Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

By your made up definition of sleaze - sure.

But by the definition of sleaze everyone outside of Sluffy land recognises - no. You have been proved emphatically wrong.

It’s not the end of the world to just hold your hands up and admit it was a mistake.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:By your made up definition of sleaze - sure.

But by the definition of sleaze everyone outside of Sluffy land recognises - no. You have been proved emphatically wrong.

It’s not the end of the world to just hold your hands up and admit it was a mistake.

Are you on drugs or something???

The National Audit Office, the Parliamentary Accounts Committee and the judge of a Judicial Review have ALL CONFIRMED that it is the civil servants who have followed the procedures - free from any political interference - and awarded the contracts on merit - irrespective whichever route they had got to them.

Do you believe all these people involved in the various inquiries and legal cases are lying and undertaking some massive coverup???

You really need to give your head a good shake if you think all this is some sort of a mass conspiracy...

It isn't.

It really isn't.

Hancock, Paterson and Randox - whatsapp evidence finally comes to light.

wanderlust wrote:Hancock, Paterson and Randox - whatsapp evidence finally comes to light.

Yes we already know, what do you think we've been talking about on this very thread since post 494 above???

I even linked later to copies of the actual messages ffs!

Owen Paterson chased through the Randox contract to Hancock - who then follows up on his behalf to PHE. The documents show that.

Randox got this access because they paid Paterson a wedge of cash to do it.

In an open democracy you shouldn’t be able to buy an MP to gain additional access to secure government contracts.

It’s bizarre how difficult this is for you to understand Sluffy.

Got to agree: this looks  and smells like sleaze

What is bizarre is that you can't understand (or rather refuse to understand) that access (even if it was provided unlawfully as per the judges determination at the JR case) doesn't equate to a contract being awarded.

The judge made it abundantly clear that the system is 'blind' in respect to where the contract tender originates from and determined solely on its merits by civil servants free from any political influence or coercion.

Christ even your mate Maugham isn't even making a fuss about this story and tweeting away ten to the dozen like he usually does because there's nothing in it - the judge has previously made it crystal clear that access to the contract evaluation and awarding process whether done via the correct means or judged unlawful ones such as the VIP lane simply have no bearing in the determination of the outcome.

There can't be any sleaze or corruption if the contracts are awarded fairly and independently away from anyone trying to influence the outcome!

There can only be sleaze and corruption if you can influence the person making the decisions to award a contract in your favour rather than to others competing contractors who would have won otherwise.

That hasn't happened.

That's why there isn't any evidence of sleaze and corruption in the awarding of these contracts.

That's the whole reason why Maugham's strategy is to take these cases to JR's and not to the police to take criminal action as he seeks wins on 'technicalities' such as not publishing contract awards within 30 days.  He NEVER alleges any criminality, sleaze or cronyism in his litigation - have you never asked yourself why that is???

That's why Maugham's case in respect of the particular JR he's currently brining was heavily stacked on finding something incriminating in the 'missing' private WhatsApp messages - and the ones produced so far DON'T show anything other than what was known already - that Patterson breached lobbying rules - and that story has already been run and Patterson has gone and Johnson dug a massive hole for himself trying save him from going.

And that is why Maugham has kept silent about this yesterday and again today - deafeningly silent I would say!  

Wouldn't you?

You've fallen for all the hype and can't seem to get it in to your head that access to the system doesn't equate to being awarded a contract - it simply does not.

Contracts are determined and awarded on merit by impartial civil servants - that's why Maugham 'lost' his last case (yes he spins it that he 'won' (on a technicality that the VIP lane was contrary to EU legislation at the time) but in reality lost big time in that he was NOT awarded a 'remedy' - the judge pointedly refused to - and that meant the government appeal was upheld and GLP had to pay the governments legal fees for not only the appeal but for the original court case itself.

Maugham suffered a massive defeat on his last JR (although he hides it very well!) and these WhatsApp messages he's been hoping to back up his further JR cases with simply have't produced any proof contracts being awarded based on who you might know.

Contracts are awarded by impartial civil servants - the judges findings states that - not by MP's.

Sluffy wrote:Patterson breached lobbying rules

Classic attempt to bury an admission in 10,000 words. Glad we got there in the end.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Patterson breached lobbying rules

Classic attempt to bury an admission in 10,000 words. Glad we got there in the end.

What???

We already KNEW he breeched lobbying rules - no one is saying anything other are they - certainly I'm not...

Sluffy wrote:Seems some of these 'private' 'WhatsApp' messages that Maugham/GLP claims as proof of all this sleaze and cronyism have turned up and shows NO proof at all about sleaze and cronyism - well fancy that...

