only resolution is in practical political action.
 
------------------------

* However there is evidence that a majority in Egypt would welcome Sharia punishments (for others, obvs). I file that with the fact that a big chunk of Brits would bring back hanging and flogging. Put it down to poor education.

Pope, Mote, Plank, Pedophilia, Jesus

A word to Pope Benedict, straight from the Jesus, who was a good and wise man:

...why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew ch 7 v 3; also in Luke)

Here it is in English:
Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Dear Pope,
The "mote" or speck is your worry about gays and transvestites being allowed to work in the church. (I will not mention the feminine themes of much of your ceremonial attire).

The "plank" or "log" is the unresolved issue of paedophile priests.

"Hypocrite" means an actor, someone who is not what he seems.

New Catholic Archbishop condemned by Jesus

Don'cha just love it when two news items complement each other? Rev Vincent Nichols is due to replace poor Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, whose sonorous moniker's dipped in dishonour (an odour of skankiness stubbornly lingers round his treatment of clergy with wandering fingers).

As soon as he has accepted the post (which presumably comes with a bullet proof pension, whatever the circumstances of his termination), he condemns TV adverts for condoms, despite their known virtues in preventing serious disease and even more serious polulation growth.

Meanwhile, over in Erin, one of that fair land's most senior clergy admits that a report will soon come out showing that thousands of children were abused by priests.

We may wonder what would Jesus have had to say about this kind of thing?

Wonder no longer. He said it plain and clear.

Woe to you, hypocrites, whited sepulchres, clean on the outside but inside full of rottenness and dead mens bones.

and

Take the bloody great stick out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of your friend's eye.

and, if that is not clear enough for these masters of scriptural exegesis,

In all seriousness I have to say, if anyone abuses a child, it would be better for him if he has an enormous stone tied around his neck and he is tossed into a very deep body of water without breathing apparatus.


But what do they care? The priority for these churchman is to put the best spin they can on these stories as they emerge in the corporate media.

PS Happy Easter to all our readers, 25,000 this month so far.

Bishops Bash Brown's Binge

Five Bishops have attacked the Government's economic record. They cite the addiction to debt, the divergence between rich and poor, and Brown's exhortation that we should spend more to save the economy.

Their criticism is interesting and worth developing. Unfortunately the corporate media are flying off on a tangent, discussing the matter as an intervention of the Church into politics, rather than economics.

The criticism of the bishops is more than a party political attack, since the Tories would have taken exactly the same line as Labour during the last decade: let the financial markets rip ahead on the basis of loadsamoney being made. If the Tories had been in power, and the Labour opposition had called for the markets to be reined in and required to set aside a proportion of their profits to be ready for the inevitable downturn, the Tories would have poured withering scorn on the opposition as having no grasp of financial markets, and that any restraint would have put the City at a competitive disadvantage.

The first word to be said about any Church of England attack on financial markets should come from Jesus: "Before you set about taking a speck out of your neighbour's eye, take the bloody great plank out of your own eye". Last time I looked at the Church Commission's books, they were all over the place ethically, specifically investing in Caterpillar plc. which produces the bulldozers that killed Rachel Corrie. Are the bishops confident that the Church Commission now has a good ethical standing? They have an ethical investment group, but how effective is it? We should be told.

Now for the substantive criticisms.

Addiction to Debt. This is a serious criticism, one that goes to the heart of the whole monetary system. Almost all new money is created through debt. This is why there is so much debt in the system. Take a look here to see how only a handful of nations escape the burden of debt.

Debt is an unequal power relationship between lender and borrower. It is not far away from a kind of enslavement. In that the poor have to go away and earn money to pay off the interest, it is a driver for economic growth, and an important mechanism that drives the divergence between rich and poor.

No matter how loudly the financial corporations assisted by their allies, the Marxists, scream, money does not have to be exclusively created by interest bearing loans issued by private corporations for purposes. The State can issue money for the benefit of society and environment or society as grants or loans with low or zero interest. This can be done safely, so long as there is not a careless over-issue causing inflation. Rules can be set to stop this happening, specifically, allowing the State to withdraw money from the system if inflation looms.

Divergence. The Bishops are right to criticise NuLabour's failure to prevent divergence between the wealth of rich and poor. However, this flows from the debt-money system, (see above) so the bishops are really criticising the entire financial system.

