Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Sluffy wrote:

I've asked you numerous times in the past as well as the recent two or three.

And what is the point in passing on gossip if you don't even know where it originates from or who said it?

If you got a private email sent you from QAnon would you post it on here as something you believe in???

Fair reply?

No.

The content is factual. It is not gossip. 

I'm not providing a link to my private email address and my longstanding, trustworthy friends who, incidentally, were interested in joining this site and contributing to what members have to say about BWFC and current affairs etc.

 They have now all changed their minds for obvious reasons. Thay have lost interest in the aggressive, irrational, uncivil or condescending nature of some of the responses I put up with.

I still value the posts of very many Nutters on here!

okocha wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

I've asked you numerous times in the past as well as the recent two or three.

And what is the point in passing on gossip if you don't even know where it originates from or who said it?

If you got a private email sent you from QAnon would you post it on here as something you believe in???

Fair reply?

No.

The content is factual. It is not gossip. 

I'm not providing a link to my private email address and my longstanding, trustworthy friends who, incidentally, were interested in joining this site and contributing to what members have to say about BWFC and current affairs etc.

 They have now all changed their minds for obvious reasons. Thay have lost interest in the aggressive, irrational, uncivil or condescending nature of some of the responses I put up with.

I still value the posts of very many Nutters on here!

What are you on about, I never asked for a link to your email address???

If the information is factual then link to the actual sourse not to where you (or anyone else) received it such as your email account!

Until then you are just passing on gossip from someone else and posting it on here.

As for your imaginary friends...

Your account has been registered on here for EIGHT YEARS, have your "longstanding, trustworth friends" been pondering for that long to decide to dip their toe in the water and join the site all that time???

Yeah right...

Ludicrous and unpleasant. 

I'm trying to recruit new members to a floundering site; you are driving them away. 

I have tried to be tolerant of your autocratic, illogical, hate-filled attacks on me.  I can't put a mod on "Ignore" so I will now have to  read nothing that comes from your nasty mind. It's true what everybody says.

Article in this weekends Mail on Sunday

Fox killing QC Jolyon Maugham is accused of hypocrisy for leading a legal challenge against PM's 'Covid cronyism' despite helping super-rich tax dodgers try to save £1billion

Jolyon Maugham QC heading campaign over alleged cronyism by Boris Johnson
Left-wing barrister once dubbed a 'fox murderer' after clubbing one to death
He was also a lawyer for super-rich in attempts to avoid around £1 billion in taxes

By GLEN OWEN POLITICAL EDITOR FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:28, 17 April 2021 | UPDATED: 00:56, 18 April 2021

The Left-wing barrister leading a legal challenge against Boris Johnson over his alleged 'Covid cronyism' was last night accused of hypocrisy after it emerged he has worked to minimise the tax liabilities of millionaires.

Jolyon Maugham QC – once dubbed 'an infamous fox murderer' after clubbing one of the animals to death – is heading a crowd-funded campaign against Mr Johnson and Health Secretary Matt Hancock over claims they acted unlawfully by appointing their 'chums' to three top jobs in the fight against Covid-19, without opening the processes to competition.

Mr Maugham has been granted an application for judicial review over a 'value for money' challenge to the appointment of Tory peer Dido Harding as the head of NHS Test and Trace, Kate Bingham as head of the UK's Vaccine Taskforce and Mike Coupe as director of testing at NHS Test and Trace.

Mr Maugham claims the correct use of public money is 'fundamentally the issue' behind his campaign.

But during a lucrative career as a tax barrister, Mr Maugham represented the super-rich in their attempts to avoid around £1 billion in taxes, during which he was promoted as an expert in 'tax avoidance transactions'.


Mr Maugham represented the super-rich in their attempts to avoid around £1 billion in taxes, during which he was promoted as an expert in 'tax avoidance transactions'

His clients included participants in the Eclipse tax avoidance scheme which was used by celebrities and sports stars to try to avoid £635 million in tax using tax reliefs designed to benefit the film industry.

