Lissy💙🌻🇺🇦

Wife, Mum, Mamma, Sister, Friend. Cat slave & controlled by Fleur, the labradoodle. Left leaning. Proud European. Mum of two adult sons with cystic fibrosis.

[Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla]

A) This a properly brilliant piece of investigative journalism by BBC & @hopenothate. Huge kudos to all involved.

B) The Kremlin operative who BBC names as directing arson attacks against Keir Starmer was taught his tradecraft by…drumroll…Sergei Nalobin !!! Pictured here with Boris Johnson. Also: the star of our podcast series, Sergei & the Westminster Spy Ring! Wtaf

[The Receipts UK ♿ @david_hollas]

Farage's personal service company Thorn in the Side has missed its Companies House confirmation statement deadline. This is a criminal offence. The company holds £1.97m in cash, two coastal properties, a fishing boat, and GB News shares. It is now registered at the London office of Reform donor Nick Candy. Democracy for Sale has the full story.

https://t.co/tgWhaWcD7z

[Mukhtar @I_amMukhtar]

Tommy Robinson is promoting a neo-Nazi Russian group controlled by a sanctioned Russian oligarch, Konstantin Malofeev.

Konstantin Malofeev founded the Tsargrad Institute, and Academicians is the youth wing of the Tsargrad Society.

Like they said in the Epstein files, "Cheap @ any price"

[@medicalmodelwithabriochebun @medicalmodelbri]

‼️‼️ BRITISH PUBLIC ‼️‼️

There’s a public consultation that you might not even be aware of which will impact YOU and your family .

The @gmcuk is working hard to destroy medicine and PAs are working hard to keep the ‘associate’ title

This is your opportunity to respond .

[Dr Nafeez Ahmed @NafeezAhmed]

1.EXCLUSIVE: @BylineTimes exposes the Russian neo-Nazi network – promoted by Tommy Robinson – pushing 'White Lives Matter' propaganda to sow division and race war across the UK and Europe. Founded by a sanctioned oligarch close to Putin🧵https://t.co/rNHXhfFOrj

[Anisopoikilocyte @Anisocyte]

I would like to talk about this document, which was sent to consultation by stakeholders by FICM.
It’s a “scope” document for ACCPs, who are medically unqualified individuals being increasingly used to replace ITU SHO/SpRs across NHS hospitals
1/

[The Receipts UK ♿ @david_hollas]

https://t.co/Yp3FwnYmgD

[The Receipts UK ♿ @david_hollas]

Hat tip to @Chriscript for reminding us that Reform UK has a Branch Handbook. It's supposed to demonstrate that 268,000 paying members have a genuine democratic voice in the party they fund at £25 a year. Let's look at what it actually says.

The stated purpose of a branch is to campaign and win elections, raise funds for the party, sign up new members, and promote the party's values. That is the entire stated purpose. There is no policy input. There is no upward democratic mandate. Branches exist as a fundraising and campaigning vehicle, and nothing else.

Branch Officers are elected by members. That sounds democratic. Then you read Rule 4.13. National Managers can remove any elected Branch Officer "at their sole discretion for any reason they consider pertinent." Your vote means precisely nothing if HQ decides otherwise.

Rule 6.8 goes further. National Managers may attend any branch meeting and assume the position of Chair "at their sole discretion." The person your branch elected as Chair can be displaced on a whim, at any time, by someone appointed not by you but by the Board.

Think you can at least call a meeting to push back? Rule 6.16 says an EGM can be proposed by one member and seconded by five others. It can also be annulled by a National Manager if they deem it "frivolous or unnecessary." Members cannot convene without central approval.
The finances tell the same story. Rule 7.4 is unambiguous: "All funds held within the party belong to Reform HQ." Every pound raised at a local level belongs to the centre the moment it is collected. Rule 7.6 allows branches to access their own money back via a party debit card, after a 10% deduction to cover what the document describes as "national running costs." You raise it. They take a cut. They decide how much you get back.

If a branch is disbanded, Rule 13.5 confirms that all branch assets are reallocated to Reform HQ. There is no mechanism for members to recover anything.

