Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Hip Priest wrote:Nepotism ? Cronyism ?
Lads, lads, it's the Tories.
They're just doing what the Tories always do. Looking after their own.
It's no big shock, and what's more worrying is that this Government feel they don't even need to go to any great lengths to cover it up or deny it.
You would have to be incredibly naive to believe that all these lucrative Government contracts just by chance fell into the laps of companies with connections to Tory MPs ( 10 times more likely to happen than if they didn't) because it was all done in a bit of a rush.
But then again, some people ARE that naive. (OR just unwilling to admit that they got it badly wrong in the first place).

And some people have made their minds up that they are guilty, always have been, always will be, and judged them so without bothering to listen to those who have been sifting through the records and the details and gathering 'evidence' and preparing for the various forthcoming inquiry's or Judicial Reviews.

Might as well just go and hang the tory bastards now and not bother waiting for the actual facts to emerge.

Oh and if you like stats here's one for you - twice as many companies were awarded contracts (104) who went through the normal channel than those with 'connections' to Tory MP's (47) - must mean they are better off not having MP's involvement then - or at least you might think that if this was the only statistic given!

Hence the saying, lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Statistics mean nothing unless you understand the context in which they specifically apply to.  If you haven't the time or resources to evaluate everyone's offers then what the most sensible thing to do in the situation?

Might it be evaluating the ones more likely to be the most credible, first?

I would think so.

And if credibility is having access to manufacturing in China were 80% of PPE's are made who do you think is more likely to have that, the rich millionaire businessmen with Tory affiliation or the militant shop floor trade unionist who know all the words to the Red Flag?

I'm not claiming life is fair but in terms of horses for courses, isn't it more likely that these detested Tory voting millionaires are more likely to have the required links to get the PPE's than someone not known to you who - lets be honest - is unlikely to be able to facilitate £100m manufacturing contracts from a lockdown China in the face of worldwide competition and with an immediate delivery requirement?

I'm not saying non of the others not in the priority group could not facilitate that but it seems to me that there's a better chance of finding them from the priority group - and even then 90% of those who were thought to be possibly able to do that were shown not to be and rejected.

And this 'bit of a rush' you mention - wasn't the government being crucified daily because of the lack of PPE's?

I'll say they were in a 'bit of a rush', people were dying and doctors and nurses need PPE's themselves to save other people lives, yet you think those having to procure the essential and urgent equipment should wade one by one through the 15,000 requests for contracts rather than highlight the 500 most likely to be able to do so - and even then find that 450 of 'your best chances' actually couldn't!

I must live in a completely different world than some people on here.

Yet another one whose political prejudice rather than his brain rules his head.

Can't even wait two weeks to see what the PAC inquiry has uncovered.

In fact why bother - they're guilty whatever PAC or the judges say anyway.

Isn't that right, Brother Hip Priest.

The peoples flag is deepest red...

And you have made your mind up there’s nothing wrong and won’t hear any views to the contrary.

Your use of statistics is flawed, without the context of how many companies were in each pot the number awarded is relatively meaningless. A conversion rate is more telling.

They key question you keep missing is what made the companies on that list more credible?

Example - PPE medpro a company set up 7 weeks before winning £200million worth of contracts by Tory Peer Baroness Mone.

Or Arco ltd, a 125 year older safety equipment specialist supplier.

Which of those would you say is more credible at supplying safety equipment at first glance?

Hip Priest wrote:Nepotism ? Cronyism ?
Lads, lads, it's the Tories.
They're just doing what the Tories always do. Looking after their own.
It's no big shock, and what's more worrying is that this Government feel they don't even need to go to any great lengths to cover it up or deny it.
You would have to be incredibly naive to believe that all these lucrative Government contracts just by chance fell into the laps of companies with connections to Tory MPs ( 10 times more likely to happen than if they didn't) because it was all done in a bit of a rush.
But then again, some people ARE that naive. (OR just unwilling to admit that they got it badly wrong in the first place).

Sluffy wrote:

And some people have made their minds up that they are guilty, always have been, always will be, and judged them so without bothering to listen to those who have been sifting through the records and the details and gathering 'evidence' and preparing for the various forthcoming inquiry's or Judicial Reviews.

Might as well just go and hang the tory bastards now and not bother waiting for the actual facts to emerge.

Oh and if you like stats here's one for you - twice as many companies were awarded contracts (104) who went through the normal channel than those with 'connections' to Tory MP's (47) - must mean they are better off not having MP's involvement then - or at least you might think that if this was the only statistic given!

