How is the Tory government doing?

Sluffy wrote:

Each to their own and all of that.

I take what I see on social media with a large pinch of salt myself.

I suspect many of them have their own reasons and agendas for saying what they do.

I prefer to keep an open mind and judge things in context and not in isolation and/or retrospect.

If these people can do a better job than those they presumably are criticising/lampooning, then why don't they step forward and put themselves in the firing line and practice what they preach rather than spend there lives tweeting to strangers on the internet?

You’re just lumping all social media posters into one pot though.

The people I mention in my previous post are journalists, university professors and barristers. That’s what they spend their lives doing, not just tweeting to strangers - as you so disparagingly put it.

I wouldn’t get access to their opinions/views on such a regular basis through any other medium, so it’s interesting to read.

It’s also important to blend views you don’t agree with into the mix (Darren Grimes, JHB, Dan Hodges, Toby Young).

It’s a unique way of getting a massive range of news and opinion.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Each to their own and all of that.

I take what I see on social media with a large pinch of salt myself.

I suspect many of them have their own reasons and agendas for saying what they do.

I prefer to keep an open mind and judge things in context and not in isolation and/or retrospect.

If these people can do a better job than those they presumably are criticising/lampooning, then why don't they step forward and put themselves in the firing line and practice what they preach rather than spend there lives tweeting to strangers on the internet?

You’re just lumping all social media posters into one pot though.

The people I mention in my previous post are journalists, university professors and barristers. That’s what they spend their lives doing, not just tweeting to strangers - as you so disparagingly put it.

I wouldn’t get access to their opinions/views on such a regular basis through any other medium, so it’s interesting to read.

It’s also important to blend views you don’t agree with into the mix (Darren Grimes, JHB, Dan Hodges, Toby Young).

It’s a unique way of getting a massive range of news and opinion.

Well unless they confine their tweets to just people they know then of course they are tweeting to strangers - do you know personally any of those whose tweets you follow and name above for instance?

I lump all the informed people down the pub into one pot too and I live in an area amongst journalists, university professors and barristers too.

I've never heard of most of those you name above but I would strongly suspect you follow the ones you have shared ideas and political beliefs in and tend to discount the views and opinions of those you don't.  If so you are just reinforcing / giving credence to your own existing standpoint rather than having an open mind about things.

At the end of the day the issue of what we have been talking about is being driven by one man who has an issue with the government and who has previously initiated Judicial Reviews against them (has any ever got to that stage and has any ever been successful?).

An initial and brief search appears to suggest not -

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/jolyon-maugham-qc-suffers-backlash-on-twitter-after-calling-high-court-judge-pro-government/

This time he seems to be suggesting something wrong over the award of three contracts under emergency powers.

The government states that at the time 200 companies were approved of which Maugham is seemingly objecting to just three - or 1.5% of all awarded.

Fwiw there is nothing untoward about awarding a contract to someone known to the government under normal procurement procedures providing a Declaration of Interest is made before hand.

As for the awarding of contracts to shell companies and/or companies who had no previous history of providing such goods or services required, are not precluded under emergency procedures that were in place at the time - the Judicial Review will establish that if it ever gets to that point.

He cities and error in the delivery of one of these contracts.

Again out of 600 awarded contracts we are aware of just two errors, or an error rate of just 0.33%.

Fwiw errors occur all the time in contracts, a whole industry has been built over the years across the world in dealing with contract disputes - indeed the link below leads to 200 pages of Contract Law 'categories' and God knows how many cases must have come before the courts over the centuries to build up the Case Law behind them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Contract_law

Fwiw it would not surprise me in the least if errors have occurred in some of the other 600 contracts awarded - it's part of the nature of the beast so to speak.

Speaking personally I've always avoided taking a personal interest in things I investigate/research/ review as it clouds/prejudices having an open mind.

I'm sure all these journalists, university professors and barristers are all very eminent and learned but I would also suspect just by their nature of expounding their views via social media that they all have a predetermined point of view and a reason/cause/agenda call it what you will for stating what they do.

At the end of the day the (elected) government is the executive and does of the proper authority for making/taking the decisions they do, which clearly will not please everyone all of the time.  

Judicial review will examine that they've acted within those powers available to them and democratic elections will give the people to change the executive within a set time frame if they so wish to do.

