Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

I thought this was a reasonable discussion from Maugham for a change.

I discount of course his premise of cronyism and corruption - I state again that contracts are awarded by Civil Servants not politicians - but I've no doubt there's stuff on the private email sites that the politicians don't want to be seen maybe stuff like dealing with cock-ups and mistakes that have happened and how best to deal with them.

Of course one reason for doing it this way is not that they were plotting sleaze and cronyism but rather were trying to stop delicate and embarrassing stuff being deliberately leaked if the discussions went through official emails has they should - and if anyone thinks I'm being a bit fanciful about that then I only have to point you to the video of Hancock and his squeeze leaked from within government offices!

Fwiw I believe the government decision NOT to look at the private emails is the correct one - I would say that wouldn't I - I can hear you thinking!

Let me explain.

The multiple judicial reviews launched by Maugham/Good Law Project are basically all about did the government apply the law correctly - and the gist of what Maugham would love to show is that corruption and cronyism occurred.

Well as I keep saying it is the civil servants that performs and controls the whole process of contract awards, so the government must and has laid this open to the judge and any other official inquires that have or will take place, for their scrutiny.

If Hancock or whoever wanted to influence the process in anyway - either from their private or official email accounts their posts would be picked up and on record from having been received by the civil servants - and thus already picked up - you don't have read both the 'sent' message and 'received' message - it is one and the same message whichever end you look at it from.

What Maugham would love to find is politically embarrassing emails and that's why he is pushing for these emails to be fully disclosed.

That however is not the aim of what the judicial review is about - and hence why I agree the government saying for the JR that these private emails are not required because whatever their contents are they could simply not have influenced the civil servants award of the contracts.

'It's baffling. I'm a little suspicious of the decision not to look.'@GoodLawProject Director @JolyonMaugham reacts to the Government saying it will not search the private email account of ex-Health Secretary Matt Hancock, which he used for official business.@toryboypierce pic.twitter.com/lTGNwaObcd

— LBC (@LBC) July 23, 2021

Good news at last, a politician in court to face charges of fraud!!!

Bad news for most posters on this thread - the politician is from the Labour Party!!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-58272878

I'm delighted any fraudster is facing the music. Not sure why you'd think anyone would see this as bad news.
If he's guilty of course.

I think it's OK (but not advisable) to use private private emails for business, but as the user is representing the company - or in this case the government - they must become available for scrutiny.

The government's own guidance on this does not explicitly ban the use of private emails but does say “it is expected that government business should be recorded on government record systems”. It states that those conducting government business “should ensure the relevant information is accessible e.g. by copying it to a government email address”.

Use of private emails puts both the user and the organisation at risk. The organisation can experience loss of audit trails and difficulty retrieving data for litigation purposes, loss of personal data and potential GDPR breaches and difficulty in responding to DSAR requests, potential for sensitive information to fall into the wrong hands and of course data security risks as private emails are usually more hackable.

The grey area is who owns the data that appears in the private emails? If it is transacting business on behalf of the government then surely the government owns it and therefore has access to it.

But whilst the government are not explicitly clear in their otherwise detailed guidance there is wriggle room - and this government has got wriggling down to a fine art.

Looks like shit, smells like shit, tastes like shit but technically it could just be a badly made chocolate mousse.

Our company were quite lax when it came to emails. Unknown to head office, they were copying in our own phone at the security office where we signed in for work.
I was always first in at 6am, and always checked the phone for anything juicy. I then forwarded anything worth keeping to my own email account, and deleted the rest.
Some of the stuff was dynamite, and not meant for the eyes of lickspittles like us.
Let's say I made good use of what I'd seen. No one noticed for 3 years, then the emails stopped.
Had a good run though.

One of the problems is that personal accounts are not covered by the organisation's security systems so for example if a user accepts G Mail's T & C (which allow for email content searches) the data privacy policy goes out of the window.

And of course personal emails are not backed up for future reference should e.g. a legal issue arise.

Then there's the issue of who you communicate with via personal emails. E.g. in the States, the National Security Agency which collects security information globally alongside the CIA has deals with all the big personal email providers that allow collection of data at both endpoints so they can read your emails without your permission or knowledge.

boltonbonce wrote:I'm delighted any fraudster is facing the music. Not sure why you'd think anyone would see this as bad news.
If he's guilty of course.

I'm delighted too - I couldn't care less which political party they represent.

The reason I joked it was bad news to some on here is because the thread is almost exclusively about 'implied' Tory corruption and no semblance or that others who are not from the Tory party can and sometimes are corrupt as well.

In fact this whole thread is really based from the agenda of just one man Jolyn Maugham and his axe to grind with the Tory party.