Hence the saying, lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Statistics mean nothing unless you understand the context in which they specifically apply to.  If you haven't the time or resources to evaluate everyone's offers then what the most sensible thing to do in the situation?

Might it be evaluating the ones more likely to be the most credible, first?

I would think so.

And if credibility is having access to manufacturing in China were 80% of PPE's are made who do you think is more likely to have that, the rich millionaire businessmen with Tory affiliation or the militant shop floor trade unionist who know all the words to the Red Flag?

I'm not claiming life is fair but in terms of horses for courses, isn't it more likely that these detested Tory voting millionaires are more likely to have the required links to get the PPE's than someone not known to you who - lets be honest - is unlikely to be able to facilitate £100m manufacturing contracts from a lockdown China in the face of worldwide competition and with an immediate delivery requirement?

I'm not saying non of the others not in the priority group could not facilitate that but it seems to me that there's a better chance of finding them from the priority group - and even then 90% of those who were thought to be possibly able to do that were shown not to be and rejected.

And this 'bit of a rush' you mention - wasn't the government being crucified daily because of the lack of PPE's?

I'll say they were in a 'bit of a rush', people were dying and doctors and nurses need PPE's themselves to save other people lives, yet you think those having to procure the essential and urgent equipment should wade one by one through the 15,000 requests for contracts rather than highlight the 500 most likely to be able to do so - and even then find that 450 of 'your best chances' actually couldn't!

I must live in a completely different world than some people on here.

Yet another one whose political prejudice rather than his brain rules his head.

Can't even wait two weeks to see what the PAC inquiry has uncovered.

In fact why bother - they're guilty whatever PAC or the judges say anyway.

Isn't that right, Brother Hip Priest.

The peoples flag is deepest red...

Bob's patronising, condescending, sneering and frankly insulting words are evidently infectious and toxic.

I'll be very interested to see what our leader has to say about the report on Priti Patel

okocha wrote:I'll be very interested to see what our leader has to say about the report on Priti Patel

Apparently he's chosen to ignore the damning investigation and is backing her? Must be running out of allies.

The head of the enquiry has now resigned. She always struck me as a nasty piece of work with that permanent sneer on her face.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55016076

T.R.O.Y. wrote:And you have made your mind up there’s nothing wrong and won’t hear any views to the contrary.

Your use of statistics is flawed, without the context of how many companies were in each pot the number awarded is relatively meaningless. A conversion rate is more telling.

They key question you keep missing is what made the companies on that list more credible?

Example - PPE medpro a company set up 7 weeks before winning £200million worth of contracts by Tory Peer Baroness Mone.

Or Arco ltd, a 125 year older safety equipment specialist supplier.

Which of those would you say is more credible at supplying safety equipment at first glance?

Whoosh... over your head again!

You really don't get it at all do you!

Of course my statistic was flawed - that was the whole point of showing it!!!

To demonstrate that you need to understand the context of them otherwise you can use them to prove any point you want!!!

If all you were told was the statistic I stated (which is actually a true one) people might reasonably think an MP's recommendation was a bad thing to have!!!

My statistic that 90% of the deemed most 'possible' leads FAILED the criteria, which I was attempting to show how impossibly hard it was to find anyone who did have access to obtaining PPE's immediately and in the face of worldwide competition!!!

As for your example, it's a bit like the statistics statement I made above namely you need to know the context of what is being asked.  On the face of it, it is Arco clearly but you must have your reasons for asking.

As far as I'm aware Hull firm Arco was already a supplier at the time of the pandemic were they not? -

"The employer of 1,600 staff, the majority in the city, is working with a number of NHS Trusts, ambulance services, local councils and other care organisations to provide high quality, compliant PPE".

So would have automatically been contacted in regards to further PPE's and accordingly would not have been included on the VIP priority conduit to find NEW suppliers such as PPE Medpro.

As clearly outlined here, which I now post up for the THIRD time

Sluffy wrote:PPE procurement in March/April 2020: the Government’s response

22. In order to address the crisis in supply of PPE, the UK Government utilised three main buying routes.  The first comprised existing suppliers, working through SCCL. The second involved using a strengthened team of staff in the UK Embassy in Beijing to identify potential sources of supply on the ground. The third, of which Clandeboye [EDIT - and PPE Medpro - Sluffy] was part, comprised new suppliers who did not currently work through SCCL. It is also appropriate to record the substantial voluntary efforts that were made within local communities both in terms of passing over existing PPE (for example, from school science departments) and of manufacturing items.

