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 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Go down  Message [Page 9 of 11]

241Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch 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 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Based at Knowsley Business Park, Florence Roby has been in existence for 50 years and originally made medical wear before moving into ecclesiastical wear and, more recently, clothing for the spa and beauty industry.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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

251Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Tue Feb 16 2021, 16:45

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Back in May Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings denied any involvement in the awarding of an £840,000 contract to Public First.

It now turns out that wasn’t the case (shocker) as Cummings admitted -  

‘I am a special adviser and as such I am not allowed to direct civil servants. However, as a result of my suggestion, I expected people to hire Public First. The nature of my role is that sometimes people take what I say as an instruction and that is a reasonable inference as people assume I am often speaking for the prime minister.’

Nothing new here really, most of us suspected gov and advisors had influence over who won contracts.

But meanwhile the government continue to reject requests for transparency over what qualified businesses for their (now infamous) VIP Lane.

252Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Tue Feb 16 2021, 17:58

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Back in May Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings denied any involvement in the awarding of an £840,000 contract to Public First.

It now turns out that wasn’t the case (shocker) as Cummings admitted -  

‘I am a special adviser and as such I am not allowed to direct civil servants. However, as a result of my suggestion, I expected people to hire Public First. The nature of my role is that sometimes people take what I say as an instruction and that is a reasonable inference as people assume I am often speaking for the prime minister.’

Nothing new here really, most of us suspected gov and advisors had influence over who won contracts.

But meanwhile the government continue to reject requests for transparency over what qualified businesses for their (now infamous) VIP Lane.

I'm not sure that is true, they are after all having to lay such evidence before a judge at judicial reviews (where the bit you highlighted in your post above as come from for instance) and in the case of PPE's have presented such details to both the NAO and Public Accounts Committee.

I've even previously provided links to them as well.

And to be pedantic the bit you refer to about Gove/Cummings above didn't emanate from the VIP Lane, it came the from same emergency legislation but was applied in a different way than through the VIP Lane system.

253Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Tue Feb 16 2021, 19:00

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 CloudyGrimAmericanbulldog-small

254Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Wed Feb 17 2021, 18:33

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Yes I’m aware this is not the same process, hence I mentioned the VIP lane separately.

Got to say I’m surprised you haven’t got any comment on an advisor openly admitting to have influenced this process given your reaction to me suggesting MP’s influence earlier in this thread.

255Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Wed Feb 17 2021, 22:24

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Yes I’m aware this is not the same process, hence I mentioned the VIP lane separately.

Got to say I’m surprised you haven’t got any comment on an advisor openly admitting to have influenced this process given your reaction to me suggesting MP’s influence earlier in this thread.

I'd rather wait until I hear what everyone has to say first, as just because Cummings said it happened that way, doesn't necessarily mean it did.

The contract was awarded by a civil servant, if I was that civil servant I wouldn't have awarded any contract on the verbal intruction of anybody not even a Minister let alone someone who is a political advisor.

The authority to authorise a contract of over half a million would be limited to a level of seniority within the civil service and I would want something in writing from one of those before I did anything and I'm willing to bet 10p that the civil servant who did award the contract has covered his back fully before he put his name to anything.

Cummings told the world he went to Banard Castle to check his eyesight - anybody believe that?

He's a spin doctor who has just been booted out from his job - maybe he's stirring things up a bit as payback?

Who knows but as I've said I doubt any civil servant has acted directly on Cummings instruction and would have got the proper authority in accordance with the Emergency legislation/Rules and Regs.

I'd be shocked if they hadn't!

256Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Thu Feb 18 2021, 18:41

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Cummings might have lied in his witness statement to the high court?

Possible of course, but why?

I appreciate the change in tone though, clearly MPs/Advisors influencing the rewarding of contracts is not so beyond the realms of possibility you'd have to be an idiot to believe it.

257Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Thu Feb 18 2021, 22:11

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Cummings might have lied in his witness statement to the high court?

Possible of course, but why?

I appreciate the change in tone though, clearly MPs/Advisors influencing the rewarding of contracts is not so beyond the realms of possibility you'd have to be an idiot to believe it.

No change in tone from me.

I've said all along that if proof is provided then whoever has been breaking the law, peer, elected official or public servant should face the full might of the law.

Up to now we've had nothing but innuendo - and nearly all of that seemingly originating from one man with a clear axe to grind against the Conservative government!