If he or anyone else has got prove of illegality/corruption then give it to the police and let them do their job and bring them to court - it is as simple as that to me.

The truth is that a year and a half later not one jot of hard evidence has been found - it has all just been innuendo - yet countless people have believed it to be true and factual.

If Maugham believes this is all harmless fun in his war against the Tory party then unfortunately it is not and has brought unintended casualties to completely innocent people.

Part of his innuendo is about a company, Abington Health, being part of the sleaze and cronyism and is tied up in one of his pointless Judicial Reviews.

The direct effect of this being that the government have had to freeze a payment of £1m due at the start of the year, for Covid related goods already supplied to it.

The direct result is that the company has had to make 60 people redundant.

The company had previously written to Maugham (Good Law Practice) giving full details refuting his claims asking him to withdraw them from the Judicial Review.

He didn't and thus this triggered people losing their jobs.

The company was so incensed about this that they have publicly posted up all their correspondence of this matter on the front page of their website.

It makes damning reading of Maugham (GLP).

If anyone would like to read it the article is here - note particularly the links contained in it which are now court documents.

DISCLOSURE OF DETAILED GROUNDS FOR RESISTANCE – CLARIFICATION REGARDING FACTUAL INACCURACIES IN RELATION TO THE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

https://www.abingdonhealth.com/news/clarification-regarding-factual-inaccuracies-judicial-review-proceedings/

https://www.abingdonhealth.com/app/uploads/2021/08/2021.05.04-Letter-to-Rook-Irwin-Sweeney-LLP-V5.pdf
https://www.abingdonhealth.com/app/uploads/2021/08/2021.07.12-DGR-Abingdon-final.pdf

https://www.abingdonhealth.com/

The private phone calls, etc, are yet another red herring.

The bottom line is that politicians don't award contracts - civil servants do - and all the actions/authorities of the civil servants in coming to the awarding of the contracts are on the system.

My post above in respect of Abbington Health, which is the thing the sparked all this off in the first place, completely refutes Maugham's allegations and have laid open their company to be scrutinised as to how they acted - which had nothing at all to do with dodgy deals being done via private messages!

No doubt there is stuff that has gone on that politicians don't want to be aired in public but I suspect it is more to do with minimising whatever cock ups have happened and keeping a lid on things rather than conspiring to act illegally in the first place.

The bottom line again is that we don't carry around with us numerous phones for different things and we all generally do work and personal stuff from the same phone.

It's how life is these days.

If they really wanted to do underhanded I'm sure they would be doing more dubious stuff on the dark web, or whatever it is that it is called, then Whatsapping their mates and associates on their newest iphone - wouldn't you?

Hancock et al have been ordered by the judge to hand over their Whatsapp and text messages in regard to the government procurement contracts. LOL.

wanderlust wrote:Hancock et al have been ordered by the judge to hand over their Whatsapp and text messages in regard to the government procurement contracts. LOL.

Not so.

Hancock is the only one ordered to have his personal communication devices searched, with Bethell to give a witness statement about his phone.

And you are only two days late with the story!!!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10013463/Hancock-WhatsApps-searched-Covid-contracts-court-battle.html

Now what were we saying about loons believing as gospel all they read on social media and not bothering to check the facts...

My point amply proved I believe!!!

I found this article interesting -

Conservatives: Who funds them, and what's in it for them?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58721596

There's clearly a very widespread belief by many (everyone that follows Maugham for instance) that people who fund the Tory party are simply after 'favours' in return but that simply isn't the case.

I'm not naive and I've worked with politicians and political party's for years and know some do try to gain favouritism that way but that's usually at the lower end of the spectrum, the contributions the very rich make are just 'pocket money' amounts to them and not with the intent to buy control and influence as such.

It's rather the desire to keep the other party out of power who do not share the same view as them.

Think of it this way, when there is an election who do you vote for - the party that suits you and your values the best, so if you feel strongly enough to vote for them, do you feel strongly to support them in other means, such as joining the party, canvassing for them, helping them win elections.

If you had the money, would you chip on with their costs of fighting the elections too?

Well those with money and have strong feelings do just that, except they skip the bit about door knocking and being polling station tellers - they simply chip in to fund those that do.

It's all about context and understanding of the world they inhabit and simply judging them on the way we perceive things from the world and culture we inhabit may not always be judging them correctly.

The article is giving an actual insight as to why people do fund the Conservatives and it isn't about Cronyism as many, many people really believe they do.

Interesting article. I can't imagine that any members of the Leaders group (£50k+ per annum donation) the Treasurers group (£25k+ per annum donation) or the "Advisory Board" (£250k+ per annum donation) would ever open up about what they get in return from the Tory party, but at least Locke and the article give some insight into ministerial access, private dinners with the PM,  contracts given the go ahead and peerages etc.