He has also represented a wealthy individual who used the Icebreaker scheme to try to avoid £120 million in tax and a French financier working in London who used the Goldcrest film scheme to seek to avoid around £8 million in tax.

Mr Maugham was quoted last November saying that individuals should 'offer their time and talents in service of the public good'.

The case against Mr Johnson's appointments, brought jointly by Mr Maugham's Good Law Project and the Runnymede Trust, a race equality think-tank, argues the Prime Minister and Mr Hancock broke the rules and acted in a discriminatory way by running a 'chumocracy'.

The case will claim that all three appointments were at least partly made because of the Tory connections of the three and not solely on merit.

Mr Maugham said: 'The story we tell ourselves is that things like this don't happen here. That the handing out of important roles to friends, without competition, is something for abroad. But the pandemic has exposed that story as a fairytale.'

The lawyer sparked a furore on Boxing Day 2019 after tweeting about killing a fox while wearing his wife's satin kimono gown when the animal got into his hen-house.

After the High Court granted the Judicial Review, Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg rejected calls to give a statement to MPs on the issue, accusing the 'fox murderer' of 'fussing and wasting time'.

Last night, Mr Maugham said: 'I had a hugely successful career as a barrister during which I, quite properly, complied with my professional obligations… to represent all who sought my services as an advocate, including HMRC and taxpayers.

While doing that work I wrote about and lobbied against tax avoidance.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9482529/Fox-killing-QC-Jolyon-Maugham-accused-hypocrisy-legal-challenge-against-PMs-cronyism.html



Maugham's not happy with it though!

There is no better evidence of your effectiveness as a campaigner than having one of the House magazines for the Conservative Party that masquerade as a newspaper run a hatchet job.

— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) April 18, 2021

I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Fail, it's just a Tory mouthpiece.

I wouldn't trust anyone called Jolyon.

Norpig wrote:I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Fail, it's just a Tory mouthpiece.

You miss the point of my post - although I expected most to do so.

Why I  posted without adding my own comments was to see how many would pick up on the point that the Mail had done exactly the same as what Maugham himself does - namely post a few facts - he defended super-rich tax dodgers in case worth over a £1billion and he attacks the government connections with the super-rich /Hancock awarded billions of PPE contracts and his pub landlord got one - the 'facts' being correct in both instances (sort of anyway) and people like you and million others jump to the (intended) conclussion that they are connected to each other - namely Maugham is a hypocrite and Hanckock/the government are corrupt/enabling sleaze and corynism.

They are NOT!

Neither Maugham or Hancock have done anything wrong and there are honest and genuine reasons for what they did - but being a barrister and defending the super rich yet leading the attack on cronyism to the super-rich /beining a Minister and the local landlord becomining a sub-contractor to others who did win contracts - are simply not connected to each other.

It is simply spin/innuendo/slurs, call it what you will.

People WANT to believe what they have already made their minds up about - everything the government does is crap/criminal/cronyism and the likes of Maungam simply 'spoon feed' them such storys for them to lap up!

I know I waste my breath on here and some folk will never change their minds no matter what facts I put in front of them but hopefully others may pause and think first rather than believing everything they see in the papers or read on social media is the gospel truth.

Norpig wrote:I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Fail, it's just a Tory mouthpiece.

I think its generally a good idea to hear both sides on any subject before jumping to conclusions.

Thought this was as good as place as any to post this -

MPs fight back as judicial cases block House of Commons

JUDICIAL reviews are slowing government and risk Parliament being bypassed by judge-made laws, ministers have been told. The warning comes from Conservative Hexham MP Guy Opperman, who previously practised as a barrister.

A freedom of information request has revealed leading QC Jo Maugham's Good Law Project has brought 27 cases since October 2017 at a cost to taxpayers of around £1.8million. Mr Maugham came to prominence in 2016 when he brought in cases challenging the Brexit process. His law firm has more recently taken cases against the Government over issues such as procurement for Covid-19, including a claim that £700million of contracts for personal protective equipment were illegally awarded.

