Curiouser and curiouser

The Plumb Pudding

While digging about on Bhanu Choudhrie and C & C Alpha Group, I came across something interesting.

The Choudrie family tree

It seems that the media glare has shone on more than just Bhanu, in fact the Choudrie family are apparently news worthy – Bhanu’s wife Simrin is something of a philanthropist, while his father Sudhir may be slightly less.  On the face of it Sudhir Choudhrie is your average successful businessman; a graduate of Delhi University,  board member, vice chairman and listed as director and boardmember – here’s his aggregate profile.

However he came to public prominence in the UK in 2009 in a scandal revolving around an arms deal in India and his financial support of the LibDems:

http://oliverlaughland.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/newsnight-sudhir-choudhrie/

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/World/Arms_Dealer_Wanted_In_India_Major_Funder_Of_UK_Liberal-1296.html

It created such a stir at the time it had its own 10 minute slot on  newsnight, could this be why his son is now the public face of C & C Alpha group? Was this why C&C Alpha group decided to use Max Clifford’s services?

Advertisements

18 Comments on “Curiouser and curiouser”

  1. lightacandle says:

    Like the cartoon Mr Digby.

    As for philanthropists – to me they’re simply either rich people who are feeling mighty guilty – rightly so or as is more likely rich people through the magic of accountancy trying to dodge the tax man through their charitable works therefore holding on to more of their ill gotten gains in the process.

    Philanthropy should not exist in the 21st century – that is why we had the welfare state, the health service and the public sector – but seemingly if the right wing get their way not any more. Taxes are paid to provide that safety net in society for all who may one day need it – but the philanthropists simply want to keep a hold of those taxes for themselves whilst chucking a few crumbs the way of those in need as and when it suits them. Sad – for them, for us and for society in general as no-one should have to beg or rely on charity to see them through the day – a fairer redistribution of wealth and a fair tax system would sort that one out but that goes against the ideology of the privilidged few as they want to keep a hold of those privilidges and condemn everyone else to a life of servitude or worse destitution. Day by day we move closer back to the Victorian times, the philanthropy of that era and the inequalities it helped foster and uphold. A tragedy in the making that will all end in tears.

  2. lightacarrot says:

    Again Digby or should I say Romeo – just want to thank you for all your help and friendship these last few days – as I always say….. you’re a star…..shining brightly.

  3. lightacarrot says:

    How did I suddenly become lightacarrot! – That’s my name on the Underground site. Spooky goings on here.

  4. lightacandle says:

    Morning Diggers.

    I’m free!!!

    Reporting for duty – world to be saved!

    (Thanking you again x)

  5. havantaclu says:

    LaC’s comments re philanthropists are spot on – but on the same tack, have you seen that article in the Indie about food parcels? We’re back to the Victorians already, it seems!

  6. LAC says:

    @havantaclu

    Yes and the fact that no-one questions that we are now living in a supposedly civilized society yet have people begging for food says a lot about us and what we have become – people just seem to accept it – we pay taxes to ensure this doesn’t happen that is what the welfare state was – a safety net – and if it is not working then that means there is something seriously wrong and those that are taking too much out of the system should be putting it back in the taxes they should be paying but are more than avoiding or evading – a fair distribution of wealth so that some don’t take too much out at the expense of those who have too little never mind the fact that the poorest also pay a far higher proportion of their income on taxes anyway than those abusing their ill gained privilidges. It’s all wrong and yet everyone is silent – I just don’t get it.

    • havantaclu says:

      And we’re told that these wonderful people who give so much to the economy would leave in droves if we tried to clamp down on their tax avoidance/evasion even a leetle tiny bit. As we have realised, they do as much for the economy as the so-called ‘feral’ poor!

