T.R.O.Y. wrote:I seem incapable of grasping that needs must and priorities change.
Yet I’ve said the entire time it was the right decision to deregulate so contracts could be completed more quickly. I even reiterated it to you earlier on this thread see post 110.
The brass neck on you to keep dragging this out with lie after lie about what I’ve said is just weird Sluffy. I’ve no desire to keep this going, but I won’t stop correcting your bullshit.
No lies from me!
It's your lack of understanding that's the problem.
You've mention deregulation at least twice now, there's been no deregulation taken place, simply existing regulations superseded by Emergency regulations -
"Under emergency laws brought in at the start of the pandemic crisis, the Cabinet Office - which oversees government’s buying policies - has changed some of the procurement rules for contracts relating to the government’s response to COVID-19".
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/731/covid19-government-procurement/
You've shown substantial evidence throughout this thread of your comprehensive ignorance of basic understanding of this whole matter, from what components even form a contract, through the whole regulatorily process of procurement and awarding of them and to the statutory, judicial and Parliamentary checks and balances that oversees the integrity of it all.
Just because YOU don't understand the process doesn't equate to me in someway in your head believing I'm telling lies???
All I've been doing is correcting your rhetoric on the position you've chosen to take based on nothing more than innuendo.
I told you from the very beginning how these things work and just as I stated at that time an inquiry on government procurement is about to start in a couple of weeks -
"This inquiry will look at the scale of Government’s COVID-19-related contracting, how procurement rules have changed and how the government is managing the risks associated with these changes.
For a chosen sample of these contracts it will look specifically at who bought what, from whom, and at what cost, during the pandemic - and whether this is delivering value for taxpayers money in the crisis".
Unlike you I KNOW what I've been talking about and have ALWAYS said the value for money aspect (that you are so keen on) would need to be considered in terms of the legality in the awarding of the contracts and what value for money is deemed to be in the 'crisis' (their word not mine) - and I refer you back to the Government Legal Department's statement as to what the effects of the crisis had on government procurement.
In short I've explained to you (as simply and as patiently as I can) how the whole system works and given you links and references to everything so you could see for yourself!!!
If you aren't capable of understanding it then that's your deficiency not mine.
If anything corrupt has gone on - and clearly that's the picture Maugham has insinuated - then throw them in jail - otherwise let the system do what it was always going to do and that is to scrutinise and hold to account what took place and the people who were involved.
There's never needed to have been the hysteria and witch hunts - the system doesn't work like that but unfortunately you and countless others have been played by someone who knows that but used social media to stir up the many who didn't.
Have a nice day.