This is not a political party in any constitutional sense. It is a company controlled by two directors whose members have no enforceable rights, whose elected officers serve at the pleasure of centrally appointed managers, and whose money belongs to headquarters the moment it arrives. The Branch Handbook does not contradict that analysis. It confirms it.

268,000 people are paying £25 a year for a debit card they don't control, officers who can be removed without their consent, and meetings that can be cancelled if Reform HQ considers them inconvenient.
That is what they are buying.

[Artur Nadolny @ArturNadol7566]

FCA INSIDER BLOWS WHISTLE ON COVERT SURVEILLANCE FROM WITHIN THE REGULATOR ITSELF

Jasthi Alom v Financial Conduct Authority

Someone reached out to me this week with a story I cannot ignore.

His name is Jasthi Alom (J Alom) He is a former @TheFCA supervisor. He worked there from 2015 until April 2021, when Financial Conduct Authority dismissed him for gross misconduct.

He says he didn't do it.

More than that, he says FCA used covert surveillance against him, buried his complaints, tipped off the person he was complaining about before he even submitted the complaint, and then promoted that same person twice while his case was still live.

The most recent promotion, to Manager, happened while he was providing the FCA's own internal audit with evidence that the person in question had given false information to police.

He put FCA chief executive Nikhil Rathi and chair Ashley Alder on notice. He has now lodged a Permission to Appeal application at the UK Supreme Court. Case reference: UKSC/2026/006. The case was reported in the press as recently as May 28, 2026.

This is not a disgruntled ex-employee sending angry emails. This is a man who has spent five years pushing his case through the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal, and who is now at the door of the highest court in the land.

I know Andy Agathangelou personally. I have been on a Zoom call with him. He is a thoughtful, principled man and we share the same drive to fight injustice wherever it sits. I also attended the APPG summit at Parliament on 16 March 2026, so I have seen first-hand how the Transparency Task Force operates and who is in that room.

When Andy and TransparencyTask Force say publicly that Jay Alom is someone they have got to know and trust, and that his case is yet another example of why some people believe the FCA to be incompetent at best, dishonest at worst, that is not a casual statement.

Jay attends their weekly meetings personally. I can confirm independently that TTF's newsletter dated May 28, 2026 features his Supreme Court application as a named item, at his request. I subscribe to that newsletter. I saw it myself. He will also be at the next APPG summit in Parliament in two weeks.

TTF briefs Parliament. They run the secretariat of the APPG on Investment Fraud, which held two major parliamentary summits in 2025 and published a report scrutinising the FCA. They are not a fringe voice and they do not back cases without reason.

What makes Jay's case harder to dismiss is the wider context.

In 2024, FCA chair Ashley Alder forwarded whistleblower correspondence to other senior staff without redacting the sender's name. Two former employees came forward with the same allegation. The FCA investigated itself and cleared itself. Andy called it exactly what it was. The FCA, he said, has a habit of marking its own homework.

The UK National Audit Office found that the FCA's performance reporting is so complex it makes it difficult for HM Treasury to judge whether the regulator is doing its job.

A regulator that cannot be scrutinised from outside, and will not scrutinise itself from within, is accountable to no one.

Jay is also not alone inside the FCA's orbit. He has spent years supporting another former FCA employee, Ahmet L, through his own Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings.

Two people. The same institution. The same pattern. I have written about Ahmet's case separately. The link is in the comments.

Jay's case raises a legal question that goes far beyond one employment dispute. His complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the specialist court that handles covert surveillance complaints against public bodies including the FCA, was blocked. The Court of Appeal said it had no power to deal with his appeal.

The Supreme Court application is about whether that is legally correct. The question sits under section 67A of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. If the Supreme Court grants permission, the outcome could affect anyone trying to exercise statutory appeal rights through specialist tribunals.

That is not a narrow workplace grievance. That is a question about whether the rule of law applies to a regulator that is meant to uphold it.

I have spent five years documenting what happens when a powerful institution decides the rules do not apply to it. I know what it costs to keep going when every door closes. I know the difference between someone with a grievance and someone with evidence.

