Blatant attempt to distract from the fact that...
...he's on the record as a Putin fancier, and he's spent years advancing Putin's anti-EU ambitions.
Of course he takes foreign bungs too, wonder what favours they bought.
Experts pour cold borscht on Farage's Russian hack claim
National security and digital forensics experts have called foul on Nigel Farage's "disturbing" and unsubstantiated claim that Russia was behind the leak of a story about the UK politician receiving a £5 million gift from a crypto billionaire. Sources inside Farage's right-wing Reform UK told the Mail on Sunday that the party …
-
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 14:05 GMT Eclectic Man
Re: Blatant attempt to distract from the fact that...
Indeed, but Farage just wants to distract from the £5 meeelion 'gift' and the fact that the vast majority of the the UK population can only dream of ever having that much money*.
The Russians are just a convenient baddie to blame, IMHO. Putin would probably love Farage to become PM as the incompetence of the Reform UK's councillors brought to international politics would be a disaster Vladimir would benefit from greatly. As, I think Napoleon said, 'never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake'.
*Including yours truly. Contributions welcome and need not be declared as I am not a politician or public servant at this moment in time :o)
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 17:15 GMT Dan 55
Re: Blatant attempt to distract from the fact that...
Only this time he's got to put up or shut up. What he's claimed is so serious he has to report the alleged hack and the evidence he has about it to the NCSC or somehow back out of it and throw the spotlight back onto the £5 million gift.
He's screwed either way unless the government fumble it and let him get away with it... which is also a distinct possibility.
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 18:36 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
Re: Blatant attempt to distract from the fact that...
He's screwed either way unless the government fumble it and let him get away with it... which is also a distinct possibility.
After making a statement like that pointing a finger at Putin, if I were Farage, I'd avoid invitations to conduct business meetings in sushi bars, or move to Salisbury where Putin's hench-
men[persons] may come visiting with a special present from the lad himself
-
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 08:04 GMT Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck
Re: Blatant attempt to distract from the fact that...
It's "classic Conservatism" in the US and Canada to blame the Russians. "New Conservatism" blames the Chinese.
But under no circumstances do they ever accept responsibility themselves; there is always someone they point fingers at when caught in Canada. I'm not surprised to see the same playbook in the UK.
-
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 13:27 GMT Bebu sa Ware
Just a bit miffed…
at being caught out accepting sweeties from a stranger.
Typical Trump/MAGA misdirection — draw blame and attention to the actual process revealing the skuduggery while deflecting from the facts behind those shenanigans.
I imagine the Kremlin wouldn't be all that keen to get on Farage's tits since it is in their long term interest to keep the UK out of the EU and Farage (and Reform) might be viewed as prototypical useful idiot… perhaps not so much of the useful.
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 15:09 GMT Aladdin Sane
Re: Just a bit miffed…
DARVO
Deny: Denying the wrongdoing or minimizing the harm caused.
Attack: Discrediting, shaming, or attacking the person holding them accountable.
Reverse Victim and Offender: Twisting the narrative so the perpetrator claims they are the actual victim, and painting the true victim as the abuser.
-
-
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 13:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
An asset to Russia
This is an interesting play by pub-bore Goebbels because it distracts journalists, a group who (beyond the intrepid heroes of Vulture Central, of course) appear to have serious problems with object permanence, into talking about his unfounded allegations instead of the fact he accepted a five million pound bribe.
It also means that when people search for stories connecting him to Russia there's a good chance they'll find these stories before the properly researched ones covering his well-documented relationship with Russian dark money networks and his extensive work furthering Russian interests in the UK and Europe.
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 14:06 GMT steviebuk
Re: An asset to Russia
I've mentioned that to someone who voted deform and they said "If it was all true, why hasn't parliament done anything about it". They have a point but also they just ignore all the evidence that show's Nigel Garage is a cunt. And that if they vote him in, they'll have no access to the NHS anymore that they need, they'd be fucked "You can't change my mind, I'm still voting for them".
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 23:13 GMT elsergiovolador
Re: An asset to Russia
There's a very easy explanation for that. Corruption in this country is off the charts. If they look into one thing, they'll have to look into another. Labour and Tories don't want security services looking under the bonnet, security services just want to cosplay James Bond and chase "terrorist plots", and all the civil service cares about are their golden penshions.