It may indeed be coincidence that Richard Desmond found himself sitting next to former housing minister at one such dinner and then increased his donation when his housing development was given the go ahead. And it may be that these rich guys who have everything just want a title or even just a chat with the PM as they've got everything else. Although Rupert Murdoch's staff were granted 41 meetings with the Government in the first 6 months of Johnson becoming PM and were duly granted an OFCOM licence for their news channel in December. Probably just coincidence again.

But for some reason I feel that there may be more to it. It may not be proven yet but there are reasonable grounds for suspicion wouldn't you agree folks?

wanderlust wrote:Interesting article. I can't imagine that any members of the Leaders group (£50k+ per annum donation) the Treasurers group (£25k+ per annum donation) or the "Advisory Board" (£250k+ per annum donation) would ever open up about what they get in return from the Tory party, but at least Locke and the article give some insight into ministerial access, private dinners with the PM,  contracts given the go ahead and peerages etc.

It may indeed be coincidence that Richard Desmond found himself sitting next to former housing minister at one such dinner and then increased his donation when his housing development was given the go ahead. And it may be that these rich guys who have everything just want a title or even just a chat with the PM as they've got everything else. Although Rupert Murdoch's staff were granted 41 meetings with the Government in the first 6 months of Johnson becoming PM and were duly granted an OFCOM licence for their news channel in December. Probably just coincidence again.

But for some reason I feel that there may be more to it. It may not be proven yet but there are reasonable grounds for suspicion wouldn't you agree folks?

Well as I said...

Sluffy wrote:I'm not naive and I've worked with politicians and political party's for years and know some do try to gain favouritism that way but that's usually at the lower end of the spectrum, the contributions the very rich make are just 'pocket money' amounts to them and not with the intent to buy control and influence as such.

I've no doubt that there are some bad apples but look at things from a rich persons point of view...

Who is the richest person we are all familiar with, let say its Eddie Davies.

Eddie spent spent £200m of his wealth on Bolton Wanderers and paid for the best part of a wing for the Victoria and Albert Museum in London so if he was a Tory supporter and pain his £25k or £50k or even £250k donation it just loose change to him, why would you think he'd want some dodgy deal to result from it?

The point being if you've got that sort of money to begin with you don't need to have any ulterior motive behind their donation - what did Eddie get from his donation to the V and A an Egyptian mummy and a hoard of Roman coins or something perhaps?

Of course he didn't.

You are in a different world and think differently when you can afford to pay £50k just to meet Boris for afternoon tea a few times a year.

I mean really, if I wanted to do something corrupt and illegal and pay politicians to do my bidding do you think I would be meeting them at public tea party's that other people are attending, then make a donation to their party that will go on the public record???

Of course I wouldn't!

I'd do it in secret and pay the politicians - NOT their political party - by way of offshore and untraceable means.

I really despair of how naive and utterly stupid people are to believe such obvious bollocks as this.

Maugham and an army of investigative journalists have been trying to pin some shit about corruption and cronyism on the Tory government for getting on for the best part of TWO YEARS now.

What evidence has any of them found in all that time...

...sweet FA!!!

You'd think with all the people involved, the government Audit Office looking into the contract awards, the Public Accounts Committee interviewing the top civil servants and even Cummings, and the multiple Judicial Reviews before High Court Judges might have turned up something in all this time...

...but no, nothing, zilch, nada!

What do people think more likely to be the truth, a monumental cover up which includes the police, judiciary and the civil service, or there really isn't much there to be found in the first place?

What would your brain and common sense tell you?

Wanderlust wants it to be true.

Doesn't mean that it is though...

Wanderlust so desperately wanted Anderson to have raped and pillaged the club but in turns out he didn't!

As for Murdock, have we forgot how Tony Blair travelled halfway around the world to get into bed with him and the ramifications of that???

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000kxvz/the-rise-of-the-murdoch-dynasty-series-1-1-kingmaker

Sluffy wrote:Wanderlust so desperately wanted Anderson to have raped and pillaged the club but in turns out he didn't!

I have absolutely no idea why on earth you'd want to dig this up again unless you are running out of things to slag me off about, but seeing as we "agreed to disagree" on the Anderson matter years ago and you are not being at all truthful, I now have to put the record straight - which will piss off all the other contributors.


