In countless interviews, the anti-Brexit activist Gina Miller presents her history as one of heroic struggle, and her opposition to leaving the European Union as entirely about process, not politics. The Slog presents a mountain of evidence to question those assertions. She is a determined woman who has led a colourful life of success. But is she really what she seems? You decide.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

In 2007, Gina Miller founded the True & Fair Foundation. There can be little doubt that it has done sterling work in defence of the many thousands of people (like me) serially ripped off by the financial services sector.

But the City is not just wary of her, it positively hates her. Her nickname among providers has long been The Black Widow spider. A former City Charity associate told me she was “a toxic dissembler”.

Gina insists on seeing opposition to her throughout a long and colourful life, as being based on her gender, ethnicity and beauty. Everything is about Gina the Physical rather than Gina the personality.

But getting to the core of that personality is, in many ways, akin to lassoing ether. Her history is one that leaves one wondering what the balance of dislike is between her physical and inner Self.

Her father was Doodnauth Singh, Attorney General of Guyana from 2001 to 2009, and also a People’s Progressive Party Member of the National Assembly. He was a lifelong Communist.

The People’s Progressive Party is a hard-Left political party in Guyana. It currently holds 32 of the 65 seats in the National Assembly, and has been the ruling Party on several occasions, most recently between 1992 and 2015. The main emphasis of its socialist ideology is dialectical Marxism.

Gina Miller was born in Guyana in 1965, and was sent by her well-to-do parents to board at the exclusive Moira House School (part of the Roedean Group) in Eastbourne at the age of ten. Nothing like a bit of Champagne Marxism to give a girl a leg up, you might think. But it wasn’t all plain sailing.

Miller has said various things at various times about what happened next. Four years later (she has said) Guyanan currency controls stopped the allowance money coming, so she had to fend for herself. She was all alone, and took a job as a chambermaid in Eastbourne. Except her elder brother was with her. And her parents bought them a flat. And she did continue at Moira House, as a day girl. She says the Guyanan government at the time “was a dictatorship”. It was in fact a left-wing dictatorship. The currency controls were lifted after the failure of Marxist policies was recognised, and the private sector embraced.

She claims The Moira House girls emptied her perfume bottle, isolated her and were jealous of her. She tells us how she was bullied at East London Polytechnic “and that’s what forced me to leave without finishing my degree”….which was in Law.  Elsewhere, she has claimed that she had to leave her studies and go back to Guyana to care for her parents.

Then there is the question of her marriages. Google search mentions only two, but other sources make it quite clear she has been married three times. She married Adrian Beal in 1985 when she was 20 – and, we must presume, still studying Law. Here, getting at the truth is again difficult. We are told the couple were divorced, but not when. There is no record in the National Archives of a divorce decree. However, in 2016 Miller told the Financial Times she had “a 28 year old daughter by a previous marriage” which means that she was still married to Beal in at least 1988.

Other than that, the years from 1985 to 2000 are yet another blur of confusion. She apparently never did get her Law degree: but at some point she gained a degree in marketing, and an MSc in human resource management at the University of London. That must have taken at least four years. If she left East London Poly aged, say, 19-20 that takes us to 1985. Four years to get the masters adds up to 1989.

But that doesn’t work: because by 1987 she owned a property photographic laboratory….while she was getting a Masters?

Still, armed with a Masters in personnel, she became a marketing and event manager at BMW Fleet Division in 1990. Neither the photolab nor the Fleet job came to anything, but by 1992 she had set up a specialist financial services marketing agency….which I at first assumed was Sway marketing….because that’s what she told the FT in 2016:

But somehow (hopefully) she managed to get two degrees and some financial services experience. Remarkable. I would be genuinely grateful if Gina could clear this up for me, as I’m confused. If she could furnish me – in fact all of us – with copies of the degrees she obtained and when she was awarded them, it would be a great help. Also where the financial services experience was obtained.

Anyway, in 1992 aged 27 Ms Miller has tried her hand at the Law, marriage, marketing, human resources, photographic development, event management and financial services marketing. One can’t help getting the impression of a girl who can’t settle: which of course many of us can’t in our twenties; and when you consider she was being regularly beaten up, bullied, hated, and subjected to both misogynist and racial prejudice, to get through all that learning and working at all was an astonishing feat.

At some point around the end of the last century, she met and married Jon Maguire. The marriage lasted under two years. This is Maguire’s side of the story (my emphases):

“I met Gina when she was having an affair with Linford Christie. She asked me to have a relationship with her. She was a failure in our business, SWAY Marketing.
I introduced her to Alan Miller at New Star Asset Management, a SWAY Marketing client. They commenced a relationship behind my back and behind Miller’s wife’s back, Melissa. She launched Wilde Marketing the day after walking out on our marriage – so she had been planning it while we were married….but her new agency Wilde marketing made no headway against mine. Four months after leaving me, Gina announced she was in a relationship with Alan Miller”.

Miller told the FT in 2016 that she was the owner of SWAY in 1992. She and Maguire didn’t get married until 2000, so why does the latter call it “my” and “our” business. Why does he introduce her to a SWAY client if she was the owner of it? It’s all terribly….how can I put it – uncertain, isn’t it?

Still, I’m sure Gina can set the record straight.

