She made her demand over and over during the paper review last Sunday on The Andy Marr Show (tm): Isabel Oakeshott wanted the Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr, or anyone else, to show her “one provable link” between Cambridge Analytica and the Leave campaign. Now she has that, and much more, Ms Oakeshott has ignored the evidence, and, worse, has instead run off to embrace Fake News instead.
Gizmodo has now told “Discovered by a security researcher last week, the files confirm that AggregateIQ, a British Columbia-based data firm, developed the technology Cambridge Analytica sold to clients for millions of dollars during the 2016 US presidential election. Hundreds if not thousands of pages of code, as well as detailed notes signed by AggregateIQ staff, wholly substantiate recent reports that Cambridge Analytica’s software platform was not its own creation”. The Leave campaign dealt with AggregateIQ.
Indeed, Ms Cadwalladr had told Ms Oakeshott that AggregateIQ was the Canadian branch of Cambridge Analytica. Ms Oakeshott has for some reason not seen the Gizmodo article. Nor did she avail herself of the opportunity to get answers direct from the whistleblowers.
Yesterday evening, Chris Wylie and Shahmir Sanni both featured in an event at the Frontline Club, where they were first interviewed by Peter Jukes of Byline Media, and then questioned by members of the audience. Notable figures availing themselves of this opportunity included Stanley Johnson, father of Bozza, who got to ask the first question from the floor. Isabel Oakeshott was not there. Worse, she did not so much as enquire about the event. She wanted evidence, yet she could not be bothered turning up.
Had she done so, Ms Oakeshott would have observed, as Steve Parks did, the responses from the whistleblowers: “Chris [Wylie] would often be on conference calls, while at Cambridge Analytica, with people from UKIP … CA were at the launch of Leave.EU - then claimed they had nothing to do with each other. Now they admit it … Chris has seen invoices from CA to UKIP and Leave campaign”. There was more.
“40% of Vote Leave’s campaign expenditure went to Aggregate IQ … [Wylie:] ‘AIQ had an IP deal with SCL and CA that anything it built belonged to them. The only clients they had were CA and CA clients. The idea they are separate companies is laughable … They did not silo any of the work between the web of Leave affiliated campaigns”.
Instead, Isabel Oakeshott has resorted to comforting herself with the blanket of Fake News. When Michael Ashcroft endorsed a crude and recycled attempt by the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog to claim the Remain campaign were worse, honestly (a re-hash of two posts from December last year), there was Ms Oakeshott to give it her own backing. Fake News - that’s her true level.
Isabel Oakeshott demanded evidence. She got it. She had questions, but could not be bothered doing some basic journalism, and turning up to ask them. She wanted an investigation into the Remain campaign, but endorsed Fake News smears about them instead. Her performance on the Marr Show is therefore confirmed as a total sham.
Isabel Oakeshott is well and truly bust. So no change there, then.
Not being a lawyer, I am in no position to comment on legalities. But all of the stuff exposed so far is apparently of attempted manipulative propaganda at the very least.
However, the problem is this: Is there any proof anywhere that even one person changed his/her vote as a result, and thereby change the overall result?
It takes more than a hammock lawyer to create a mutiny. It takes a discontented crew.
Its not about the result its about deterrent. Cheat and there are consequences, regardless of the result.
Take performance enhancing drugs and enter a race. Even if you lose you would still be be banned from competing.
The problem I see once again is the regulators.
The ICO and Electoral Commission are just patsies. They have very little power, staff, or bottomless pockets to carry thorough investigations.
To Anon at 14:47.
I agree absolutely with the democratic legal principle you describe.
I merely inquire if the skullduggery was effective or not. This is not irrelevant in placing the issue in context. I presume (but don't KNOW) that a sentence would be greater if a breach of "election law" resulted in a complete reversal of an election result, since that would be a "successful" conspiracy and therefore proportionately more serious.
I'm sure someone with legal training would enlighten further.
AIQ claimed that between 5% and 7% of people targeted responded positively to what there doing. And nobody us going to fork out £650,000 without good reason to expect something in return.
And there's the claim that Vote Leave overspent.
Post a Comment