1. You have no idea what I want in any of your ongoing character assassinations that appear after everything I contribute to the site.
2. In this case I certainly didn't want Anderson to have "raped and pillaged" the club - I actually wanted an owner with integrity who knew what they were doing and could put us back on track towards sustainability. Moreover I wanted an owner who had the club at heart.
3. It hasn't been conclusively proven either way what Anderson did to our club - so your statement is pure speculation again - a bit like you claiming to know what I'm thinking or what I want - or your "analysis"of accounts which is always good for a laugh
4. What has been proven is that despite us being a club facing financial ruin, he took £525k in "consultancy fees", gave his son a further £125k and received a final payment of £240k for his shares - so despite our problems he made sure he and his family were well looked after - unlike the staff at the club.
5. Anderson also wheedled his way into the position of secured creditor which he then used to frustrate any deal that didn't suit him 
6. The £7.5 million debt "written off" by the EDT remains surrounded in mystery. Was it partially related to the £5 million personal loan that he extracted from Eddie on his deathbed? Not proven.

What you could have said was that I don't like, trust or respect Anderson. That would be true although TBF I am hardly alone in that.

Drop the matter now because we've all had enough it unless any further evidence emerges. I would also be grateful if you would drop the personal attacks which now appear in every post you quote me in and drop the wild speculation that you trot out as if it were fact. Give us all a break. You are killing the site and equally bad, you are boring.

Hahaha!!!

Personal attacks, yeah right...

I'm just quoting back to you what you've said on here and mirroring how bizarre and ridiculous these statements of yours are and your subsequent behaviour following them.

You told us that Anderson had stripped the club of £168m worth of assets - so don't try to deny that you hadn't frequently and often claimed he had raped and pillaged the club for his own benefit!!!

As for Anderson, I'll keep it brief and report directly from the Administrators/Liquidators reports -

On page 3 of their 27th January 2020 submission (remember the Administrators are acting in respect of the court) under subsection 'e', they lay out the complexity of the Administration in that FV required to buy the hotel at the same time and that there were five separate secured creditors each with their own legal counsel and advisors and "with one or other wishing to renegotiate the terms of the sale".

To put it simply each party - Anderson, Prescot Business Park, Moonshift, Brett Warburton and Barclays Bank had to be satisfied with the terms of FV's offers - and clearly it was more than just Anderson who wasn't!

One of the many myths and misconceptions you and probably nearly everybody else have is that it was always constantly Anderson who was the stumbling block to achieving a deal - the official report shows that it clearly wasn't!

Each of the five party's were ALL seeking to protect their positions - and Anderson was doing just what the counsel and advisors of the other four party's were doing too - namely finding the best deal for themselves.

There's nothing at all wrong in that legally or morally.

In the Liquidators statement of the 30th March 2021, p16, section (i) under the heading -  Investigations, they state that 'no additional investigations were required following those under taken during the Administration process'.

To simplify that, any company that enters Administration is subjected to a report as to the behaviour of the Directors of the company as to whether anything dodgy had gone on and if so the initiation of legal action to follow.

The Administrator/Liquidator hasn't taken any action against Anderson.

They know what he did or didn't do and as far as they are concerned he's done nothing warranting any legal action or even to be struck off as a Director...

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/search/disqualified-officers?q=anderson

...so in the eyes of the law it has been "conclusively proven" that Anderson ran the club legally - it's not me saying that, it is the officials representing the court who have gone through all the books!

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00043026/filing-history

In fact everything is there in black and white and in the public domain.

Just because you can't be bothered to fact check your 'claims' doesn't make them true - in fact they simply are not.

For whatever reason you make some unfounded statements - in this case Anderson, the other day in was about a non existent German Government, etc, etc, - and instead of reappraising your views when better informed information is put before you, instead you dig yourself in and do whatever you can to wriggle out about being seen to be wrong.

In fact this being a classical example - my last post was about your remarks on potential/alleged Tory corruption/dodgy dealings and you've clearly tried to avoid admitting how outlandish your fixed views are on this are, that you've picked up on a throwaway line of mine about Anderson to deflect attention away from that entirely!

Your behaviour is consistent to other posters on here too - others will pick you up on a point and you will refuse to reply to them - off the top of my head people asked you about Emma Raducanu that you chose not to answer...

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t22988-emma-raducanu#430378

...one from TROY about Alonso that you've chosen not to answer...

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23055-former-wanderers-star-stops-taking-the-knee#430662

...one from Bob that you've chosen not to answer...

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t22710p150-latest-bwfc-accounts-year-ended-30th-june-2020#429430

...and all those are just in the last few weeks!

Actions speak louder than words mate and your actions clearly show you don't like to be seen to be wrong on here by anyone.

Now that isn't me with a problem, it's you that clearly has one.

Oh dear.

FFS Sluffy, give it a rest.

Stop it Lusty!