Jay has evidence. He has a paper trail going back to 2020. He has named personnel. He has correspondence with FCA Internal Audit. He has dates, references, and a Supreme Court filing.

The #RSAWhistleblowerFiles exist because I refused to go away. Jay is doing the same thing, inside a different institution, with the same forensic approach.

If you have worked at the FCA and witnessed anything relevant to how internal complaints were handled, how disciplinary processes were managed, or how covert monitoring was deployed against staff, Jay wants to hear from you. So do I.

His case is public. The Supreme Court listing is public.

The FCA regulates honesty and integrity in financial markets?. The question now before the Supreme Court is whether it applies those same standards to itself.

From five years of watching regulators operate, I would not assume the answer is yes.

@Victoria_Rixon @MLorrM @stevemiddi1 @nw_nicholas @CartlandDavid @WBINC_Doc @JohnCleese @TransparencyTF @Wftproof

[EuropeanPowell @EuropeanPowell]

You can either have democracy, or you can have billionaires calling the shots; YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH.
Across the US, tech feudalism is resulting in data centre fortresses, which are poisoning entire regions, devouring public resources and pushing up bills.
Council meetings show turnouts where 100% of the community say a defiant 'NO' to Data centres, but they get forced through anyway.
Watch out UK, because under Keir Starmer, his AI Growth Zones, launched in January 2025, are the deregulated digital foundations for Data centres in England, Scotland, and Wales.
Read my Substack and find out about the zonification of the UK.
https://t.co/nDvdo5xGMI
https://t.co/bj33f6tJqb

[𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰 @politicsusa46]

In a normal world this kind of ownership of a political party would be illegal. Let’s be clear, Reform UK is a private limited company.

Nigel Farage and Party Chairman Zia Yusuf serve as the directors and guarantors, having taken over from the previous share-based company structure. Yes it’s now a registered CHARITY dedicated to the corruption and dismantling of UK democracy.

Never has there been a better example of Turkeys voting for Christmas in UK politics.

If Farage was to be elected Prime Minister in 2029, the country would literally be being run by a private company. Not even the Americans could achieve that despite their best efforts.

It’s time to wake up and understand that Nigel Farage is NOT a man of the people, he’s a man owned by dark money. Without that dark money Reform could not operate and field candidates at either local or national level.

Paying a membership to the party provides NO voting rights. Reform UK members do not directly dictate party policy; under the party's constitution, policy is set by the party's board and the leader, with input from members at conferences.

Farage holds considerable influence over the governing board, as the party leader is empowered to directly appoint the party chairman and three board members. He is truly Trump’s mini me in every sense.

My thanks to Political Paralysis for the clip

🎥 TikTok - https://t.co/uRlNS7eleM

[The Receipts UK ♿ @david_hollas]

I've obtained the master contract between the Ministry of Defence and Palantir Technologies UK Ltd.
It covers 2026 to 2029. It was signed on 30 December 2025 — while Parliament was in recess. There was no competitive tender. Here's what's in it. And what they don't want you to see.
The contract is administered through Defence Digital at MoD Corsham, the nerve centre of UK military digital and intelligence infrastructure.
The contract number is redacted. Not the value. Not the scope. The contract number itself is classified.
The entire pricing section is gone. Redacted under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act, commercial interests. So is the IP clause. So are the key liability figures. So are all the contract schedules.
A US company is embedded into UK defence infrastructure for three years. The public cannot see what we are paying for it.
Now here's the clause that should be getting more attention.
Palantir staff working on classified MoD sites must hold Security Check clearance as a minimum, with Developed Vetting available when required. The contract says personnel should be UK nationals where site classification requires.
Should. Not must.
Palantir was founded by Peter Thiel. It grew out of a CIA seed investment. Its largest shareholder base is American. Its founders have direct relationships with US intelligence going back two decades.
The contract does not prohibit non-UK nationals from working on classified UK defence environments. It expresses a preference.
Condition 14. The media clause.
Palantir is contractually prohibited from communicating with press, television, radio or other media about anything in this contract without prior written MoD consent.
That is why Palantir UK has said nothing publicly about this deal. They are legally barred from doing so.
The contract was signed on 30 December 2025. Parliament was in recess. No tender process. No public announcement at signing. The contract number is a state secret. The price is hidden. And the contractor is gagged.
This is how £240 million of public money gets committed to a single American company with no scrutiny whatsoever.
Section 43, commercial interests, is a qualified exemption under FOIA. That means a public interest test applies.
The argument that Palantir's commercial sensitivity outweighs the public's right to know the cost of a no-tender three-year defence contract is not a strong one. I'll be filing for an internal review.
I'll be publishing the full analysis on Substack. If you think Parliament should be able to see what we're paying Palantir and why no other company was given the chance to bid, share this thread.
The document is real. The redactions are real. Draw your own conclusions.