They show Patterson 'lobbying' in respect of a private company he was being paid as a consultant - but it shows no evidence at all of MP's influencing the civil servants making the decision to award the contracts.

My point was - and I'll repeat it just to make abundantly clear to you...

Sluffy wrote:...but it shows no evidence at all of MP's influencing the civil servants making the decision to award the contracts.

You however can't seem to understand that simple fact because you clear believe it DID...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Randox got this access because they paid Paterson a wedge of cash to do it.

In an open democracy you shouldn’t be able to buy an MP to gain additional access to secure government contracts.

Patterson could have been paid a billion pounds a week from Randox or bugger all - the end result would still have been the same because civil servants have been seen and proven to be and act independent in their evaluation and awarding of contracts by the inquiries and legal judgement of the National Audit Office, the Parliamentary Accounts Committee an a High Court Judge!!!

Certainly bizarre that you can't bring yourself to accept that clearly established fact.

Daily Fail claims

Matt Hancock ordered staff to help his pal 'Owen Patz' secure a multi-million pound Covid testing contract for Randox Laboratories (before they both quit in disgrace)

Pressure from the minister but no evidence to prove that ministerial pressure was the sole reason for choosing to award the contract. Presumably Randox put forward a compelling case.

wanderlust wrote:Daily Fail claims

Matt Hancock ordered staff to help his pal 'Owen Patz' secure a multi-million pound Covid testing contract for Randox Laboratories (before they both quit in disgrace)

Pressure from the minister but no evidence to prove that ministerial pressure was the sole reason for choosing to award the contract. Presumably Randox put forward a compelling case.

Hahaha!!!

It's the one and the SAME STORY as we have been talking about for the last TWO DAYS!!!

I've even linked to the WhatsApp messages above you complete numpty!!!

You post in the middle of the night and even go to the bother of giving your post a big 'blue' headline (and even underlined it as well!) to make it standout yet obviously haven't even read about any of the background facts posted on here over the last few days in relation to what actually happens!!!

Your hatred and blind prejudice doesn't surprise me in the least neither does your sounding off about things that have already been posted but you were too lazy to bother reading to better inform yourself about before you post!

You're just an utter joke at times but you don't have make me laugh though!!!

   

wanderlust wrote:Daily Fail claims

Matt Hancock ordered staff to help his pal 'Owen Patz' secure a multi-million pound Covid testing contract for Randox Laboratories (before they both quit in disgrace)

Pressure from the minister but no evidence to prove that ministerial pressure was the sole reason for choosing to award the contract. Presumably Randox put forward a compelling case.

You've got to give it to Paterson, some would baulk at £100,000 a year for sending a few emails but he delivered for his paymasters didn't he. If only every prospective supplier could afford a Tory MP.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Daily Fail claims

Matt Hancock ordered staff to help his pal 'Owen Patz' secure a multi-million pound Covid testing contract for Randox Laboratories (before they both quit in disgrace)

Pressure from the minister but no evidence to prove that ministerial pressure was the sole reason for choosing to award the contract. Presumably Randox put forward a compelling case.

You've got to give it to Paterson, some would baulk at £100,000 a year for sending a few emails but he delivered for his paymasters didn't he. If only every prospective supplier could afford a Tory MP.

You really are as pathetic as each other!

Do you even KNOW what you are talking about because it seems obvious to me that you clearly don't understand what has happened at all.

Did you know for instance that Patterson's 'egregious' paid lobbying wasn't connected to this instance or these WhatsApp messages???

It's pretty certain you two and everybody else jumping up and had put two and two together that this was what his suspension was all about.

It wasn't.

For the record this is what he was 'done' for -

The committee said the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found Paterson had made several approaches to the Food Standards Agency related to clinical diagnostics company Randox, and meat products firm Lynn's Country Foods.

He also failed to declare his interest in the companies on several occasions, used his parliamentary office for business meetings and sent letters related to his business interests on House of Commons headed notepaper, it said.

The committee noted that while there was no immediate financial benefit to Randox or Lynn's, Paterson's approaches could have resulted in significant long term benefits and secured meetings that would not otherwise have been available.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-lawmaker-should-be-suspended-over-egregious-paid-lobbying-watchdog-2021-10-26/

He was lobbying for Randox - so who are they?

Randox is an international health and toxicology company in the in vitro diagnostics industry headquartered in the UK, and owned by Peter FitzGerald. The company develops diagnostic solutions for hospitals, clinical, research and molecular labs, food testing, forensic toxicology, veterinary labs and life sciences. It develops, manufactures and markets reagents and equipment for laboratory medicine, with a distribution network of 145 countries. Randox is the biggest polymerase chain reaction testing provider in the UK and Ireland.

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

Ok so what is all this about Patterson, Hancock and WhatsApp?