If anyone has proof of any illegality then show it - that's all I've ever said.

I know from my experience - and have said so all along - that contracts are awarded by public servants - not MP's - and are done so in accordance with clearly set out written rules and procedures - so if anything dodgy has happened it could only be done so by a civil servant being involved - and I'd be extremely surprised if they had, knowing what it takes to achieve such a level of responsibility within the service.

Obviously I can't say categorically nothing 'iffy' has gone on but getting on for a year now from the start of these allegations and innuendo's and despite the NAO and PSC looking into PPE procurement, nothing of any substance as yet to be found and non of the national press investagative journalists or TV's investagative programmes have found any smoking guns - and if cronyism was so rife and widespread and involving staggering millions of pounds, then don't you think something more concrete would have surfaced by now?

I do.

As for Cummings, I don't think he told an outright lie but he certainly may well have embellished his story - he is after all a spin doctor.

That's what I suspect is why he said what he did - but let us see what the person who awarded the contract says and on whose authority he did so on.

Then let us see if Cummings statement tallies.

I suspect it won't.

258Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 07:01

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
The change in tone is going from spending days calling me an idiot for suggesting something which you now accept is possible.

259Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 11:42

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:The change in tone is going from spending days calling me an idiot for suggesting something which you now accept is possible.

Wrong again I'm afraid.

I was calling you 'jaw droppingly ignorant' of how the procurement system works, as you were clearly under the impression (as was most others), that MP's were 'giving' their mates highly lucrative contracts directly - and which I think you have now understood simply could not be possible as they are NOT involved in the process in the procurement system.

However some form of illegality of course could happen and that's why I've always said that if there is an evidence (rather than inuendo) that something illegal has happened then take it to the police and let them face the courts.

I could not have been more clearer about that.

Such 'corruption' if it has occured could only be done by the collusion of a civil servant and frankly I don't believe that would happen at the level of rank needed to be involved and the numerous people involved in the process who would all be potential 'whistleblowers'.

I said all this before the NAO and PAC inquires into the PPE procurement under emergency legislation and to date NO evidence has yet been found of malpractise by any civil servant, or evidence of any illegal awarding of a contract and NO involvement of any MP, councillor, political advisor, etc being involved in the awarding of any contract.

If you had even a basic knowledge of the relationship between elected officals and permanant public servants then you would have KNOWN such 'allegations' of croynism were just that - allegations, because it simply couldn't happen in the way the inuendo that everybody believed (including you it seems) took it to have done so 'as gospel'.

As clearly a person with a deep interest in politics I was amazed (and still am) about your total lack of knowledge of how Parliament and the governing of the country actually works.  If you knew about the roles of MP's and public servants you would have known that the allegations could simply not be true in the claims that were made - MP's don't award contracts and civil servants follow laid down procedures which are audited and accountable - it's as simple as that.

This probably fully explains why non of the national press or TV programmes have done an expose into these allegations apart from the occassional news report in them from journalist reporting the claims - all of which seem to originate back to the Good Law Project and are nearly always stated as such within the news articles themselves.

I still await the discovery of anybody finding any evidence of wrong doing - despite all the numerous claims that have been made to date and which have been going on for nearly a year now.

260Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 13:09

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
The Good Law Project behind it all, Sluffy? 

I've never heard of such a thing. Isn't Jolyon Maugham a good friend of the unimpeachable Dale Vince whose integrity can be vouched for by no less a figure than Nuts very own Boncey and who could ever suggest that he might be biased in any way?

261Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 13:17

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
This threads not about how it should work - it’s about how it worked in practice, you have conflated the two and so entirely missed the point of the conversation.

262Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 13:57

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:The Good Law Project behind it all, Sluffy? 

I've never heard of such a thing. Isn't Jolyon Maugham a good friend of the unimpeachable Dale Vince whose integrity can be vouched for by no less a figure than Nuts very own Boncey and who could ever suggest that he might be biased in any way?

Well as far as I seem to find is that all reports resulting from the 'hysteria' over the governments procurement following the introduction of emergency powers because of the pandemic, do indeed seem to lead back to the GLP, which is Maugham's 'pet project'.

Countless times when you read the articles and scan down to their source it more than often states it to be the GLP.  

You will get the Labour politicians expounding these beliefs when doing their political point scoring against the government but even then these storys are only circulating in the public in the first instance almost always originating from GLP.