As for the sacred NHS, maybe you're a postcode lottery winner, but where I live the service is dire. I pay massive taxes and get nothing back. Talk to any doctor and you start wondering whether the NHS actually checks qualifications or just signs up whoever turns up with papers that look plausible and knows how to say "paracetamol". The worst part is you can't even go fully private, because acute care still gets redirected to the NHS unless you're absolutely loaded. There's no party that can credibly rework it so it functions properly, because too much corruption underneath would have to be touched, and nobody wants that.
I bet when Deform win the next election, they'll tweak a tax here, another tax there, slip in some rebates for billionaires, and the direction of travel won't shift an inch.
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 23:32 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: An asset to Russia
> There's a very easy explanation for that. Corruption in this country is off the charts
No, it’s just not. It’s non-zero that’s for sure, and higher than we want. But on a global scale, corruption in the UK is small beer. Although you can bet that’s the first thing that would change under a Reform government. .
-
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 11:13 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: An asset to Russia
You know, if you reined in your hyperbolic tendencies you might come across as a bit more useful - some of your points are good, but you add way too much salt.
There are literally charts of corruption - see eg https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2025/index/gbr where the UK is 20 out of 182. So not only is it on the charts, it's not doing too badly.
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 12:19 GMT elsergiovolador
Re: An asset to Russia
The CPI is a perception index. It says so on the tin. What it measures is what a panel of business executives and country experts think about public sector corruption, aggregated from third-party surveys. By TI's own methodology it explicitly excludes tax evasion and fraud, illicit financial flows, money laundering, private sector corruption, and any actual prosecutorial data (complaints, investigations, convictions). So when you wave a CPI score around as evidence that UK corruption is "not doing too badly", you're really saying that a survey of business people, asked about a narrow slice of corruption that excludes most of what the public actually means by corruption in the UK, returned a favourable score. Given who's being asked and what's been ruled out of scope, that result is roughly what you'd expect.
On funding: TI's own "Who Supports Us" page lists Amazon as a corporate donor. It also lists Siemens, which is a curious choice given Siemens paid $1.6 billion in 2008 to settle one of the largest corporate bribery cases in history. The US State Department is a major institutional donor. Google Charitable Fund underwrites TI EU. A body that ranks countries on corruption while being part-funded by the corporations and governments most invested in the outcome, using a methodology that excludes the categories of misconduct those funders most engage in, is doing active harm. The output launders reputations and hands well-placed people a citeable number with which to dismiss the public's perfectly accurate intuitions. The CPI is part of the corruption problem, in the specific sense that it manufactures plausible deniability for the institutions that sponsor it.
The methodology is also self-reinforcing in a way that flatters the UK. A country with a free press exposing scandals can see its score fall the year after a serious anti-corruption push, because the press coverage shifts perceptions downward. A country with a tightly managed press and a co-opted business class scores well by appearing clean. The UK sits at 20th because the questions are narrow and the respondents (business people, mostly) are unlikely to flag the things the UK actually has problems with: regulatory capture, revolving doors, the VIP lane during COVID, HMRC's known reluctance to audit large corporates, Goldman and Vodafone sweetheart deals, the Post Office cover-up, Greensill, tier-1 investor visas, and the City's long-running role as a laundromat for Russian and Gulf money.
So yes, the UK is on the chart. The chart is built by asking business people, part-funded by Amazon and a settled-bribery defendant, with most of the damaging categories ruled out of scope.
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 13:32 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: An asset to Russia
Note the "eg". Other charts are available.
Zach Polanski was hauled over the coals for £4,000 of council tax, Angela Rayner lost her job for £40,000 of stamp duty and the ex Mr Nicola Sturgeon is looking at jail for £400,000 of fraud. Nigel Farage took a £5,000,000 gift and didn't declare it. Donald Trump is alleged to have made $1,4000,000,000 off the presidency in his first year. Like I said, small beer.