So I'm guessing you've read something that YOU'VE either not understood or the writer hasn't as to presumably why PPE Medro was on the 'VIP conduit' list and Arco wasn't?

As for "...you have made your mind up there’s nothing wrong and won’t hear any views to the contrary", if that is the case then why then have I constantly said let's wait for the inquiry's and Judicial reviews and see what they find - one way or the other???

And you have the front to claim several times in this thread that I've twisted your words and told lies about what you've said...

Sluffy wrote: On the face of it, it is Arco clearly but you must have your reasons for asking.

Okay! Now we're getting somewhere, the entire point of this is to understand what criteria allowed numerous seemingly unsuitable companies to secure these massive contracts.

Key paperwork has been left out, so there isn't that transparency we need to confirm it.

By scrutinising these deals we can confirm if public money has been spent wisely. Do you get that?

Also - Arco have contracts with local authorities, but not at a national level, which is what we're discussing - sure you know the difference in what you've said and what we're discussing though...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote: On the face of it, it is Arco clearly but you must have your reasons for asking.

Okay! Now we're getting somewhere, the entire point of this is to understand what criteria allowed numerous seemingly unsuitable companies to secure these massive contracts.

Key paperwork has been left out, so there isn't that transparency we need to confirm it.

By scrutinising these deals we can confirm if public money has been spent wisely. Do you get that?

Also - Arco have contracts with local authorities, but not at a national level, which is what we're discussing - sure you know the difference in what you've said and what we're discussing though...

Eh????

I've posted the reasoning and explained it loads of times - it's YOU who simply won't accept it - or can't understand it!!!

It's irrelevant that Arco had contracts with local level or national level, it all goes into the same pot - do you not understand this???

Sluffy wrote:23. Part of the difficulty faced by the UK Government was that there was no single list of existing known suppliers of PPE given that some NHS Trusts chose to source supplies themselves rather than work through SCCL, while other health and care organisations made their own arrangements in any event. In order to reach a broad range of possible opportunities, the UK Government also wished to identify not just existing suppliers of PPE (whether or not to the NHS), but also entities with a record of supply to the NHS and/or the public sector and/or who could re-purpose to supply PPE, particularly where they might have established links to manufacturers in the People’s Republic of China and elsewhere in the East Asia, where the main sources of supply are located, including those manufacturers who were themselves re-purposing to make PPE. It was understood that the ability of a supplier to secure a reliable source of supplies, and to make available existing supply chain relationships could be one of the keys to achieving successful supply.

24. Accordingly, in order to address the challenge of surging demand for PPE within the NHS, it was decided to set up a new organisation to focus solely on procuring PPE supplies for the public sector: this was known as the “PPE Cell”, and comprised a dedicated cross-governmental team of officials from DHSC, the MoD, Cabinet Office and NHS England. This prevented undue pressure on NHS Supply Chain’s existing administrative capability, allowing it to continue to meet the need for other consumables in the healthcare system more generally and deal with existing PPE suppliers. The new task force decided to adopt an innovative “open-source” approach to procurement, calling for help from across the UK business community to help ensure critical supplies were maintained, with a view to buying the items urgently needed whencesoever it was necessary and appropriate to do so.

Seems I have walk you through it because clearly you don't!

Before the pandemic this is how NHS procurement of PPE's worked -

Sluffy wrote:11. Prior to the current crisis, demand for PPE by NHS Trusts was partly serviced by “NHS Supply Chain’” (SCCL Ltd, a company owned by the Department of Health & Social Care (“DHSC”)) and partly through direct buying by NHS Trusts themselves, usually through wholesalers. Other health and social care organisations were responsible for sourcing their own PPE, for example through wholesalers or directly from suppliers.

Once the pandemic struck and there became worldwide demand for PPE's, SCCL could not obtain the PPE's required so a new way had to be found to 'top them up' if you will.

Sluffy wrote:14. By this stage it was already clear that established modes of procuring PPE and other critical supplies were no longer practical. Alternative strategies therefore had to be deployed instead and new sources of supply for PPE had to be identified and utilised. Accordingly, while existing suppliers continued to be handled by SCCL, potential new suppliers who had expressed interest were directed towards a central email address, subsequently replaced by a public portal, through which offers could be logged and evaluated.