That's how it works.

Personally I see nothing wrong it that.

You have to accept the legitimacy of the government to make decisions you may not like or are opposed to (provided they've acted legally).

You simply can't cherry pick and object to the decisions you don't like/disagree with.

It doesn't work like that even if those on twitter/social media wished it did.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:As I’ve highlighted the point isn’t necessarily about corruption (unless it can be proved) it’s definitely about competence though - and this government lack of it.

I don’t buy that this was a manufacturing mistake - it would have been all over the governments response if so. You are obviously welcome to run with that should you want to though.

See my post above.

I'm sure there's been a number of mistakes/errors on the contracts and the many/all of them have been dealt within the contract itself.

I very much doubt any company, let alone the government, would wish to make it public, troubles they are having/have had with their suppliers, whether you 'don't buy it' or not.

So your version if events is: the government specified what they needed to be delivered, the order came through and it was wrong, yet the government haven't cancelled the order to get the money back?

Sounds good!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So your version if events is: the government specified what they needed to be delivered, the order came through and it was wrong, yet the government haven't cancelled the order to get the money back?

Sounds good!

It's not my version - I don't claim to know what the government did/didn't do.

For all I know the manufacture made the mistake - do you know that they didn't?

That the value of the mistake has been refunded to the government or set against the rest of the contract.

That the manufacturer has replaced the stock at their own cost.

That the government have accepted the stock and will use it (not within the the NHS) and resell it to country's looking for PPE's and are happy to accept ear loops.

Any number of things may have happened but I doubt that it is as black and white as people seem to want to make out that it is - and even intelligent people such as yourself seem to accept it at simply face (social media) value.

Surely you simply don't accept everything you read without thinking does that seem right and proper, do you not question things even if in your own mind - even if you have no knowledge or experience in such matters?

Perhaps you are happy to be influenced and led by others, it certainly seems to be the case by and large in social media as far as I can ascertain - even my own daughter seems to do it, or did, I hope I've since taught her to be more questioning about things but that's down to her really.

Perhaps I'm the odd one, I've always seemed to have an inquiring mind, to question and fret over things rather that don't sound right to me - would what you have posted above seem right to you?  Clearly how you have written it, it doesn't, so what alternatives do you think might have happened as you seem to have gone no further than stopping at the narrative that Maugham is pushing?

As I say I don't know what happened, where the fault lay, what remedial actions have been taken, even if everything has been fully resolved to everyone's satisfaction but I certainly doubt its been left in the position as Maugham seems to imply that it has.

Would his story have been so sensational if he had said, there were problem with a contract but they have since been resolved, one of the contracts were awarded to a friend of one of the government - but he did declare an interest before hand and took no part in the awarding of the contract himself, or even one of the company's awarded a contract was a shell company with only the owners share capital of £100 behind it - but that isn't illegal or precludes being considered for as an approved supplier under the then current awarding procedures.

An old comedian used to have a catch phrase 'it's the way I tell em' - I think Maugham has his own way of 'telling em' too.

Just a thought.

Ye my opinion is that if your story is true then it makes really obvious political sense for the government to cancel the contract, get their money back (if it's already been paid) and make sure that's announced - to immediately quash what is another in a series of damaging stories around their handling of the crisis.

So I can't square the circle of your version of events without knowing why they wouldn't have claimed the money back and announced it? Perhaps there's a good reason, but there's certainly nothing obvious at the moment.

So my version of events (at the moment, with the evidence we have) makes more sense to me, it certainly has less assumptions.

But as always, each to their own. We wait and see. Interview with Maugham in the Times today about this apparently, i haven't looked it up yet though.

Not sure if any of us on here have kids or grandkids affected by GCSE/A-level results today, but it's turning into a fiasco of epic proportions.
First of all the kids did mock exams and those results along with teacher assessments were sent in for final grading which was done by an algorithm that took school/postcode into account - leading to some spectacular downgrading. I was listening to the parents of one kid who had scored straight A's in the mocks and was awarded a B and 2C's - and loads of others were phoning in to complain.
Thousands of kids and mature students consequently didn't get the grades required by the Universities they wanted to go to despite having received provisional offers.
The DOE had announced a call centre helpline to deal with queries about the grades - but then parents were reporting that when they called the number, the call handlers knew nothing about it.
Another spectacular cock-up.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ye my opinion is that if your story is true then it makes really obvious political sense for the government to cancel the contract, get their money back (if it's already been paid) and make sure that's announced - to immediately quash what is another in a series of damaging stories around their handling of the crisis.