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 21:30 GMT elsergiovolador
Re: An asset to Russia
Those are individual financial misconduct cases. That's not the institutional corruption people are talking about. Council tax arrears, stamp duty and party-finance fraud are exactly the categories the system does prosecute, because individual politicians are easier to discipline than structural problems, and a few well-publicised scalps perform the useful function of demonstrating that the system works.
What's missing from your list is the actual UK corruption: VIP-lane PPE contracts (billions written off, only chased after years of press pressure); Test and Trace (£37bn budgeted, very little delivered); HS2 procurement; the Post Office (institutional cover-up that took decades and a TV drama to break open); HMRC's well-documented reluctance to audit the largest corporates while aggressively pursuing small business and the self-employed; tier-1 investor visas (finally suspended after years of evidence the scheme was laundering Russian and Gulf money); the revolving door between procurement officials and the firms they award contracts to; and the City's structural role as a global laundromat for kleptocratic capital.
None of that appears on your list because none of it gets prosecuted. The cases you can cite are visible because someone was caught. The cases that matter stay invisible because the civil servants who could surface them have worked out which questions are career-ending. A system that nails the £4k bookkeeping error while waving through the £4bn procurement disaster has worked out which categories of misbehaviour are safe to put on the front page.
-
Thursday 28th May 2026 09:22 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: An asset to Russia
They're missing from my list because I've got actual work to do, I can't spend my day writing comments.
The UK is not perfect, but it is not unredeemable. Things could be better, they could be an awful lot worse. We agree that Reform are going to make it worse, and we agree (I think) that focusing on £4K of council tax and ignoring larger issues is a distraction; We differ on who the baddie is; you think it's the civil service, I think it's that group of elderly men that enjoy influence and power and didn't like sharing it with Brussels - Farage, Rothermere, Bamford from JCB etc ad infinitum. Fine. Yo do you.
-
Thursday 28th May 2026 21:36 GMT elsergiovolador
Re: An asset to Russia
This is one of the dumbest takes I've read today. Corruption is a two-sided market that requires institutional collaboration on a fairly industrial scale. The idea that rich people do it to a country, with the civil service standing innocently to one side, gets the mechanism backwards.
A wealthy donor cannot simply will themselves a £400m contract. Someone has to write the tender. Someone has to write it in a way that only the preferred bidder can meet. Someone has to set a timeline tight enough to exclude challengers. Someone has to chair the evaluation panel. Someone has to score the bids. Someone has to wave through the variations that double the contract value post-award. Someone has to design the KPIs so that non-delivery is not a breach. Someone has to sit on the audit committee that does not audit. Someone has to be the regulator that does not regulate. Someone has to write the impact assessment that finds no impact. And someone, ultimately, has to take a job at the firm two years after the contract was awarded, on terms commensurate with how cooperative they were while in post.
None of that happens by accident, and none of it happens without the active participation of the permanent machine. Civil servants know corruption is going on. They choose not to look. Head down, deliver the task, draw the salary, retire on the pension. Do not ask where the tender came from. Do not ask why the same firm keeps winning. Do not look at the variation orders. They are devoid of curiosity, and the golden penshion depends on it. The other half of the workforce has never lived outside the institution, and genuinely thinks the usual suspect winning yet another contract is just a great company delivering for the public. They cannot connect the dots because they have never seen the picture the dots make. The institutional incentives reward both kinds and quietly retire anyone who asks awkward questions. The result looks the same as if everyone were on the take, because functionally it is.
Your "elderly men enjoying influence" framing is fine as far as it goes, but it stops at the door of the Cabinet Office. The mechanism by which influence becomes contract, contract becomes payment, and payment becomes lifestyle, is the civil service. Without that mechanism, the elderly men are just elderly men with opinions.
And "things could be an awful lot worse" is not an argument. By that standard, no country has a corruption problem until it reaches the level of the worst country on the planet.
-
Thursday 28th May 2026 21:50 GMT ChoHag
Re: An asset to Russia
Have you ever even worked for the government (the civil service, not politicians)?
They're not corrupt.
They wouldn't know how to take advantage of corruption if someone explained it in a powerpoint. In meeting after meeting over the course of several months all of which began with "herein we will describe how to take advantage of rubes for your own personal enrichment".