And you've got to (at least I do) question what is behind the GLP doing this because the only recource they are seeking are Judicial Reviews and that basically means a judge looking into whether the government used its powers correctly and even if the judge rules against the government there is no remedy as such other than the judge effectively saying 'don't do that again' or 'stop doing what you are doing and from now on do it coreectly'.

So it is basically all about 'embarassing' the government and nothing much more.

You then wonder why GLP should go to all that expense to do that if the result is in effect no more than a rap on the knuckles to the government?

Well the thing is they don't incur any costs themselves in doing so - they are totally financed from crowdfunding - and iirc, 20% of the crowd funding is used to finance the total running of the GLP itself - so no crowd funding, no GLP.

I've not been following them too closely but the latest I understand as to what is happening in respect of GLP's application for Judicial Review in respect of the governments PPE procurement under emergency powers is that the government has given GLP an estimate of its legal costs to go to court, and GLP have realised that if they lose the case they would not have sufficient funds to meet the governments costs - the crowdfunding they have isn't enough to do so.

They have asked for legal costs against them if they lose to be limited in order for them to continue.

The thing to my mind though is if they are so certain of all this corynism taking place and can back up with hard evidence what they are saying, then they must be certain of a win and they don't need to worry about losing and having to pay the governments legal expenses.  In otherwords put their money where their mouth is - if they are so certain corynism has gone on - otherwise they KNOW they can't back up what they have been saying all this time.

It seems to me that GLP boarders on being a vexatious litagator, which basically means they are deliberately 'trolling' the government by continually taking 'frivolous' court action against them just because they have an axe to grind against them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

I still come back to the simple fact that no proof about any allegations made has yet been found - and really would you think it would by now if such things had gone on by now?

If GLP had to fund themselves all the court action they have been doing I sincerely doubt they would have started much if any of what they have.

I mean what do they get out of it even if they did win - nothing more than proving the government wrong on a point of law - that's all.

263Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 14:06

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:This threads not about how it should work - it’s about how it worked in practice, you have conflated the two and so entirely missed the point of the conversation.

I assume you are replying to Bob not me?

If not it isn't how the system worked in 'practice' but in 'actuality' - hence the numerous inquiries held so far and ongoing in to what DID happen and why.

If you are replying to me then I'm not sure why you think I've missed the point of the conversation as I'm the one having to 'teach' you how the system works and that the inquires have been, and are being, held in to establishing that indeed what happened was in complete compliance with the law.

264Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 15:57

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Just seen this and thought I would try and decode the hyperbole that is springing from it!



In simple terms GLP and three opposition MP's brought this Judical Review against the government on basically three grounds, the first that the government did not publish PPE contract awards within its 'Transparency and principles' timescales, second that the government did this deliberately so, and thirdly by unlawfully adopting a de-prioritisation policy to do so.

The government refuted these charges on the basis that GLP and the three opposition MP's had no standing (which means direct involvement in the goings ons in order to be relevant to them), that they fully accepted the 'technical' breaches due to the circumstance of the pandemic at the time and lastly, that by the time it came around to the court case that all the information would have been brought up to date.

The judge found accordingly, that GLP had reasonable grounds to be considered - involvement in the goings on (my words not the judges) but the MP's didn't.

He found that the time limits had not been met, second that until GLP brought the JR, that they were not overly being prioritised at the time but third, that he rejected completely that there was unlawful de-proritisation policy in existence.

It should be noted that the vast majority of PPE awards have now been complied with and are up to date as such - just as the government said they would.

All this seems to mean that the GLP JR action did result in the government pulling its finger out to get the details published quicker than perhaps they otherwise would - and is basically the reason for the JR being successful.

It does appear from what I can understand however that the three MP's ruled to have no standing in the case cannot claim their legal expenses and that GLP haven't yet been awarded a mandatory order - which I think means the judge may not award them their full costs (because part of their cases failed?).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19QsmLv8LkAL9EO6D-HSlmOHJ4VpoSPn5/view

265Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 16:15

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker

266Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 16:16

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker

267Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 18:17

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:

I assume you are replying to Bob not me?

If not it isn't how the system worked in 'practice' but in 'actuality' - hence the numerous inquiries held so far and ongoing in to what DID happen and why.

