Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Go down  Message [Page 9 of 9]

241Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Tue Nov 24 2020, 21:27

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Similar story to Arco in the press this week:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/workers-laid-off-as-ppe-contracts-handed-to-firms-connected-to-conservative-party-buying-kit-from-abroad/22/11/

‘Florence Roby, a family-run Merseyside business, has had to lay off a fifth of its workers after its offer to supply PPE to the government was ignored and then refused, reports The Liverpool Echo.’

Again, what factors put a company like PPE Medpro ahead of these? Why did companies like Ayanda get contracts with such extraordinarily beneficial clauses in them? Lot of questions to be answered - or brushed under the carpet.

242Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Tue Nov 24 2020, 22:04

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Here we go again!

First of all they had NO recent NHS experience...

Offer to make surgical gowns ignored for two months

Based at Knowsley Business Park, Florence Roby has been in existence for 50 years and originally made medical wear before moving into ecclesiastical wear and, more recently, clothing for the spa and beauty industry.

Next they wanted to supply REUSEABLE gowns - which I doubt fitted the Covid criteria as I presume they would have to be decontaminated after every use.

But when, in early April, the government appealed for UK companies to help supply protective equipment to the NHS, the company immediately stepped forward and offered to supply reusable surgical gowns.

Next there factory looked to be more of a shed/small unit than huge factory's able to deliver £100m orders...

Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 0_JS223410578

Lastly what does it say if the whole world is screaming out for PPE's that they couldn't find anyone to get an order from and had to lay off staff???

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mersey-company-forced-lay-staff-19311174

I also see you believe that if the inquiry's don't produce the results you want then it's obviously going to mean a government cover up/"brushed under the carpet"!

243Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Tue Nov 24 2020, 22:45

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Bit concerned that you’ve clearly had that answer prepped and ready to go Sluffy, bit tragic mate.

So you’re saying the deciding factor is their lack of experience supplying to the NHS?

As you have all the answers can you let me know about the Ayanda contract please, anything prepped on that one?

244Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Tue Nov 24 2020, 23:09

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Bit concerned that you’ve clearly had that answer prepped and ready to go Sluffy, bit tragic mate.

So you’re saying the deciding factor is their lack of experience supplying to the NHS?

As you have all the answers can you let me know about the Ayanda contract please, anything prepped on that one?


1 - What answer did I have prepped?  

If you think it was about Florence Roby, I'd never even heard of them until your post, if it is about your "sweep it under the carpet" remark when the findings don't go the way you want them too, well I've heard it so many times in the past from people in denial as to what actually happened compared to what they believed actually happened.

2 - No the deciding factor is their ability to meet the criteria to tender for contracts under Covid PPE Procurement rules applying at the time they did.

3 - And for Ayanda I refer you to the Findings of the National Audit Office who have examined the case already.

@Sluffy wrote:The next bit of the finding...

"For a DHSC contract for PPE with Ayanda, DHSC failed to consider a potential conflict of interest for a person associated with the company".

Now this IS from the VIP office contract awarding section and is one that Maugham has made a big song and dance about.

Let us see what may develop on this one although the report specifies the word 'potential' rather than 'actual' in respect of conflict of interests.

245Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Wed Nov 25 2020, 10:58

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
More from the NAO report, sounds like the government selling off our PPE stockpile over the past 6 years caused the spending of huge sums in tax payer money in the scramble that followed:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/25/uks-chaotic-ppe-procurement-cost-billions-extra

246Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Wed Nov 25 2020, 12:29

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Mad really, as I thought this was just one crackpot's social media conspiracy? But the high court think the cases brought by the Good Law Project in relation to procurement are arguable... so maybe not?

https://goodlawproject.org/news/good-news-procurement/

I'm sure our resident expert on these matters will be called as a witness.

247Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Wed Nov 25 2020, 15:31

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Round and round in circles we go...

1 - Not one single country on this planet was prepared for Covid.

What more can be said?

2 - Judicial Reviews examines the application of the law by those in power.