Jon Maguire issued his statement above online in February this year as his Right of Reply to a chapter in her 2018 book about herself and her triumph over lifelong abuse. I can find no evidence that Ms Miller has tried to sue her second husband for libel or misrepresentation. If Maguire is to be believed, Gina Miller doesn’t come out of this terribly well:

• She’s having an affair with Linford Christie, a client
• She dumps Christie, marries her (partner? employer?) but schemes to start a rival business behind his back almost immediately.
• She then breaks up another client’s fledgling 14-month marriage, and marries that multimillionaire client Alan Miller.

Is it thus likely that the basis of her fortune is a multimillionaire husband, not her business acumen? It’s hard to say….but again, perhaps Gina can advise us. In fact, there’s something of a need for clarification in relation to her academic, marital and commercial careers overall.

Miller later told the Daily Mail that Maguire has “a drink problem”, bullied her and physically abused her. She does seem to be a glutton for getting knocked about, poor kid.

Maguire is on the record, however, as saying he founded Sway in 2000. As recently as 2014, he founded Swayagain, to provide marketing and help raise capital for various ventures, including developing crop insurance for Malawian farmers and introducing school meals for children in Malawi.

What are we to think?

And so finally to the reality of Gina Miller’s claim that she is a defender of process, and not a political force.

She has in fact contradicted this self-image herself on several occasions. In 2016, she wrote a letter to Jeremy Corbyn, saying  ‘I beg you, as Labour’s leader, to reject a policy that will so obviously turn our country into a laboratory for one of the most extreme rightwing experiments we have witnessed since the 1930s’. If that isn’t a pro-Left political statement, then I don’t know what is.

She claimed in 2017 not to be either political or a committed europhile, but continued in her letter to the Labour leader as follows:

‘Your membership, the vast majority of young Labour voters and the unions, are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit because the European Union is, I would submit, the most successful union of our time. Brexit will lead to a flight of talent, money and taxes – and the country will have to take on more and more debt. It will of course hit the middle classes, but it will be the poorest and weakest in our society – the left behind, who depend on the NHS, social housing and foodbanks, and so many other public services – who will be its greatest victims.

‘I had been a member of the Labour party until your non-position on the greatest issue of our times became apparent. It breaks my heart to have to write to you in this way, but you have given me no alternative. David Lammy, one of your most principled Labour MPs, said in an emotional speech last week that if you did not now lead the campaign for a people’s vote, Labour would be kept from office for a generation.

‘I am afraid to say that I agree with him. At least half of the electorate do not have a voice, and the Labour party can and must give them one. You must listen to the growing number of voters saying that this Conservative government’s Brexit course is “not in my name”. ‘

So anyway, this is a letter from a politically neutral, David Lammy wing supporting former member of the Labour Party saying why she’s leaving the Party….over a political policy issue.

Still, you have to admire the way she contradicted her own claims to neutrality: she ran the letter as a main Guardian feature, just so none of us would be in any doubt that, on this occasion at least, she claimed one thing but did another. You can read the entire diatribe here.

So appalled was she by the electorate’s inability to get it right, Gina says she was “physically sick” on the night of EU referendum as 17.4 million voted leave, but she’s a game girl, and thus recovered very quickly: by the next morning she was already planning to take on the government to ensure that the Prime minister could not invoke Article 50 without a vote in Parliament. But predictably, a challenge by the losing people became The People’s Challenge. Use of “The People” has been a constant agitprop feature of the three-year campaign to disappear democracy in the UK.

It was allegedly financed through a crowd funding campaign to the tune of £175,550. In a virtue-signal the size of a giant crucifix, Grahame Pigney, who was part of the campaign, welcomed the decision as “the alternative would have meant a horrifying executive power grab that has no place in a modern democracy.” Quite how an Executive processing the will of a 17.4 million vote referendum majority represented ‘a horrifying executive power grab’ eludes most neutrals to this day.

How political is The People’s Challenge? Grahame Pigney is still the key activist behind The People’s Challenge. His twitter page is an obvious vehicle for the Labour Party to ignore the majority of its constituencies who voted Leave, and campaign all-out for Labour to Remain in the European Union. He regularly retweets and openly supports undemocratic drivel like this effort from Tom Watson:

He must, ergo sum, be a dedicated Revoker.

How political have Miller’s legal challenges been?

Her Article 50 litigation is described as ‘…won by a wide-ranging group of anti-Article 50 campaigners led by investment manager Gina Miller, 51′ in the Daily Telegraph. If Gina disagrees with this blatant slur against her “neutral process” concerns, she should sue the Telegraph. It probably needs the money.

The Law firm she uses, Mishcon de Reya, in 2008 launched the specialist ‘Pink Law’ Legal Advice Centre. The project offers free and impartial legal advice on issues affecting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community. Nothing wrong with that, but the image and values of the practice are not what you’d call “anti-liberal”. It is Cool, liberal and clearly very proud of it.

And very successful: its profit per equity partner is £1.2 million.

But still she continues to dissemble about her motives:

“This case is about process, not politics. My dedicated legal team – Mishcon de Reya and counsel – are, alongside myself and my supporters, pleased to have played our part in helping form a debate on whether the rights conferred on UK citizens through Parliamentary legislation 44 years ago could be casually snuffed out by the Executive without Parliament or our elected representatives and without proper prior consultation about the Government’s intentions for Brexit.”

Technically, her challenge of the process was sound. But from the outset in June 2016, Gina’s mission has been, it is hard to deny, the delay, thwarting, arrest and then reversal of the Referendum result. Miller surrounds herself with people dedicated to just that goal.

This has nothing to do with her colour, beauty, gender or any other excuse. It is based on the very obvious evidence available.

I leave it to the reader to judge just how beautiful Gina Miller is, on the outside…and the inside.