I looked into the MHRA in 21/22 and the apparent conflicts of interest. First and foremost I have a problem with the 'registered charity' set up of what is essentially part of the NHS and the tax breaks and preferred treatment that it therefore receives. There was also a board member from E&Y whose background was in digital IDs but I can't remember his name.
I used to onboard banking clients in the City, corporate, private, politically exposed persons so am aware of just how cosy these relationships are but the MHRA is one of the worst examples of clear conflicts of interest I have ever come across. It has been a very long and gradual erosion of standards and professionalism that have brought the West to this point. Almost as if by design. Very early on in my career I went for a job at the regulator, FSA as was, and when asked at interview what I thought the biggest challenge facing the FSA, replied 'being funded by the institutions it regulates'. I didn't get the job.
Good on you for your opposition to corruption. The struggle is real - many employers don't want someone anti-corruption, and I only managed to keep my job for 3 years at the NHS as I was so useful they couldn't fire me even when I exposed major security failings in a big meeting between various parties. I ultimately quit due to disability (pre-pandemic disability).
Raine does have that appearance. That said, Britain has some women who do look like men without surgery (long before the fads pushed in schools), so it's honestly hard to tell sometimes.
MHRA has arguably one of the flimsiest designs I have ever seen in a so-called 'regulator'. There's no transparency in the meetings or notes (at least the FDA allows the public to vent). There's no separate body of advisors (even the FDA's advisors sometimes dissented).
Even the conflict of interest disclosure form has some of them confused and is clearly unenforced - some have marked being an ex-employee as a "current" conflict (due to shares) whilst others have not despite being proactive members (???).
I refuse to believe 5 of the members who overlap between Board and ExCo have zero conflicts of interest (apparently they were just born straight into the MHRA?); if announcing you worked at the NHS is sufficient grounds, then surely the Board/ExCo overlap should be announcing former employers too?
I dug around those names but searches were fruitless, censored or sanitised. It's as if they just appeared out of thin air.
Yes I have something Underdog. For the monthly transactions over £500, the statements thru October 2019 - March 2020 are MISSING. That's just before the start of the "pandemic"! Link showing this here:
MHRA are answerable for sure.i'm heavily reluctant to use my real name this time due to the bust up detailed in my last substack post (where I busted them up!). Using a pseudonym is allowed but it affects internal reviews and appeals I understand. Defo happy for anyone else to give it a go!!!
Thanks for giving me a heads up Underdog, my position is compromised having taken the attack to them!! It is the bridge guy, still awaiting a reply from him tbh, I'm not one of his regular contacts but he has the email laying out the problem. Its such an amazing cut out of procurement transactions, right at the time you would expect them to cover up!!! Something needs to happen here. My contacts are precious few, need some help here! Gustav indicated he was interested?
Raine the rat is abandoning the sinking ship!
Funnily enough, Scott Gottlieb did much the same thing when I exposed that b-turd many years ago. 'Family reasons', he claimed.
More like 'didn't want to get absolutely scalped by the public'.
I wonder which organisation she sold out to next? If it's Pfizer I'll laugh.
I looked into the MHRA in 21/22 and the apparent conflicts of interest. First and foremost I have a problem with the 'registered charity' set up of what is essentially part of the NHS and the tax breaks and preferred treatment that it therefore receives. There was also a board member from E&Y whose background was in digital IDs but I can't remember his name.
I used to onboard banking clients in the City, corporate, private, politically exposed persons so am aware of just how cosy these relationships are but the MHRA is one of the worst examples of clear conflicts of interest I have ever come across. It has been a very long and gradual erosion of standards and professionalism that have brought the West to this point. Almost as if by design. Very early on in my career I went for a job at the regulator, FSA as was, and when asked at interview what I thought the biggest challenge facing the FSA, replied 'being funded by the institutions it regulates'. I didn't get the job.
I also think Raine is a man... đŸ˜œ
Good on you for your opposition to corruption. The struggle is real - many employers don't want someone anti-corruption, and I only managed to keep my job for 3 years at the NHS as I was so useful they couldn't fire me even when I exposed major security failings in a big meeting between various parties. I ultimately quit due to disability (pre-pandemic disability).
Raine does have that appearance. That said, Britain has some women who do look like men without surgery (long before the fads pushed in schools), so it's honestly hard to tell sometimes.
MHRA has arguably one of the flimsiest designs I have ever seen in a so-called 'regulator'. There's no transparency in the meetings or notes (at least the FDA allows the public to vent). There's no separate body of advisors (even the FDA's advisors sometimes dissented).
Even the conflict of interest disclosure form has some of them confused and is clearly unenforced - some have marked being an ex-employee as a "current" conflict (due to shares) whilst others have not despite being proactive members (???).
I refuse to believe 5 of the members who overlap between Board and ExCo have zero conflicts of interest (apparently they were just born straight into the MHRA?); if announcing you worked at the NHS is sufficient grounds, then surely the Board/ExCo overlap should be announcing former employers too?
I dug around those names but searches were fruitless, censored or sanitised. It's as if they just appeared out of thin air.
"History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."
Quite. Try researching something on the net. The search engines are controlled, censored and history is being deleted as we speak.
Brave, Yandex and Goggles for confirmation by omission... đŸ˜œ
I use Brave and Yandex but even they are compromised, though not as much as google etc.
Yes I have something Underdog. For the monthly transactions over £500, the statements thru October 2019 - March 2020 are MISSING. That's just before the start of the "pandemic"! Link showing this here:
https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/03e53585-6f29-4f31-b14b-8157bc33f322/mhra-gpc-transactions
Why are they missing? What is in those statements? Something is very fishy about this!!
Extremely well spotted. Forgive me delay in replying, I've been on haitus for a bit.
Surely can be acquired via FOI?
Hi Stephen. Do you think we could FOIA these missing entries? Not sure if these laws apply to charities?
MHRA are answerable for sure.i'm heavily reluctant to use my real name this time due to the bust up detailed in my last substack post (where I busted them up!). Using a pseudonym is allowed but it affects internal reviews and appeals I understand. Defo happy for anyone else to give it a go!!!
MHRA will stonewall unless they know you've got some competent lawyers backing you up or some sort of legal teeth of which to compel disclosure.
Maybe you can ask A.B. (if you're referring to who I think you are) to use their powers to compel MHRA to disclose?
Thanks for giving me a heads up Underdog, my position is compromised having taken the attack to them!! It is the bridge guy, still awaiting a reply from him tbh, I'm not one of his regular contacts but he has the email laying out the problem. Its such an amazing cut out of procurement transactions, right at the time you would expect them to cover up!!! Something needs to happen here. My contacts are precious few, need some help here! Gustav indicated he was interested?
My goodness, just had a thorough look, this is dodgy, super dodgy! Wonder if they’ve hidden it in the section above £25k.
No, they didn't tbh, looked thru there at same date. Very very few under 25k crept in there. I've made sure A.B. knows about this.