  7. LAC says:

    Yes Digsby – we reached an impasse and I said I’m not prepared to be censored or have someone else tell me what I can or cannot write – and they told me that I could still criticize the editorial stance/writers etc and would not be censored as long as I stayed within the community guidelines and that it would be for just a few comments but they had to do it as they can’t treat people differently. So when I saw more and more of you being deleted and maybe being punished on my behalf and also the cartoonists probably getting fed up of it all I gave it a go and that compromise was reached and they kept their word and I kept within the community guidlelines so that was that. Though I don’t doubt I may find myself in the same situation again – third strike and you’re out – hope not – but if I can stop myself from foaming at the mouth over those such as Glover and co. maybe I’ll be OK – but I’m not going to change anything about the way I post or what I do or say. But anyway its glad to be free again – and again thanks to you as I may have done something worse if you hadn’t given me this outlet and a sort of pressure valve to release the frustration and despair. You’re my hero – but you know that don’t you – as are all the others too.

  8. LAC says:

    Where’s your ammo pile?

    In the meantime have Mr Glover has made an appearance on the Live Lib Dem blog so I have posted something for his attention ont live thread and will leave it here too in case it disappears but it shouldn’t as I haven’t insulted him or said anything ‘naughty’…..

    Morning Julian,

    If you find you have a free moment I wonder if you could answer me this question which has been vexing me ever since you wrote this article last week….

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/11/clegg-liberal-democrat-moaners-power?INTCMP=SRCH

    In the article you stated the following :-

    ” An artificial row about profit-making free schools last week allowed Clegg to commit his party to universal academies for the first time.”

    If we can concentrate on the ‘artificial row’ aspect please – How do you know this and if it is known how come the media hasn’t reacted more fully in condemning such actions. Remember this ‘artificial row’ kept the coverage of the other news of the week – the mounting protests over plans for the NHS and the debate itself – to a minimum and many were angered and frustrated by this. And now to find that ‘row’ that kept the NHS debate off the front pages was an ‘artificial’ one is very upsetting and goes to prove that what Mr Clegg and his party are engaged in along with Gove and the others who obviously played their part in it all is dirty politics at its worse.

    Don’t you think you should highlight and question this more. Don’t you think we the readers and the public deserve that and yet everyone is silent. Why?

    And finally if that row was ‘artificial’ how do we know that this latest 50% tax supposed row and all the other things Clegg is highlighting as disagreements aren’t themselves in fact simply ruses designed to pull the wool over our eyes simply to enable Clegg and co to hold onto their their ill gotten and highly disastrous reins of power. A power they paid the price for by selling their souls along with the hopes and aspirations of a generation of young people who voted for them who they subsequently turned their backs on – totally disallusioning our young people in the process which is unforgiveable. Dirty politics and a more than dirty part wouldn’t you agree.

    Can you question Mr Clegg about this ‘artificial row’ and how can we be sure that these dirty tactics are not continuing on as we speak, and do us all a favour by revealing the truth of what is happening in the process or are we just going to continue to get this glib and rather mediocre whitewash that is serving as your coverage of the conference which really isn’t telling us anything at all and is simply doing the work of the Lib Dem PR machine for them – unfortunately all too well. More questions please Mr Glover – and then maybe we would get more satisfactory answers along with better coverage too.

    The balls in your court……

  9. ok that tells me you can’t see it so:

    http://www.ufollow.com/authors/julian.glover/
    Julian Glover is the Guardian’s chief leader writer since 2006. He launched the Guardian Unlimited Politics website ahead of the 2001 general election, before joining the paper’s news desk. He moved to report from Westminster in 2005. He worked with John Major on the former prime minister’s autobiography and at the Economist and on several BBC Radio documentaries.

    http://mediastandardstrust.org/ ‘s http://journalisted.com/julian-glover#tab-links
    Julian Glover has written…
    More about ‘labour’ than anything else
    A lot about ‘cameron’ in the last month

    http://mtpt.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/damned-lying-statistics-or-what-passes-for-guardian-journalism-these-days/

    http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=44942
    ‘Around 40’ Guardian editorial staff take redundancy

    22 January 2010

    Around 40 editorial staff have accepted voluntary redundancy as part of an ongoing headcount reduction at Guardian News & Media to help ease its £100,000 a day losses.