The problem with the civil service isn't that they're corrupt, it's that they're morons. Corruption isn't a description of the civil service. Corruption is what's taking advantage of the civil service's baked-in incompetence.
You sound like someone who believes in UFOs. I think you would be surprised at the things that can happen "by accident".
-
Friday 29th May 2026 15:02 GMT elsergiovolador
Re: An asset to Russia
You have just made my argument for me.
If the civil service's "baked-in incompetence" is what corruption "takes advantage of", then the civil service is the mechanism by which corruption operates. That is the entire point. You can call them morons rather than corrupt. The contracts still flow. The money still vanishes. The same firms still win. The variation orders still get signed. Whether each individual official is on the take or merely too incurious to ask is a question of intent. The effect is the same, and the public pays the effect.
The "morons, not crooks" defence also breaks down on patterns. Random incompetence would not produce the pattern we observe. UK procurement incompetence has a remarkable property: it benefits the same handful of firms, the same revolving-door networks, and the same political donor classes, year after year, parliament after parliament. That pattern is what a system with a preferred outcome looks like, regardless of whether individual participants understand they are producing it.
A surgeon who keeps killing patients through incompetence is not innocent because he never intended any of them to die. He is unfit for the role he holds, and the institution that keeps re-rostering him is complicit in the outcome. There is, incidentally, a name in English law for persistent incompetence in a role of public trust. It is called misconduct in public office. The CPS just does not prosecute it against senior civil servants.
As for the UFO sneer and the "have you ever worked for the government" appeal, neither is an argument. The structural pattern is visible from the outside, in published PAC reports, NAO findings, parliamentary committee evidence and FOI disclosures. You do not need to have been inside a Whitehall meeting to read the audit trail of where the money went.
Things that happen "by accident" in the same direction, to the same beneficiaries, in the same way, over decades, stop being accidents. They become policy, executed without anyone needing to write it down.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 07:48 GMT Roland6
Re: An asset to Russia
You should be pleased that after decades of Conservative re-organisations and under funding the NHS still mostly works. Yes part of the reason the NHS is in the mess it is, is due to politicians deliberately trying to make it more “commercial” ( the principle motivation behind the 1980’s re-organisation into “trusts” that were barred from working together/subcontracting to each other…).
Things aren’t helped either by the Royal Colleges which are both upholders of medical standards and unions ensuring their members get rewarded as if they were still in private practice (interesting whilst Thatcher was happy to take on the miner’s union, she avoided doing similar with the Royal Colleges even thought they were just a abusive in their use of power.
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 12:05 GMT elsergiovolador
Re: An asset to Russia
Framing the rot as 'decades of Tory underfunding' lets Labour entirely off the hook for the single biggest structural drain on NHS finances: PFI.
Lamont launched it in 1992, but barely anything was signed under Major. Blair and Brown turned it into the standard funding model for the new hospital wave, because the capital cost sat off-balance-sheet, so they could announce shiny new buildings without it appearing against borrowing figures. Pure accounting theatre with the bill deferred thirty years.
The numbers are grotesque. Around £13bn of actual NHS hospital construction is generating roughly £80bn in repayments. Sherwood Forest signed for a £300m hospital and are now repaying £2.5bn. Some Trusts pay 13% of their income to PFI consortia. The UCLH PFI vehicle has reported around half its turnover as profit before tax. Across 99 NHS PFI schemes, operators have extracted about £2bn in profit and £1bn in dividends since 2004.
Then there's the maintenance racket bolted on top. Because the consortium holds a 25-year monopoly on the building, Trusts can't shop around. Documented invoices include £333 to change a lightbulb, £600+ to change a plug, £5,000 for a new sink. Same logic applies to consumables under managed-service contracts: trust gets billed at a multiple of retail because there's no alternative supplier in the contract.
And the Tories did nothing to unwind any of it. The 2012 coalition reform was cosmetic. Carillion's collapse in 2018 cost taxpayers another £148m just to keep the affected hospitals open. Hunt and successors issued emergency bailouts to the worst-affected Trusts and changed nothing structural.