So I can't square the circle of your version of events without knowing why they wouldn't have claimed the money back and announced it? Perhaps there's a good reason, but there's certainly nothing obvious at the moment.

So my version of events (at the moment, with the evidence we have) makes more sense to me, it certainly has less assumptions.

But as always, each to their own. We wait and see. Interview with Maugham in the Times today about this apparently, i haven't looked it up yet though.

You're reasoning is far too simplistic.

On that basis every contract that runs into a mistake is automatically cancelled - irrespective of who is at fault and what remedies are available to rectify things to all parties best interests - the world simply doesn't operate like that.

There may not even be an actual problem anymore other than in Maugham's perception.

If the government (irrespective of what political power is in control at the time) lists all contract errors/mistakes they have - it would be on a daily basis based on the number and value of contracts in place at any one time - there's literally many numbers of thousands in operation at any one time and clearly not all of them will be error/mistake free.

Personally I prefer to hear what a judge rules on the evidence of his inquiry than the opinion of someone with a bee in his bonnet against the standing government and with a previous history of manifesting his dislike of previous actions of theirs with threatened/progressing judicial reviews.

No not every mistake, that's too black and white. A mistake that means the entire shipment is not fit for purpose though - yes any good business would get out of the contract if they were able to.

Maugham's perception is nothing to do with it - the masks can't be used by the NHS, we are both clear on that point aren't we? Because that's fundamental to the entire conversation.

wanderlust wrote:Not sure if any of us on here have kids or grandkids affected by GCSE/A-level results today, but it's turning into a fiasco of epic proportions.
First of all the kids did mock exams and those results along with teacher assessments were sent in for final grading which was done by an algorithm that took school/postcode into account - leading to some spectacular downgrading. I was listening to the parents of one kid who had scored straight A's in the mocks and was awarded a B and 2C's - and loads of others were phoning in to complain.
Thousands of kids and mature students consequently didn't get the grades required by the Universities they wanted to go to despite having received provisional offers.
The DOE had announced a call centre helpline to deal with queries about the grades - but then parents were reporting that when they called the number, the call handlers knew nothing about it.
Another spectacular cock-up.

I don't so am not following the developments but what solution is there?

University places are 'awarded' on A level results and A levels have not been taken.

Seems to me the solution is more about the universities taking in no one, or they accept people they think have the potential they are looking for based on Mocks and/or teacher assessments.

As far as I'm aware (I could be wrong) they don't need to accept any 'weighted' predicted A level results and thus go with what they originally provisionally offered on the information they had when they made their initial offers which I presume was based on actual mock results and teacher assessments of the pupil.

Not sure (and to be honest not interested) why the DOE gave weighted predictions in the first place?  I guess they were trying to be helpful in some way?

wanderlust wrote:Not sure if any of us on here have kids or grandkids affected by GCSE/A-level results today, but it's turning into a fiasco of epic proportions.
First of all the kids did mock exams and those results along with teacher assessments were sent in for final grading which was done by an algorithm that took school/postcode into account - leading to some spectacular downgrading. I was listening to the parents of one kid who had scored straight A's in the mocks and was awarded a B and 2C's - and loads of others were phoning in to complain.
Thousands of kids and mature students consequently didn't get the grades required by the Universities they wanted to go to despite having received provisional offers.
The DOE had announced a call centre helpline to deal with queries about the grades - but then parents were reporting that when they called the number, the call handlers knew nothing about it.
Another spectacular cock-up.

Girlfriends a teacher, she's at school helping with clearing today she found out yesterday and was pretty upset. One kid was downgraded from a C to a U. They asked for the teachers to predict their grades and then rank the kids, what appears to have happened is the grades have been ignored and the kids ranking modelled against previous years. Problem is this year group is significantly better than previous in the subject she teaches, so it's not been particularly fair.

Sounds as if universities (no doubt desperate for students) have lowered requirements in a lot of cases, which is obviously a good thing last thing we need is more people seeking jobs as these kids can't get into university.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:No not every mistake, that's too black and white. A mistake that means the entire shipment is not fit for purpose though - yes any good business would get out of the contract if they were able to.