Mr Maugham, director of Good Law Project, claimed: "The cost of defending the judicial reviews we have brought is but a drop in the vast ocean of sleaze and waste that our judicial reviews have uncovered.

"No wonder they fear the power of judicial review."

However, Mr Opperman, who is now a pensions minister, said there had been an expansion in the use of judicial reviews since 2015.

He said: "This is evident in so many ways from the vast costs, both to the applicant and the government of the day, to the way it is slowing down the machinery of government.

"It clearly needs reform and the Prime Minister, and Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor, are right to have begun to tackle this. This reform was clearly set out in the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto. It has begun with an independent review and then further consultation, which is ongoing."

He added: "It is key that laws are made in Parliament and the electorate know that. If there is a perception, whether real or imagined, that there is too much judge-made law then there is a problem with democratic accountability and ensuring that the courts and judiciary continue to be seen as independent.

"It is also vital this reform ensures that the process is quick and affordable both for the applicant, and the taxpayer, who is funding both the Government's defence and many of the applications.

"But we also need to ensure that the system is not abused by vexatious applications."

The Government is being pushed to deliver on a manifesto promise to curtail judicial reviews and limit legal challenges.

The Common Sense group of Tory MPs, chaired by ex-minister Sir John Hayes, has been pushing for reform and held meetings on the subject with Attorney General Suella Braverman last year.

Ms Braverman is also in favour of reform and recently Home Secretary Priti Patel spoke to the Sunday Express about the frustration of legal challenges being used to prevent foreign criminals from being deported.

She said: "It should be a stain on the consciences of these people making these representations on behalf of these heinous criminals.

"They are part of the broken system."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1443221/brrexit-news-parliament-judicial-cases-block-house-of-commons


Fwiw I've said several times previously on here that it is mu opinion that Maugham is simply a vexatious litigant who has an axe to grind against the Tory government.

Seems others may think that way too perhaps?

Sorry, what’s your point here?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry, what’s your point here?

I'm reporting a statement and factual details reported in Parliament which seems to suggest there is a view of the government that the facility of seeking Judicial Reviews is being abused.

So much so it seems the government is reviewing the process.

Maugham and the Good Law Project were specifically named.

I just thought it would be somewhat ironic if the person who claims to be holding the government to account (almost single handedly it seems to me - and at NO RISK or COST to himself as he crowdfunds all the legal costs whether he wins or loses) ends up pushing the state into making scrutiny by JR's that much more difficult to achieve by his seemingly personal obssession over how the government acts.

I've not followed GLP's track record but I don't recall any of their JR outcomes having any effect on what the government had/hadn't done?

I'm not really sure of the point of it all is if it isn't just his method of attempting to embarrass the government who he clearly does not like?

Maybe that is the way the government sees it to and are now acting to put an end to it - and if so deprive others in the future of a process they might have taken if Maugham/GLP hadn't hijacked the process seemingly for their own ends?

So it’s a waste of time, but you don’t know what the results of the cases are?

Again, you’re not arsed what the truth is. You just look for things that fit your narrative.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So it’s a waste of time, but you don’t know what the results of the cases are?

Again, you’re not arsed what the truth is. You just look for things that fit your narrative.

JR's are not a waste of time if used properly - indeed they are one of the main checks and balance over the exective.

The thing about JR's though is they have little if any power of remedy there function is to stop (in this case the government) acting beyond their powers / or alternatively tell them to use their powers if they had not been doing so up to that point.

I'm not arsed about the truth am I not?

If you say so.

I haven't kept track of Maugham's/GLP results because they simply don't achieve anything, they haven't changed your, my or anyone else's life in any way, their purpose is clearly aimed at embarrassing the government.

I've got to say he's been effective at that and all achieved without anything other than innuendo and the desire of many people wanting to believe what he presents as true.

I've yet to see him present a smoking gun to date about anything, yet he's clearly the darling of those who hate the government.

Funny that you see me as not be arsed about the truth yet believe Maugham who as to date not proved a single one of his any many allegations of sleaze and cronyism...