So 'the NHS still mostly works' isn't really 'despite Tory underfunding'. It's despite both parties having used it as a vehicle for off-balance-sheet financial engineering that has permanently siphoned billions into private consortia, with no meaningful accountability or course correction from anyone. Labour built the trap. The Tories sat in it and kept feed it. Neither has any appetite for unwinding it because that would require admitting how much money has already gone down the drain.
Current Labour government has done nothing about it either.
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 22:44 GMT Roland6
Re: An asset to Russia
New Labour was just Tory lite, so as you observed, a continuum of Conservative policy/mindset. So yes you are right the way framed it does let Labour off the hook, when New Labour was most definitely on the hook.
I disagree on “ Labour built the trap.” as it was the Tories who built it, New Labour simply sprung the trap without any real thought.
I was involved in the assessment of a couple of PFI bids when the first one were being let by the Tories. What got me was just how fast the numbers became ludicrous. It was almost as if the Tories wanted to bankrupt the country…
About the only thing that can be said in Hunt’s favour is that after 2012 Westminster got totally distracted by Leave and then Brexit, I think the cost to the country of this period of distracted government has cost us dearly.
As for the current Labour government, it seems having won with such a large majority, they got spooked and have been playing things ultra cautious - don’t want to upset the markets… which has resulted in the current policy and leadership mess….
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 15:54 GMT Killing Time
Re: @AC - An asset to Russia
'Care to point us to one instance of well-documented relationship with Russian dark money ?'
Clearly 'well documented' and 'dark money' are mutually exclusive. Well documented is transparent from it's source, dark money is exchanged in the shadows or originates from an obscured source i.e crypto ( at the moment).
I suspect that despite your protestations you know this full well.
Me thinks the last thing you want is the truth.
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 10:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @AC - An asset to Russia
Here, let me google that for you.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6xwy015ngo
Thats someonr who was involved in team fascists politics for a decade, ukip to brexit party to reform ltd.
And when he was arrested, the police knew exactly where to look for the reciepts. Which points to glaring opsec failures somewhere.
Is Farage on the the FSB payroll? I dunno, but I'd love to know where he's getting the money now he cant defraud the EU, and more to the point who is protecting him.
-
-
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 14:11 GMT steviebuk
He didn't have to declare it because he wasn't a in office at the time HOWEVER, if it has no baring on anything, then he should have voluntary declared it. The fact he hasn't, massively suggests its a bribe and that he knows very well it will look like a bribe and thinks "My base will reject me if I mention it", when in fact, sadly, they've all drunk the Kool-aid and will vote for him anyway because he keeps saying "We'll stop the boats". And they are all so short sighted, they think migrates are the reason their life hasn't gone the way they wanted.
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 14:26 GMT Aladdin Sane
The Commons code of conduct states that new MPs "must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election".
He received it within that window, therefore it should have been declared. It might have been a personal gift, but it wasn't from a member of family and was therefore not exempt.
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 14:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
>The Commons code of conduct states that new MPs "must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election".
And, if it was earnings, he would, of course, have paid the ~£3 million in taxes that were due. Wouldn't he?
And if it wasn't earnings, he failed to declare so can be suspended from Parliament.
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 16:41 GMT EvilDrSmith
Not necessarily.
The Code of conduct is actually available for all to review:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/hoc-code-of-conduct/
"Category 5: Gifts and benefits from sources outside the UK
38. Members must register, subject to the paragraphs below, any gifts or benefits with a value of over £300 which they receive from a source outside the UK.
41. Members should not register under this category:
Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, ...
...If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered"
It does not need to be from a member of the family to be a personal gift and thus to be exempt from being declared.
As I understand it, Farage is stating that it was to pay for his security. The need for security clearly arises from his political activities, yet if he withdrew from politics, it is not credible to suggest that the threat to his security would vanish. His argument that it is for personal reasons and therefore didn't amount to a breach of the code is sufficiently plausible that I suspect he'll be found to have inadvertently broken the code and get a relatively minor slap on the wrist.
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 19:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
As I understand it, Farage is stating that it was to pay for his security.
Naturally, then, I imagine Farage has quite sensibly isolated the money in its own account, has a suitable ledger keeping a record of any security-related outgoings charged to it, as well as having invoices and/or receipts providing evidence of such payments.