Well basically at the very start of the pandemic Patterson contacted Hancock to say he was a paid consultant for the multinational company Randox specialises in in vitro diagnostics...

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

...who could develop a Covid test in a couple of weeks if they could be given 10 positive samples to work from.

That was arranged, Randox developed a Covid test but Public Health England didn't follow it up for some reason and Patterson asked Hancock why the delay as surely developing tests for Covid were of the utmost urgency?

It's explained in a bit more detail here -

They began on January 26, 2020, when Mr Paterson told Mr Hancock that Randox could develop a Covid test in two to three weeks if it received 10 positive 'sputum' samples.

Mr Hancock assured the then North Shropshire MP he would look into it and went on to email Randox.

On February 25 Mr Paterson messaged the minister saying it had been 19 days since Public Health England had contacted Randox and while the company's test had worked there had been no more communication.

"It is incomprehensible given the current developments and time pressures," Mr Paterson wrote.

He went on to say that there seemed to be little sense of urgency or speed.

Mr Hancock, who later stood down as Health Secretary after breaching social distancing rules, assured Mr Paterson he had chased the matter up.

There was then no communication until September, when Mr Paterson wrote that he had visited Randox for the first time since February and had been impressed with its achievements in Covid testing.

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/politics/2022/02/04/messages-between-owen-paterson-and-matt-hancock-over-randox-covid-testing-released/



So what exactly is the issue everyone is so concerned about here?

The government had made a national appeal to industry to help in whatever ways they can to beat Covid (which of course was an unknown virus to everyone at the time).

Randox through Paterson contacted the government to offer help by creating a Covid test, Hancock passed it on, and later chased the matter up when there seemed to be some sort of delay had occurred between the civil servants and Randox.

It is contentious whether the 'offer' was put into a VIP lane or not - the VIP was set up for obtaining PPE and this was something completely different - but the judge ruled when overturning the GLP case that even if it had come from a VIP lane then the evaluation and awarding of the contract would still have occurred simply because the companies involved could deliver the volume of what was required in the extreme urgency of the time limit available.

As a spokesman for Hancock stated -

"To suggest Matt should have ignored the UK’s biggest existing testing capacity because he was being contacted by Owen Paterson is absurd and would have been a dereliction of duty.

And to complete the story it has been proved beyond any doubt now that MP's, Ministers, Peers or anyone else had any influence on the evaluation and awarding of the contracts done by civil servants.

To think otherwise is simply believing the fake news promoted by Maugham/GLP.

Sluffy wrote:

"To suggest Matt should have ignored the UK’s biggest existing testing capacity because he was being contacted by Owen Paterson is absurd and would have been a dereliction of duty.

God, missed this quote from Hancock’s ‘spokesman’ - who suggested he ignored it exactly?!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

"To suggest Matt should have ignored the UK’s biggest existing testing capacity because he was being contacted by Owen Paterson is absurd and would have been a dereliction of duty.

God, missed this quote from Hancock’s ‘spokesman’ - who suggested he ignored it exactly?!

Eh???

You for real?

It's a commonly used rhetorical statement.

The opposite of what Hancock did would have been to ignore/refuse/tell them to submit it in a more formal way - or in other words delay acting immediately - to Randox's offer to help, communicated through Paterson to him.

No one is actually suggesting the offer should be ignored - in fact it's quite the opposite point being made - namely how utterly ridiculous in the circumstance that the country was in at the time if Hancock DIDN'T expedite the offer of help to the civil servant procurement office for them to evaluate what if anything Randox could offer as help and if so whether it would pass through the evaluation process and lead to contract award.


Are you honestly saying that you thought the statement really meant someone suggested he ignore the offer????

Hahahaha!!!

You crack me up you two...

Dumb and Dumber!!!!

Sluffy wrote:

Eh???

You for real?

It's a commonly used rhetorical statement.

The opposite of what Hancock did would have been to ignore/refuse/tell them to submit it in a more formal way - or in other words delay acting immediately - to Randox's offer to help, communicated through Paterson to him.

No one is actually suggesting the offer should be ignored - in fact it's quite the opposite point being made - namely how utterly ridiculous in the circumstance that the country was in at the time if Hancock DIDN'T expedite the offer of help to the civil servant procurement office for them to evaluate what if anything Randox could offer as help and if so whether it would pass through the evaluation process and lead to contract award.


Are you honestly saying that you thought the statement really meant someone suggested he ignore the offer????

Hahahaha!!!

You crack me up you two...

Dumb and Dumber!!!!

No he’s presenting the scenario as a binary choice, to over simplify Hancocks role to appeal to people like you who will jump on anything they think can excuse the government.

‘Commonly used rhetorical statement’

Select Committee on lobbying and transparency interviews Ian Hislop....