Just a thought.

‘I haven’t kept track’

‘They achieve nothing’



As obsessed with Maugham as you are with Wanderlust.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:‘I haven’t kept track’

‘They achieve nothing’



As obsessed with Maugham as you are with Wanderlust.

If you say so.

I actually didn't say they achieved 'nothing', I said they hadn't achieved 'anything' that changed our life's in any way.

I even went on to say the did achieve 'something' though, namely to continue to embarass the government in their followers eyes.

So please don't put words in my mouth or imply something I've never said.  It isn't the first time you've done it either.

And as for being obsessed, have you ever thought the only reason you post on here is to have a pop at me.

Doesn't that make you a little obsessive too..?

Pot and kettle springs to mind...

A continuation of what I posted on the 1st June -

Fox-clubbing QC Jolyon Maugham faces questions on crowdfunding legal cases as ministers target him amid concerns the practice is being abused

By GLEN OWEN POLITICAL EDITOR FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:13, 5 June 2021 | UPDATED: 22:25, 5 June 2021

A fox-clubbing Left-wing barrister responsible for a series of controversial crowdfunded legal actions is being targeted by Ministers amid concerns that the practice is being abused.

Jolyon Maugham is the most high-profile exponent of crowdfunding – using the internet to ask a large number of people to donate small sums of money – to fund a series of highly political cases through his Good Law Project.

They include legal challenges to Brexit and litigation accusing the Government of 'cronyism' in its award of Covid contracts.

Mr Maugham, who sparked a furore on Boxing Day 2019 for tweeting that he had killed a fox with a baseball bat while wearing his wife's satin kimono after it got into his hen enclosure, says crowdfunding 'puts into the hands of normal people a modest tool with which to try to keep government on the straight and narrow'.

However, Government experts have warned Justice Secretary Robert Buckland that the lack of regulation could lead to money that has been donated for one purpose being diverted for a different one.

One Government source told The Mail on Sunday: 'There are some big problems in this almost totally unregulated area.

'A lot of the time people are unaware what exactly they are funding or whether a case has the slightest chance of succeeding.

'Even worse, the way in which donations can be recycled when a judge awards costs means donations for one case can effectively end up funding something totally unrelated that the donor might have strong ethical objections to.

'You could donate to fund a case seeking stronger protections for animals such as foxes only to see your money end up indirectly bankrolling a case to make it easier for children to get medical treatment helping them change gender.'

The source said officials were particularly concerned about the increasing practice of crowdfunding applications for judicial review, forcing the Government to 'waste time and resources fending off unmeritorious but popular claims'.

Mr Maugham was accused of hypocrisy for leading the 'value for money' crowdfunded challenge to the appointment of Tory peer Dido Harding as the head of NHS Test and Trace – saying the correct use of public money was 'fundamentally the issue' behind his campaign – after it emerged that he has worked to minimise the tax liabilities of millionaires.

Mr Maugham represented the super-rich in attempts to avoid around £1 billion in taxes, during which he was promoted as an expert in 'tax avoidance transactions'.

His clients included participants in the Eclipse tax avoidance scheme which was used by celebrities and sports stars to try to avoid £635 million in tax using tax reliefs meant to benefit the film industry.

He has also represented a wealthy individual who used a scheme called Icebreaker to try to avoid £120 million in tax, and a French financier in London who used the Goldcrest film scheme to seek to avoid around £8 million in tax.

Last night he said: 'The Good Law Project has used crowdfunding to expose the sleazy award of PPE contracts to donors and to reverse the unlawful attempt to mislead the Queen and cancel Parliament.

'Mr Buckland's Government seems allergic to scrutiny.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9655369/Fox-clubbing-QC-Jolyon-Maugham-faces-questions-crowdfunding-legal-cases.html

T.R.O.Y. wrote:‘I haven’t kept track’

‘They achieve nothing’



As obsessed with Maugham as you are with Wanderlust.

Still a way off that

Of all the crowd funding I wonder why they’ve chosen to discredit Maugham.