A name that keeps popping up in the Jimmy Lai trial is Luke de Pulford, the CEO of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), a coalition of hawkish Western politicians. Having been involved in the 2019 anti-extradition bill saga and his association with Lai, he's no stranger to controversy. Now, it seems he's stirring the pot again in the UK, this time taking aim at an American fund’s bid to buy The Telegraph newspaper. He's rallying the usual anti-China political figures to pressure the Labour government, spinning a tale that the fund’s chairman is so close to China it would create a "backdoor" for Beijing to control British media. It’s a familiar playbook, reminiscent of the dubious claims made against the Chinese Embassy in the UK, showing that the campaign to undermine China and Hong Kong is always bubbling under the surface.
Luke de Pulford, a key figure in the anti-China lobby, is leading the charge to block The Telegraph's sale, citing a "Chinese backdoor" threat.
A Straightforward Deal Complicated
What started as a simple business acquisition has been twisted into a geopolitical drama. The Telegraph, a paper with a 170-year legacy, has been struggling financially. Its owners, the Barclay family, are in debt and looking to sell. Back in May, the American private equity firm RedBird Capital, in a partnership with Abu Dhabi's IMI, put in a successful bid of £600 million for the paper. But the deal immediately ran into trouble, with cries of "foreign government influence" prompting the then-Conservative government to pass legislation to block the acquisition on national security grounds. In a bid to get past these political roadblocks, RedBird Capital has recently decided to buy out the Abu Dhabi fund’s shares and go it alone.
Enter the "China Risk" Narrative
Just when it looked like the deal might finally cross the finish line, de Pulford and his allies launched their offensive. They've issued a "warning" that if RedBird Capital buys The Telegraph, it would open the door to "Chinese state influence," effectively turning the newspaper into a Trojan horse for Beijing's interests in the British press.
The so-called evidence for this is thin, to say the least. De Pulford points to RedBird Capital's chairman, John Thornton, and his business ties to China. Thornton is on the international advisory council for China's sovereign wealth fund , the China Investment Corporation, and has established companies to invest in the "Belt and Road" initiative. On top of that, RedBird Capital has a regional headquarters in Hong Kong. Based on these connections, de Pulford paints a picture of a man whose judgment can't be trusted. The claims have become increasingly wild, with Thornton being branded a supporter of “suppression” in Xinjiang simply because he was once invited to visit the region.
RedBird Capital's chairman, John Thornton, finds his business ties to China used as ammunition by hawks trying to derail The Telegraph takeover.
Politics vs. Pragmatism
De Pulford is trying to frame this as a test case for how "soft power can bypass democratic defenses." He and other hawks are piling pressure on the Labour government to block the deal. However, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, seems to be taking a more pragmatic approach. She is reportedly considering amending the law to allow the acquisition to proceed. The reality is that industries across the UK are struggling, and the media is in a particularly tight spot. If you start blocking all foreign investment, especially from major global players, you’re going to see a lot of companies go under. It’s unlikely the Labour government will sacrifice economic sense for the sake of anti-China rhetoric.
This whole saga shows how anti-China and anti-Hong Kong politicians in the West are willing to pressure and sabotage businesses that have any connection to China. It’s a clear warning shot, not just for this deal, but for any foreign company operating in Hong Kong. While things might seem calm on the surface, these undercurrents of political interference are a real and present danger.
What Say You?
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
One month into war with Iran, an estimated 1,750 Iranians have died—many of them women and children. People with any conscience, including America's allies, hope Trump will stop and spare the people, but he remains characteristically reckless, with ground forces standing ready. One order in a moment of madness could kill far more.
Pope Leo XIV is deeply appalled by the continued killing and has finally spoken out forcefully: those who initiate wars have blood on their hands and should not justify war in God's name. Though the Pope did not name names, Trump is clearly one of them—he recently gathered Christian leaders at the White House to pray for his 'Christian crusade,' putting Jesus on the war chariot. No wonder the compassionate Pope is outraged.
Pope Leo blasts “war‑makers” with blood on their hands, warning that Jesus will not hear their prayers—an unmistakable rebuke of Trump and Hegseth.
More shocking still: Defense Secretary Hegseth was revealed to have made inflammatory remarks at a Pentagon prayer meeting, saying 'we must use overwhelming violence against those who do not deserve mercy.' The brutality is terrifying. The Pope Leo XIV's remarks appear well-aimed, calling the world to recognize the evil face of these so-called Christian zealots.
At the Pentagon, War Secretary Hegseth was exposed urging “overwhelming violence” against those he deems unworthy of mercy—a chilling call to brutality.
Since the US and Israel began war against Iran, the Pope has spoken out several times calling for a ceasefire and urging those who started the war to lay down their weapons. But this speech was the harshest yet, showing his anger has reached a critical point.
On Palm Sunday before Easter, he addressed the faithful in St. Peter's Square, saying those who initiate wars have blood on their hands, God will not listen to their prayers, and they should not justify war in God's name.
Trump and Hegseth's Religious War Framing
The Pope's remarks target two recent events. First, shortly after launching the war, Trump assembled conservative evangelical pastors and leaders at the White House. They stood behind him, hands on his shoulders, praying for divine guidance to victory. The scene carried an eerie religious intensity never before witnessed at the White House.
Second, War Secretary Hegseth, author of American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free, drew parallels between the conflict with Iran and the Crusades—when Christian armies attacked Islamic nations a thousand years ago. He institutionalized this framing through monthly prayer meetings at the Pentagon, promoting extreme Christian ideology to subordinates.
Pope's Theological Stance Against War
The Pope watched these two troubling phenomena unfold with deep concern and anger. Framing this conflict as a "religious war" doesn't just contradict Christian teaching—it's dangerous, inviting catastrophe. He was unequivocal: "This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war." He then invoked Scripture itself, quoting Jesus: "Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: Your hands are full of blood."
The Pope directly condemned priests who pray for "war makers," insisting that Christian leaders bearing responsibility for war must repent. His message was clear: supporting a conflict that causes mass suffering is wrong, period—both theologically and morally.
Escalating Conflict and Religious Fanaticism
The Pope had voiced his grave concerns right from the start. Shortly after the conflict erupted, he warned that unchecked escalation would trigger catastrophe, urging all sides to "stop the spiral of violence before it becomes an irreparable abyss." His prescience proved accurate—yet the leaders of both nations, each pursuing their own agenda, have only intensified the flames. They ignore his pleas.
Military leadership has matched political fervor with religious conviction. The War Secretary overseeing operations, Pete Hegseth, has embraced what amounts to religious fanaticism, recently revealed to have sanctified violence during an internal Pentagon prayer meeting. According to the Associated Press, he appealed for ‘overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.’ He was referring to Iran and other Islamic adversaries. To complete this "sacred mission," he suggested, killing is justified.
Call for Unity Against War and Evil
Whether Trump or Hegseth, both rationalize and sanctify mass-killing warfare—a truly terrifying prospect. The Pope’s firm stand today against this "heresy" has greatly heartened those standing on the side of justice.
As long as all anti-war forces unite and continue to grow stronger, we believe we can ultimately overcome evil with righteousness and force the 'warmongers' to back down.