So in simple terms existing suppliers such as Acro would still be being awarded contracts for ALL THEY COULD SUPPLY by SCCL and new suppliers such as PPE Medco would be providing the shortfall for what couldn't be obtained by SCCL.

Think of it this way, you are a NHS Trust and need say 100 units of PPE's and you have 40 of them being provided by existing suppliers of which Arco is supplying 30 of them.  You therefore need 60 more units that are now being obtained by the VIP conduit.

If Arco instead supply's the VIP conduit and not the NHS Trust, the Trust still needs 100 units but now it only has 10 units from existing suppliers and so now needs 90 units from the VIP conduit - and where has the additional 30 units come from - Arco - who stopped supplying the Trust and causing the additional need for 30 more units in the first place!

That's why existing suppliers stayed with SCCL and new suppliers came under the VIP conduit.

It's that simple - what aren't you understanding?

Why would they have to stop supplying the NHS trust to start supplying the VIP channel contract? Are you claiming to have knowledge of their capacity now?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Why would they have to stop supplying the NHS trust to start supplying the VIP channel contract? Are you claiming to have knowledge of their capacity now?

I'm not sure what your game is here, you are either incredibly stupid or just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I don't need to know Arco's capacity to know they were working up to it!

Sluffy wrote:15. As already noted above, the rapid rise in global infection rates during this period led to a huge surge in demand for PPE. In the NHS, for example, demand for some PPE items increased to several thousand times the normal volume; demand for gowns increased by a factor of thirteen (with a projected annualised consumption of 151 million). The scale of that demand was far in excess of anything that either had been or could have been predicted; the clinical need for PPE to address the specific challenge of coronavirus was both greater than and different from, for example, that required to deal with a flu pandemic.

16. The effect of such increased demand, which was being replicated on a global scale, led to a wholesale change in the relevant market dynamics. Market power shifted decisively in favour of the suppliers, such that the competition was no longer between suppliers to satisfy government/buyer demand, but between a range of different public and private purchasers from a large number of nations. Some countries also responded by banning PPE exports entirely, and some suppliers were induced by more attractive financial offers to renege on existing contractual commitments (this remains an additional risk). An already complex and fast-moving situation was further complicated by the actions of some unscrupulous actors seeking to take advantage of the situation. A worldwide shortage of some of the necessary raw materials and speculative buying by some commercial purchasers served only to exacerbate the situation.

17. Once the scale of the pandemic became clear, the market for acquisition of PPE was very much a suppliers’ market. Suppliers who found themselves inundated with highly attractive offers from across the world would simply have had no incentive to respond to a UK call for tenders, or to hold off from
committing their product on the favourable terms available elsewhere rather than await the outcome of a UK competition. Indeed, as paragraph 26.b of your own letter acknowledges, the EU’s first attempt at a joint procurement exercise for a very limited number of gloves, gowns and overalls failed precisely because of a lack of suitable suppliers coming forward.

18. In these circumstances, suppliers were able to demand significant advance payments, and DHSC understands that other countries were offering to pay substantial sums of cash upfront to overseas producers in order to secure immediate commitments. When new sources of supply did come on stream (for example, because existing facilities had been repurposed to manufacture PPE products), these offers would often only be open for a matter of hours. If negotiations were not concluded in this time, stocks would simply be lost to a purchaser from another country instead.

Do you really think they sat there twiddling their thumbs with spare PPE capacity when all the world were offering kings ransoms for the very thing they supplied???

And I've already shown you as to why as an EXISTING supplier they had no need to apply as a NEW supplier to the VIP conduit channel.

You are either being stupid or a troll or even both but clearly don't understand what went on and why - and as far as I can tell, you don't even wish to as you've clearly not read up on how the system actually worked despite my many links to them.

Ah back to the insults.

No I don't think they sat there twiddling their thumbs, I know they applied to be considered for the government contracts but were (in their words) ignored. See interview with Arco's MD on BBC News at 10 from Wednesday.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ah back to the insults.

No I don't think they sat there twiddling their thumbs, I know they applied to be considered for the government contracts but were (in their words) ignored. See interview with Arco's MD on BBC News at 10 from Wednesday.

Can't find the interview you talk about so unable to comment on it unless you supply one but as I've shown above as an EXISTING contractor they would NOT have been dealt with by the VIP conduit channel that was set up to find NEW contractors.

Maybe he wasn't aware of the system as such?

And stating the truth to you is not an insult.

You've shown an incredible lack of knowledge and understanding on this thread and you are clearly and deliberately carrying on arguing for your own purposes and not to comprehend, enlighten or enhance the discussion.