-
-
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 21:15 GMT steviebuk
I stand corrected then. Already knew he was bent as fuck but that just goes to prove it.
He also has no grace. When a councillor or candidate, the done thing to do is, stand on stage for the results and shake the hand of the winner and hang around. They get told the results before the stage bit, that's just for the press. Yet when it was clear Knobby Nigel had lost, he mumbled something to Al Murray (who was running as the Pub Landlord) who replied "Well a vote for me, is a vote denied". He didn't hang around like most losing candidates do, he just left.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 21:21 GMT steviebuk
Re: Pointing to Russia
You need to talk about it, out loud. I have never gotten one of those "Are you still looking for work" text messages. Was mentioning it at work as one department did and thought it was related to one of their jobs becoming available. I spoke about it out loud, a few days later I got one of those txt! I kept them on WhatsApp for an hour while I gathered all the info I needed to do a talk on it. The fuck whits. I reported them and their scam domain was shutdown a couple of days later.
-
-
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 14:59 GMT MattieD
Farage telling porkies?
The really stupid thing about this story is that if he'd said that MI5 had hacked his phone rather than the Russians, his base would've lapped it up like a starving cat.
He's got them all believing that he's not part of the establishment, that's he's just like one of them. Good ol' honest Nigel, constantly having to fight against the lefty Marxist-Communist-Antifa woke agenda who are trying to stop him 'telling it like it is'.
-
Tuesday 26th May 2026 17:33 GMT ChoHag
> He has said in the past that UK forces should shoot down Russian aircraft if they enter NATO airspace, and joined controversial calls for Ukraine to be admitted to the military alliance
Eugh. I agree with Farage (but only on this; the Russian hack thing and attack on the Grauniad is an obvious distraction from his bribe).
I think I need a shower.
Although a minor nit: Ukraine should not join the NATO alliance. The NATO alliance should join Ukraine which is currently the only country in the world doing NATO's job.
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 05:33 GMT Adair
Re: Amazing
People believe all sorts of things, and then the opposite before breakfast. What's your point?
Much harder is establishing the truth and then each of us choosing to trust it, day in, day out.
That's the thing about people, we get to choose what we believe, true or not, and take responsibility for our choices and the consequences that flow from them.
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 08:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
pig pigs pigs
If I was 'gifted' £5M by an overseas 'friend' I am quite sure I would need to spend a lot of time (and I'm sure some of that money) to deal with HMRC sniffing around trying to claim a cut of it.
Are they asking any questions of Mr Farage?
Plus any expectation of favours in a future Reform led government would seem to clearly stray into undeclared lobbying at best and corruption at worst.
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 09:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Putin: who me?
What's disturbing about this article is how many people seem to almost believe Russia would never do such a thing.. and they need clear evidence before we could even think they could do such a thing.
I guess Russia's modus operandi is killing people on British soil with chemical and radioactive weapons. A bit of computer hacking? They would never stoop that low.
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 16:44 GMT Jimmy2Cows
Re: Putin: who me?
Way to miss the point. Plenty believe they could/would do it. We're just waiting for dodgy Nige to present some evidence for his bold claims. You do know what they say about bold claims, don't you?
Without evidence, this just comes across as desperate deflection of all the corruption allegations.
-
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 10:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Bank accounts
Seeing as HMRC has access to the balances of every body's financial accounts I would also be looking at somebody on the inside either making a little bit of money by selling this info or giving it away because they don't like reform or Nigel Farage.
Such a large sum moving between accounts would trigger the alarm bells on the computers at HMRC. So a lot more people than you might think knows what goes in and out of your bank accounts. Not to mention the banks themselves.
Any left wing IT people that work for banks or HMRC on here? Ha, like it isn't obvious.
The state knows far more about you than you can possibly imagine.
-
Wednesday 27th May 2026 13:17 GMT Lanta
But if he is getting hacked and damaged by Russia, then he can't be a Russian asset
This presumably is a ploy to convince 'some people' that he can't be a Russian asset, because the Russians wouldn't hack and expose a Russian asset, surely?
A double triple super whateveritis spy play, wot?
