Whitehall source claims ‘most interesting parts’ of the Russia report have been left out
- Credit: PA
A Whitehall source has claimed that chunks of the Russia report have been redacted, raising fresh concerns over the veracity of the report.
It has fuelled that Downing Street had left out sections which could show Russian interference during recent UK elections and votes.
The report, which comes out after a nine-month wait, alleges that Moscow had meddled in the 2014 Scottish referendum and could be involved in 14 suspicious deaths on British soil.
Another source told the Daily Mail that the findings showed not enough had been done to investigate Russian interference in the Brexit referendum of 2016.
You may also want to watch:
Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who was behind the Russia-Trump 'dossier' which exposed alleged links between the Kremlin-backed donors and Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, claimed that Downing Street had been 'reluctant' to move on intelligence that Russian agents were hampering UK elections.
- 1 Susanna Reid takes on Priti Patel over government's gaslighting of public on coronavirus
- 2 Brexiteer musician accused of hypocrisy after demanding No 10 help bands with EU visa
- 3 Tory minister admits UK rejected EU's music visa offer in order to 'take back control' of borders
- 4 PMQs: Ben Bradshaw calls out Boris Johnson over Brexit lies
- 5 ‘Don’t haste ye back’ - Nicola Sturgeon's perfect farewell message to Donald Trump
- 6 Piers Morgan calls on Priti Patel to resign over missing crime records fiasco
- 7 Tory MPs vote down Lords bid to protect NHS from post-Brexit trade deals
- 8 9 of the best tweets of Donald Trump leaving the White House
- 9 Boris Johnson narrowly avoids defeat over vote on trade deals with genocidal regimes
- 10 Trump caller hangs up on James O'Brien after failing to cite ex-president's 'truths'
He told the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC): 'My understanding, arising partly from personal experience with the 'Trump-Russia dossier', is that this government perhaps more than its predecessors is reluctant to see (or act upon) intelligence on Russian activities when this presents difficult wider political implications.
'Examples of this include reporting on the Kremlin's likely hold over president Trump and his family/administration and indications of Russian interference in and clandestine funding of the Brexit referendum.'
There are also concerns over the relationship between the Tory party and several wealthy Russian donors. Just last week, it emerged business secretary Alok Sharma sat next to two Russian businessmen at a Tory fundraising dinner this year where it is understood a discussion to build a £1.2 billion pipeline under the English Channel was had.
One of those men, Alexander Temerko, paid £12,000 for his seat and is understood to have given the party £1.3 million in donations over the years.
Temerko was the chief executive of a government-owned arms firm in Russia before moving to the UK and his business partner, Kirill Glukhovskoy, worked as legal advisor at a Russian state oil company.
Downing Street has also faced mounting criticism for not releasing the report sooner. It is believed the delay was caused by Dominic Cummings, the prime minister's chief advisor, who did not want to 'give a platform' to former pro-European ISC chairman Dominic Grieve during the Brexit battles last year.
Grieve has welcomed publication of the report.
He said: 'I'm delighted it [the Russia report] is finally coming out, it is nine months later than it should have been and there was no good reason not to publish it in October last year.
'Now people will have a better understanding on the threat Russia poses and if we are doing enough to counter it.'
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.