Maugham's perception is nothing to do with it - the masks can't be used by the NHS, we are both clear on that point aren't we? Because that's fundamental to the entire conversation.

It wasn't the full order though - only part.

As far as I'm aware the contract was for £252m and only the delivery of face masks to the value of £50m as been deemed a mistake/error.

The masks can't be used by the NHS - agreed - but that doesn't mean they cant be used by non NHS - how many people walking the streets today wear ear loop face masks - I do, which certainly would not conform to NHS standard.

Nor does it preclude the government selling them on to another country - maybe even at a profit - as demand is still high worldwide.

I keep coming back to the point that nobody seems to have stated who is responsible for the error/mistake, or even if it's since been rectified - cost offset against the other 80% of the contract, replacement masks provided, or any other number of equally valid solutions.

The masks were purchased for the NHS, the ones delivered didn't meet spec but it doesn't mean that the issue wasn't speedily rectified by other means - for all we know a replacement consignment was dispatched to replace them free of charge, immediately the error/mistake was made known to the supplier. Maybe the government said we will accept the delivery and use it for non NHS staff but demand a suitable reduction on the price agreed for a higher specification mask.

You claim I make many assumptions but you seem to be stuck on just one statement, the masks supplied did not meet NHS use requirement. The story simply doesn't end there. Things will have moved on and resolved quite amicably for all concerned for all we know.

I've got a a BWFC pal who said he was interested in signing up with Nuts, so I showed him a few random posts as a sample of what to expect. 

He asked me who "this Sluffy character" was.    I obviously named him as the owner of the site.

I'm afraid he turned on his heels and ran for the hills.    Bloody lightweight!

okocha wrote:I've got a a BWFC pal who said he was interested in signing up with Nuts, so I showed him a few random posts as a sample of what to expect. 

He asked me who "this Sluffy character" was.    I obviously named him as the owner of the site.

I'm afraid he turned on his heels and ran for the hills.    Bloody lightweight!

Poor old Sluffy. Mind you, he's not alone on this particular thread.

boltonbonce wrote:

So true.

I think it's fair to say that there comes a point when you come to recognise that there's very little common ground, and that continuing is simply dancing on the head of a pin.
An interesting thread, as far as it goes, but it's become a pointless rehash of the same arguments.

And not one mention of slippers. Deary me.

boltonbonce wrote:I think it's fair to say that there comes a point when you come to recognise that there's very little common ground, and that continuing is simply dancing on the head of a pin.
An interesting thread, as far as it goes, but it's become a pointless rehash of the same arguments.

And not one mention of slippers. Deary me.

To be fair I think it had moved on and developed along a different theme.

I do suspect many had given up reading it by then though.

The thread had three stages to my mind, the initial discussion, a trolling session, then on to influencers on social media and how people seem to buy into them without question?

People get out of life what they put into it I feel, I've got the time and interest to enjoy a debate on something that appeals to me, isn't that what a forum is about after all?

Just been reading on Wigan Speyk that in all probability that their forum will fold if the club does (which to me now seems all but certainty bar a miracle) mainly because they don't discuss much outside of the club.

At least for all the criticism that seems to come my way at times my interests away from BWFC have to a great or lesser degree, given people something to look at, moan about, ignore, even at times provide a bit of theatre or controversy, rather than having to sit looking at a blank screen for the last six or seven months waiting for BWFC to actually play a competitive game again.

Just noticed that this is my 17,000 post.

May as well use it to be positive and wish everybody well for the coming season ahead and pray that we and all our loved ones come through the difficult time we are having due to Covid, safe and healthy.

Onwards and upwards!

Sluffy wrote:Just noticed that this is my 17,000 post.

May as well use it to be positive and wish everybody well for the coming season ahead and pray that we and all our loved ones come through the difficult time we are having due to Covid, safe and healthy.

Onwards and upwards!

Congratulations Sluffy. Hopefully we'll start feeling a little better when the fixtures come out, and the prospect of real action is in the offing.
Back in Chatbox perhaps on match day?
It's been a difficult time all round, with a lot people paying the ultimate price, and we're not out of the wood yet.
However, to quote a line from Shawshank, 'hope is a good thing'.