If you are replying to me then I'm not sure why you think I've missed the point of the conversation as I'm the one having to 'teach' you how the system works and that the inquires have been, and are being, held in to establishing that indeed what happened was in complete compliance with the law.

I’ve never made any argument over how the system and processes should work. Only questioned what happened in practice.

So you’ve effectively wasted 9 pages of effort trying to explain something that wasn’t up for debate.

You’re either a complete idiot or a troll, and I’m beginning to believe it’s the latter.

268Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 21:34

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:

I assume you are replying to Bob not me?

If not it isn't how the system worked in 'practice' but in 'actuality' - hence the numerous inquiries held so far and ongoing in to what DID happen and why.

If you are replying to me then I'm not sure why you think I've missed the point of the conversation as I'm the one having to 'teach' you how the system works and that the inquires have been, and are being, held in to establishing that indeed what happened was in complete compliance with the law.

I’ve never made any argument over how the system and processes should work. Only questioned what happened in practice.

So you’ve effectively wasted 9 pages of effort trying to explain something that wasn’t up for debate.

You’re either a complete idiot or a troll, and I’m beginning to believe it’s the latter.

Hahaha

Believe whatever you want.

You DIDN'T know how the system worked in the first place - that's abundantly clear from what you've written on this thread for all to see.

I've had to explain to you how as simply as I can for you to comprehend how the sytems do work (MP's DON'T evaluate and award contracts!!!) in order that you (or anybody else) can understand if the various inquiries find anything untoward/illegal/criminal - and up to not (including the Judicial Review findings today) they haven't!

I don't think you are an idiot or a troll but you have shown a staggering lack of knowledge about the subject which you seem to hold dear to your heart (politics) and demonstrated once again how you desire to argue (and continue to do so) just for the sake of it and solely for your own amusement and self-satisfaction.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

269Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Fri Feb 19 2021, 22:39

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
I've held back a little from posting this to see if anyone else would pick up on it - clearly they haven't!

This was in the news about three weeks ago - cronyism (corruption???) from Labours biggest financial backer - the unite union and its leader Len McCluskey.

Here's an excerpt from the article I have given a link to below...

The contract to build the 170-room hotel and conference centre was awarded in 2015 to the Flanagan Group, a Liverpool company run by an associate of McCluskey, who is the union’s general secretary. Another contract on the project was given to a company owned by the son of Joe Anderson, Liverpool’s mayor.

The leaked document, called an AR21, was signed off by McCluskey in early December and then again by the accountants BDO. It was supposed to be filed over the summer.

A note in the accounts says: “Included in land and buildings above is £74.0m (2018: £42.6m) of assets in the course of construction for the National Education and Conference Centre & Hotel in Birmingham. No depreciation has been charged on these assets on the basis that they are not yet available for use.”

The document also states that “the conference centre and hotel is operated by Blackhorse HCC Ltd which owns 76%”. McCluskey and four executive council members of the union are directors of Blackhorse.

One source with knowledge of the document said the union was declaring spending of £74m to date on the project. The accounts do not show any evidence of a re-evaluation of the property.

The Flanagan Group is under investigation by Merseyside police in connection with Operation Aloft, an inquiry into the sale to developers of council-owned land in Liverpool. Paul Flanagan, the head of the group, was arrested in September on suspicion of conspiracy to commit bribery. Joe Anderson and his son David have also been arrested.

The union vehemently denied any wrongdoing following allegations in the Times. A spokesperson said there was no connection between the Merseyside investigation and the Birmingham project and McCluskey had nothing to do with the tendering process.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/26/unite-union-apparently-doubles-expenditure-hotel-project

The article was first reported in The Times -

Firm owned by Len McCluskey’s friend was paid £95m for ‘£7m project’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/friend-of-unite-leader-was-paid-95m-for-project-estimated-to-cost-7m-hvcrwv5n2

...but you need to subscribe to read it hence the Guardian article link instead.

270Nepotism/Cronyism Watch - Page 9 Empty Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Sat Feb 20 2021, 09:03

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
No surprise you haven’t included any evidence of this. As always so desperate to keep going on, you resort to inventing things. Every, single, time.

I’m done with your games, nobody can be as thick as you pretend to be, contradicting yourself every other post just to keep arguments going - so I can only conclude this is done on purpose.

Me constantly engaging is harmful to the rest of the site, I’ll do my best to ignore your posts from now on.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 9 of 11]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

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