Why Is the UK Government Hiding Meetings With Gates and BlackRock?

Reprint from The State Of It by Lewis Brackpool.

On the 21st of November 2024, I submitted a Freedom of Information request regarding the details of the meeting between Keir Starmer and Bill Gates during his October 2024 visit, specifically concerning agriculture and farming.

As the largest private farmland owner in the U.S., Gates’ visit—just before the UK budget announcement and amidst a sudden crackdown on farmers—raised serious eyebrows on social media.

I argued that it is crucial to address and clarify any potential links without diverging into pure speculation. Given Bill Gates’ history with governments and his ambitions in various fields of science, I maintained that this raises legitimate questions about external influences on public policy.

I also contended that disclosing this information would help maintain trust in the policymaking process. Despite record-low trust in governmental and institutional entities, it remains a clear matter of public interest—especially among the British public and across social media.

I challenged the use of Section 35 of the FOI Act, which “sets out four exemptions designed to protect good government and provide a safe space for policymaking,” and contested the application of Section 43 (the commercial interests exemption), arguing that releasing the information would not harm commercial interests but instead foster a more informed public debate.

On the 20th of December, the Cabinet Office extended the response deadline, citing Section 35 of the FOI Act (unsurprising), which protects the policy-making process—triggering a public interest test to determine whether releasing the information was appropriate.

What was fascinating about this particular reply was not just that the government was delaying my request by extending the deadline, but that they had inadvertently admitted that releasing the meeting’s content—whether a memo or any other record—could “affect the public policy-making process.” Why is the government delaying transparency, claiming it could affect policy-making over what they call a ‘state visit’?

Ben Leo of GB News, a good friend, was one of the very few who wanted to talk about the story and how a foreign billionaire is potentially shaping British policy-making.

After three months of waiting, I finally received a response from the Cabinet Office—not just regarding Bill Gates’ meeting with Keir Starmer, but also Larry Fink of BlackRock. I had requested information on public infrastructure projects, investment details, and any formal agreements or documentation outlining the partnership or collaboration between BlackRock and the UK Government.

For the Bill Gates meeting, the Cabinet Office claimed: “No records exist of his meeting with government officials in October 2024.” A bizarre turn of events that left me scratching my head. If no records exist, why were they concerned about releasing them? Later, the Cabinet Office revealed that they had sent the wrong response—eventually confirming that disclosure would harm government decision-making, and arguing that transparency would negatively impact businesses engaging with the government.

Regarding the meeting with Larry Fink, the Cabinet Office confirmed that the Prime Minister met with him on November 21, 2024, but is refusing to disclose what was discussed, citing exemptions for policy formulation and commercial interests. If there was nothing sensitive to hide, why not release even a summary of the topics covered?

My internal review of these requests has now been issued, with the most recent update stating that the Cabinet Office is delaying again—and won’t even commit to a timeline for reviewing the refusal.

This entire investigation has been almost entirely predictable, and yet still an eye-opener. It demonstrates the government’s lack of transparency toward the British public, and the ongoing state transition toward technocracy is in full swing. A foreign self-proclaimed ‘expert’ in climate and vaccines, with substantial wealth behind him, can now influence the policy-making process within a foreign government. The chatter online about conspiracies continues to be vindicated—especially when it comes to control and policy made without a public vote or mandate.

What Happens Now?

Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait for the internal review to conclude before escalating the outcome of the requests to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The internal review challenges the refusal and demands clarity on:

• Why did they initially send an incorrect response?
• Why are discussions about public policy being withheld under “commercial interests”?
• Whether agriculture and farming were part of the meeting agenda.

Their response delaying the internal review is also extremely telling.

I would like to personally thank everyone for the kind messages of support throughout this investigation. It has been frustrating, but unfortunately, this is politics.

If you would like to contribute to the FOI investigation, you can do so by visiting this link. Thank you.

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciate the work we do to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, please consider giving a gift to help us continue this work. Maranatha!