    …..Chief leader writer Julian Glover will also stand down from his post, however he will continue to write for The Guardian.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-feral-beast-glover-digs-in-heels-at-guardian-1941140.html
    The feral beast: Glover digs in heels at Guardian

    Sunday, 11 April 2010

    News reaches me that Julian Glover, The Guardian’s token right-winger, is resisting writing leaders endorsing Labour in the election.

  10. lightacandle says:

    Oh – I see.

    My questions to Mr Glover were passed to him and he sent me a reply via the Lib Dem conference live blog…….

    “Thanks for the response. “Artificial” is my word but it is the impression I gained while talking to people involved while researching the piece – as for academies I think it is good for the Lib Dems to support them just as it was great to hear Ed Miliband back them in his q&a with the TUC last week. Do I agree with you that the Lib Dems are holding “ill gotten and highly disastrous reins of power”. No! I think they are not doing a bad job”

    To which I have just sent him this reply……..

    Thanks for passing that on Jessica and for the reply – I would have got back to you sooner but the Sunday Roast got in the way and sometimes a hungry family has to take priority – real life getting in the way there I’m afraid. But all are fed and can now get back to saving the world…….or something along those lines all be it a kind of virtual cyber spacey sort of way……..

    Could you pass this reply back to Mr Glover for him to look at if he has the time…….

    Thanks for that response Mr Glover but unfortunately it does nothing to answer my question and if anything only confuses matters further. You say….

    ” “Artificial” is my word but it is the impression I gained while talking to people involved while researching the piece”

    But if you recall in your original article it wasn’t an impression then and you did in fact state it as fact…..

    “An artificial row about profit-making free schools last week allowed Clegg to commit his party to universal academies for the first time. The same may even be true, up to a point, on banking reform (the mysteries of the Vince Cable-George Osborne relationship bewildering even those close to it)”.

    Far from an impression, wouldn’t you say, unlike the following example over banking reform which you do qualify with ‘may be true up to a point” which in turn tells us that could be an impression. But no not the schools row.

    Even if you still for some reason now want to say it is only an impression – then surely as a journalist the next correct step would have been to investigate further and see if that impression you got was actual truth which would have been the logical and right thing to do – I am not being pedantic here I just think that when a political party creates a false row to have one over on the people of the country it is a highly serious and damaging matter.

    As I said before it is an example of politics being played at its dirtiest and is something that the politicians involved should have to answer and be held to account over. Do you not see this?

    As for…….

    ” No! I think they are not doing a bad job.”

    I would expect nothing less as you tell us more or less the same thing each time you write an article in which case I have to confront you with these words from the Liberal Democrat Voice website which I find extremely worrying as it does question your judgment in such matters and whether or not we are in fact getting a fair and balanced view in your writings or whether that judgement is clouded by affiliations……..

    The Lib Dem Voice.
    Published 4th November 2010 – 10:15 am

    “The Guardian’s Julian Glover is one of the very few commentators to emerge as a True Believer in the Coalition, and a champion of the Lib Dems’ role within it… much to the undisguised fury of regular inhabitants of the paper’s Comment is Free website. He’s popped up again to offer the party 10 tips to prove the Coalition-sceptics wrong, preserve our identity, and try to establish a distinctive message.”

    and….

    Published 18th October 2010 – 7:45 pm

    “Julian Glover, writing for The Guardian’s Comment Is Free, puts forward a trenchantly pro-Coalition, pro-Clegg line — one that’s guaranteed to attract the ire of Guardianistas.”

    And yes they are right aren’t they Julian it is one that attracts the ire of Guardianistas but not because you have your views and are entitled to them but because you are writing as a journnalist who is supposed to take a balanced view of things and yet we see and are in fact told that that is not the case.

    All of which makes us question your continuous support of the Liberal Democrats even more within your articles as it seems you are in fact much closer to them than you make out.

    I am not having a personal go at you here I am just concerned that I cannot trust everything you write and as with this ‘artificial schools row’ don’t feel we are getting the true picture or investigations worthy of a guardian journalist taking a fair view of things.

    If I am wrong please do enlighten me and the many others who I know do feel the same way.