Thread by @Carlier_J87

BBRS break promise to answer ALL questions put to Roundtable (avoiding some, re-engineering others, providing answers that are contrary to fact). I challenge BBRS, @JohnGlenUK @CommonsTreasury . BBRS ignore, @CommonsTreasury ignore. Glen had someone produce this. Seriously?.....

@AWhistleblowing @True_and_FairUK @TransparencyTF @CarshaltonArt @andyverity @jameshurley @_MODwyer @thisismoney

I know what the BBRS is supposed to do. I know why it has been setup. Why does @JohnGlenUK think a letter with zero relevance to the substantial & significant concerns that I raised in respect to the BBRS itself and their Q&A, is adequate, and not an insult?

When someone provides a response to a communication or question that bears no resemblance to that which was being asked, is it not also entirely dishonest? Mr Glen is at pains to stress the strict 'Independence' criteria for BBRS, despite my concerns being specific to that.....

How can Mr Glen and HMT demand 'independence' of BBRS, but then ignore substantial and significant concerns and evidence that demonstrate wholesale conflict and prejudice from top to bottom, including @CEDRConsumerADR the body integrated within BBRS & overseeing recruitment....

@CEDRConsumerADR and BBRS have demonstrated a remarkable lack of honesty and integrity in respect to BBRS recruitment. Still waiting for CEDR to explain why they lied to me in November when claiming my application for a role was not received. I have evidence to prove it was....

Importantly, @JohnGlenUK is adamant as to HMT being independent and will not intervene in these bodies, functions, processes that are supposed to be independent and free from influence. This is remarkably similar to this letter sent to me by HMT on behalf of Glen in 2018...

It says in response to my question of who introduced new sophistication criteria in to the IRHP Review in Jan '13 & why that "the changes made by the FSA were in response to their findings from the pilot, & not the result of any intervention by the Treasury or any other party"...

This was false. And by this time I had the evidence to prove that it was false. But I wrote back to @JohnGlenUK on the same day that I received the letter from HMT sent on his behalf to give him and HMT an opportunity to come clean and provide an honest answer....

You would think that when faced with that email from someone with my expertise, that Mr Glen & HMT would suspect that I knew something. However, HMT produced a letter on behalf of Mr Glen & again, presumably with his approval, emphatically denying any connection to HMT.....

The statements are entirely false. Can Mr Glen or those senior HMT officials claim ignorance of what really happened late 2012-Jan 2013 in respect to the introduction of the new sophistication criteria? I don't see how. If you don't know, then you find out before writing to me...

The bottom line is that I have the evidence to prove that it was HMT and persons acting on behalf of HMT that forced the new sophistication criteria in to the IRHP Review. It was NOT as a result of the FSA and their pilot study as claimed.......

The substantial evidence that I have demonstrates that it was @sajidjavid that forced in this new criteria and did so on behalf of HMT when working at HMT. A criteria that saw the 5,000 largest victims of the IRHP mis-selling/FRAUD excluded from the review, denying them remedy...

We estimate that this saved the banks, and denied victims, in excess of £15bio in compensation that they were entitled to. The banks involved, two of them Govt owned, were the only beneficiary, and 5,000 UK businesses and 100's of thousands of employees were damaged.....

On February 12th 2020 I met with John Swift QC's team, appointed by HMT to independently investigate the @TheFCA IRHP Review. I presented them with all of the evidence I had demonstrating the truth and implicating Mr Javid. The next day Mr Javid resigns as Chancellor......

Given recent events that seek to further conceal facts in respect to FCA regulated IRHP's and in particular the FCA regulated credit lines attached to them, and whilst we await the outcomes from Mr Swift QC, I will be presenting all of this evidence to the victims & their MP's...

I will also present the evidence to the BBRS so that it establishes truth and fact, and therefore EVERY customer sold an IRHP but deemed 'sophisticated' under any criteria, MUST now qualify for free, independent review and remedy. Enough is enough.