Spend more to get back to business as usual. This is a partly reasonable criticism. Clearly, it is stupid to aim to get back to business as usual, since it implies further bubbles and busts. On the other hand, we do need to get people back to work, since unemployment is a social scourge and leads to poverty, illness and crime. We need to get people back to good, constructive work that benefits society and environment, not Golgafrinchan Arkship B type work. We need a Green economy to arise out of the ashes of the present mess. The way to do this is through the Green Wage Subsidy.

The Church will throw its dart, and then withdraw from the arena, claiming no expertise in economics. That leaves the arena clear of anyone with any idea of how to mend the situation, apart from a few monetary reformers.

The Green Party, which should be occupying the high ground of this debate, is paralysed by a vocal group of monetary conservatives, although a reasonable motion is going to our Spring Conference, which will carry an MR amendment. We shall see if this gets through. It will be difficult, because, like the Bishops, people find it easy to point to the symptoms of what is wrong with the system, but fleer away from digging into the solutions to the problem.

Sock tongue twister

At this time of year, when alcohol is consumed in bulk, it is common for people to try tongue twisters to see hoe nimble their tongue is feeling.

Common tongue twisters like "The Leith Police beseecheth us" suffer from the problem of familiarity, so their tonguetwistiness is lessened.

Therefore as a service to humanity I offer this new tongue twister:

A MD of a sock manufacturing company calls his design team, all six of them, to talk about his idea.

"Black, blue and brown socks are so dull," he said, "Design me some gay socks."

So they go away for 3 months and come up with a design robbed from Banksy, two policeman kissing. Naked.

They bring it to the MD, he takes a look, and, because he is a Catholic and has just read Pope Benedict;s 2008 Chritsmas message, says

"These sick sex socks suck. You six are sacked."

Try it as you close the door of the pub.

Pope, homosexuality, pedophilia, hypocrisy

The Pope is widely reported as saying that the stamping out of homosexuality is more important than stamping out of illegal logging. Something to that effect; the Vatican website has not yet got it together to put his speech up, so I am having to go on hearsay. And I hear nobody on Radio 4 or read in the Guardian the obvious rejoinder to be made - stamping out pedophilia in the RC clergy should be the Pope's No. 1 priority, because pedophilia wrecks lives, and is incomparably worse than consensual physical affection between homosexual adults. Incomparably worse.

What does the Bible say?
For the congregation of hypocrites [shall be] desolate , and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery. (Job)
Mat 23:13 But woe unto you , scribes and Pharisees , hypocrites ! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men : for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

And so on and so forth. 20 references in the King James Version, all against hypocrisy. No texts in favour of hypocrisy. Compare this to 7 texts which can be construed as anti-gay. Of which 3 are in the old testament, and the practice is tabu, terribile dictu along with mixed fibres in clothing, mixed lawn seed, shrimps, and pork.

Here's one I made earlier:



Lines on the Death of John Paul II


"No Popery!" Ian Paisley cried,
and now that John Paul II has died,
there is no Pope,
so can we hope
for Orangemen with peace inside?

Nope.
They just can't cope
without a Pope.
The Papists want a Papacy,
and Paisley needs an enemy.
Without a Pope
they'd all just . . . mope.

It really makes you think:
what if it pushed them off the brink ?
what if it made them turn to drink
or even . . . turn to dope?

Might be a blessing in disguise.
Imagine if the smokes that rise
above the Convocation
(as they all grope
for a new pope)
should symbolise a wider scope
for toleration?

What if the newly chosen Pope,
red-eyed, and reading Rattigan
loped lazily around the Vatican
flashing the peace sign,
Oh wow. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. Fine.

But that could be a slippery slope
No-one would want a hippy Pope.

We should not hope
for a doped pope;

But could we simply go for one
that has a well developed sense of fun?
(Maybe when Ratzinger’s gone?)


(c) Richard Lawson
7.4.05

A Bear called Jesus?

Mind you, you don't meet that many Teddy Bears called Jesus. Or people called Jesus, come to that, except in Spain and Mexico.

In India, everyone and everything is called after the gods. Mazda matches are called after Ahura Mazda, god of the Zoroastrians, whose property was light and fire. Some Hindu businessman heard that Jesus (pbuh) was the Light of the World, and came out with Jesus Christ Matches. Collectors item now, no doubt.

Amazing that the Sudanese can turn a blind eye to genocide, but get fired up over a misnamed toy. Bit like the Christians who cannot tolerate homosexuality, but can overlook paedophile priests and the use of weapons of mass destruction - by our side, that is.

Jesus (pbuh) had a word for it: Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

If Religion is the Opium of the Masses...

... then fundamentalism is the Crystal Meth of the minorities.

(c) Richard Lawson