[James Neill  ≠ 𝕏 @jneill]

Oh. Rob Kenyon's plumbing business has gone.
https://t.co/yzvwoYmWih
#Makerfield

[James Neill  ≠ 𝕏 @jneill]

"A Reform UK spokesperson said he was unaware of the judgment until we brought it to his attention."
Bollox. Reform and Farage knew, at the very least, in September.

[Raven Cozens-Hardy @RaveCozensHardy]

They sent me a list of all the MEP gifts:
https://t.co/gc9DQosW6c
The Europe Direct Contact Centre has received your message regarding Nigel Farage MEP.
The Citizens' Enquiries Unit of the European Parliament has been asked to reply on its behalf.

[Artur Nadolny @ArturNadol7566]

I've spent months documenting NHS whistleblowers.
Most people miss these stories. They disappear fast.

So here in one place, my BEST 10.

A thread. 🧵

[Mr Ethical 🚩 @nw_nicholas]

To sum up yesterday's posts - Farage said he paid for his £1.4m house with the £1.5m fee for I'm a celebrity. He told FT he paid that fee into his company, Thorn in the Side (who will have invoiced ITV). That money never left his company. So he's lying again.

[Conor Gogarty @ConorGogarty]

NEW: A physician associate making headlines over a botched lumbar puncture was previously found to have defrauded the NHS, we can reveal.

An investigation by the NHS counter-fraud team concluded he was paid £1,824 for days he took off without permission.

[Artur Nadolny @ArturNadol7566]

WHY I DO THIS. THE ANSWER IS EMBARRASSINGLY SIMPLE

People keep asking me why I spend my time writing about @NHS whistleblowers, insurers fabricating documents, regulators rubber-stamping fraud, and every other flavour of institutional rot I can find.

The answer is not complicated.

I have my own case. @rsagroup /@IntactInsurance. A subsidence claim. Documents fabricated. Timelines invented. The Financial Ombudsman @financialombuds watching it all happen and writing a decision anyway. Regulators who exist on paper and nowhere else. I know exactly what this feels like from the inside.

And here is the thing about injustice. Once you see it clearly, in your own life, in your own paperwork, with your own name on it, you cannot unsee it when it happens to someone else. You just cannot. It is not a choice. It is not a campaign strategy. It is not a brand.

The whistleblowers I write about are not special cases. They are ordinary people who told the truth at work and had their careers, their health, and sometimes their lives taken apart as a thank you. They are heroes. Real ones. Not the kind that get statues.

What do you do when the regulator does not care, the police do not care, and the courts take years and money most people do not have? You make noise. You make it public. You make it impossible to ignore.

They do not fear regulators. They do not fear fines. They have spent decades learning how to manage both. The one thing they have not fully figured out yet is enough people watching and enough people talking.
That is what this is.

I cannot look away from injustice. That is the whole answer. That is all of it.

@nw_nicholas @MLorrM @Wftproof @JohnCleese @sharmilaxx @SueAllison809 @CompassnInCare @G8GWS @ianfoxley @CartlandDavid @drcmday @stevemiddi1 @TransparencyTF

[Roy Lilley 💙 @RoyLilley]

God https://t.co/pHmWvouCN4