Ha, okay Sluffy. The MD of a safety equipment company wasn't aware of the system and made a false statement (uncorrected) on BBC News.

They should have got you on!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ha, okay Sluffy. The MD of a safety equipment company wasn't aware of the system and made a false statement (uncorrected) on BBC News.

They should have got you on!

Well I can't find any trace of the interview and you can't/won't provide a link to it so I've no idea what was said, what context it was said in, nor that you even understood what was said and reported on here correctly.

You haven't even given the name of the person interviewed who I believe is David Evison...

https://www.blmforum.net/mag/new-md-arco/

...and no searches I have made links him (or Arco) with a BBC interview on Wednesday, nor any reference to such a major claim from one of Hull's biggest employer even in the local newspaper!

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/

So how am I expected to comment when I can find no trace of the interview even happening, let lone what might have been said on it?

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/

And fwiw, Mr Evison and Arco was awarded an order for 40m face masks in JULY of this year...

You recently secured a huge order of face masks – please tell us more about it.

With a strong and well-established international supply chain network, we have secured a supply of 40m Type II masks and 90m Type IIR masks. These are currently being delivered in batches over the next couple of months to our 400,000sqft National Distribution Centre (NDC) in Hull. A series of 20 trucks have been arriving in a carefully timed schedule to deliver the first 19m masks to the front line. It’s an effort that we are really proud of.  These type of masks are now urgently needed in the UK, with Type II masks or face coverings a requirement on public transport and other working or social environments where social distancing is not possible.  We are working with a number of leading UK businesses, such as Transport for London to fulfil their requirements for these masks.

https://www.qubeonline.co.uk/we-interviewed-david-evison-managing-director-at-leading-safety-company-arco-on-covid-19/

So I've no idea why he apparently was on national TV two evenings ago and FOUR MONTHS AFTER being awarded a 'HUGH' contract allegedly saying what you said he did!!!

Doesn't seem to stack up really does it?

No trace? Didn’t look very far. Try the company’s Twitter.

I can assure you, it’s not another social media conspiracy against you.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:No trace? Didn’t look very far. Try the company’s Twitter.

I can assure you, it’s not another social media conspiracy against you.

Yes, I saw that, clicked on the link and it took me to a site that was last active in 2013!!!

Maybe that's one of the reasons why I said I couldn't find any trace of the interview?

The BBC spoke with MD, David Evison, in our position as Experts in Safety to discuss Arco's experience supplying PPE during the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as the latest report from the National Audit Office. Watch the full report on The BBC News at Ten @BBCNewsAt10

— Arco: Experts in Safety (@ArcoSafety) November 18, 2020

So I've still not seem the interview and it seems you can't find any links to it either!

That’s not a site, it’s a Twitter handle. Don’t think Arco’s social media game is too clever.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:That’s not a site, it’s a Twitter handle. Don’t think Arco’s social media game is too clever.

I'm not too sure it is a Twitter handle as the site 'Arco' on twitter is taken by an American company of that name...

https://twitter.com/arco?lang=en

...and that was the first place I found when I did my initial search on twitter, then after a while found the twitter account I posted up above, which as I've said linked the interview to a 'dead' site!

As there doesn't seem to be anybody making a song and dance emanating from the interview and I've clearly proved Arco DID receive government PPE contracts dating back at least four months ago I can only conclude what you heard from the interview (you did watch didn't you or is it yet another thing that you've read on social media and took as gospel?) was along the lines I suggested above, namely Arco mistakenly thought the VIP conduit would respond to them which obviously they wouldn't because they were set up to find NEW contractors and that the SCCL would deal with existing contractors which Arco were.

Maybe there was some understandable miscommunication/misunderstanding at the point when the VIP conduit was created and that's what he was talking about?

I don't know but it seems a reasonable guess for what you watched/read on social media - otherwise I would have thought Maugham/GLP or someone else with an axe to grind would have made a big hoo-ha about it and I can't seem to find anything as such has happened?

I've always said it was inevitable that mistakes were made - maybe this was one of them - but it's inconceivable that Acro didn't receive repeat orders from their existing clients in the NHS/social care services as the whole world was crying out for PPE's and they were in a position to provide them.

I very much doubt they've had any spare manufacturing capacity since the time the pandemic hit and that their order books are full for the foreseeable future, so it's hard for me to understand what their issue was which you watched/read without seeing the interview for myself.