If you read the judges decision - and I'm certain you didn't - you will find he's struck out all the innuendo and smoke and mirrors from Maugham and the Judicial Reviews will move forward focusing on the following key point -

"It seems arguable that the Regulations and general principles relied on by the Claimants require a degree of transparency as to the criteria by which offers would be assessed and potential tenderers selected and the procedures adopted was not sufficiently transparent".

So as I have said all along the issue is focused on how civil servants applied the Regulations when awarding the contracts.

As the National Audit Office Inquiry has reported this...

Accountability and scrutiny of contracts awarded -

"For procurements where there is no competition, it is important that awarding bodies set out clearly why they have chosen a particular supplier and how any associated risks from a lack of competition have been identified and mitigated. This is to ensure public trust in the fairness of the procurement process. In a selected sample of 20 contracts, the NAO found examples where departments failed to document key decisions, such as why they chose a particular supplier or used emergency procurement, and failed to document their consideration of risks, including how they had identified and managed any potential conflicts of interest".

...it would now seem to me that GLC may well win these Judicial Reviews on a 'technicality' if you like of civil servants not completing the required documentation in tying up the loose ends of the awarding procedure rather than the 'thrust' of Maugham's being that there was systemic cronyism.

If so it might be interesting to see if the named company's like PestFix can claim their legal expenses as they are not the ones at fault?

248Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Wed Nov 25 2020, 15:50

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
‘As I have said all along’ Laughing

You’ve been banging on that the calls for transparency are one man’s grudge against the government and a social media conspiracy you sausage.

Now momentum is gaining a bit you disown all of that and suddenly - oh they might win on a technicality. 

Own it Sluffy, it’s only the internet.

249Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Wed Nov 25 2020, 15:53

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:‘As I have said all along’ Laughing

You’ve been banging on that the calls for transparency are one man’s grudge against the government and a social media conspiracy you sausage.

Now momentum is gaining a bit you disown all of that and suddenly - oh they might win on a technicality. 

Own it Sluffy, it’s only the internet.
Very Happy Very Happy

250Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch on Wed Nov 25 2020, 16:49

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:‘As I have said all along’ Laughing

You’ve been banging on that the calls for transparency are one man’s grudge against the government and a social media conspiracy you sausage.

Now momentum is gaining a bit you disown all of that and suddenly - oh they might win on a technicality. 

Own it Sluffy, it’s only the internet.

I've said all along that Maugham has a bee in his bonnet about the government and his campaign about cronyism is nothing but innuendo.

The judge has struck out all of Maugham's inferred innuendo - that is a fact.

I've always said that the government has already admitted technical breaches in the paperwork.

The granted Judicial Review by the judge is focusing on whether these three cases did not apply the required paperwork as required from the criteria to issue the awards - nothing at all to do with cronyism.

It would appear the NAO has already found such things did happen, so it seems logical that the Judge will find the same.

I've never had any issue about scrutiny and welcomed all of the numerous inquiry's into what has happened including Judicial Reviews.

The 'fault' if it is determined there is one, will be how public servants failed to correctly document their procedure in awarding the contract and nothing at all to do with any implied cronyism, which let's be honest was the whole basis of Maugham's multiple cases.

I've consistently told you that it was the civil servants who dealt with the awarding of the contracts and nothing at all to do with the politicians or their associates to the companies awarded them.

So Maugham may now well win the Judicial Review but not due to his real reason for bringing them - Tories doing dodgy deals with their mates - but because the poor civil servants were more concerned in procuring the required PPE's to save the NHS from failing than doing the required paperwork to cover their backs.

I would consider that more of a technicality in winning the JR if that is the judges finding, than the whole thrust of Maugham's agenda being cronyism and possible corruption having taken place which has been 'thrown out'.

I may well be a sausage but Maugham as yet to prove ANY of his multiple claims of any systemic cronyism, which as it stands is still no more than just copious amounts innuendo and taken at face value by most people who are only too eager to believe it to be true.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 9 of 9]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum