Homeboltonbonce wrote:Here we go again. Lusty must be back.
Oh, wait............
Nepotism/Cronyism Watch
+9
Hip Priest
karlypants
okocha
Whitesince63
wanderlust
Ten Bobsworth
y2johnny
Norpig
xmiles
13 posters
Message [Page 29 of 32]
561 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Sat Nov 26 2022, 15:48
karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Posts : 38250
Join date : 2012-08-04
562 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Sun Nov 27 2022, 15:38
Hip Priest
Andy Walker
Sluffy wrote:
Hahahaha!!!!
Have you learned nothing at all from what I've said over the years about believing something from social media without checking it out as true first?
Clearly you've learnt bugger all.
Who is behind the 'A Different Bias' You Tube channel and what is it about?
Well it is a bloke called Phil Moorhouse a Science teacher who lives in Scunthorpe and it is about HIS political 'views'.
What do we know about 'Phil' - well he clearly hates the Tories.
Is what he says fair comment - well I said in early 2020 that the awarding of PPE contracts is done by Civil Servants and not politicians so there simply can't be any "Tory nepotism/cronyism/corruption" and I predicted then that no one would ever produce a smoking gun to prove that there ever was.
To date nearly THREE YEARS LATER - despite everyone desperately looking to pin something on the Tories absolutely nothing has been found.
Nor will it as it simply doesn't exist.
Why then is 'Phil' banging on about it then?
It's because he's talks shit that muppets like you want to hear and now has 156,000 subscribers to his You Tube Channel.
How much does a subscription cost?
I don't know but let's say just £10 for the year.
If so 'Phil' has earned just over £1.5m this year from idiots similar to you who want to hear the shite he talks about because you want to believe that it is true.
He's simply telling you and his 156,000 subscribers what you/they want to hear and laughing all the way to the bank with your money - what is it they say about a fool and his money being easily parted!
I hope for your own sake you aren't a subscriber of 'Phil's'.
Fwiw Maugham 'grifted' over £4m from mugs like you doing exactly the same thing on Twitter.
The more outrageous stuff 'Phil' and Maugham spouts, the more subscriptions they receive.
Don't you get it?
Clearly you don't.
You just want it all to be true.
And it simply isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/c/ADifferentBias/about
https://www.facebook.com/PhilM76/
Did my post warrant that rude and aggressive reply?
Especially from someone who is supposed to be serving a self imposed ban for being rude and aggressive.
He's just called me a "muppet," an "idiot" and a "mug" and says I am basically stupid because I don't agree with his opinions and I should know really that he is always right about everything.
The point I made was hotly debated in the commons so obviously the Government has explaining to do.
This site is in a mess. He thinks he can abuse whoever he wants, whenever he wants with no consequence. And he's right. What's the point of posting on a forum if you're likely to receive unwarranted abuse from the site owner if he doesn't share your views. I've really tried hard to ignore him but it doesn't work for me. He winds me up and I get drawn in.
I've got no ambitions to be Wanderlust 2.0
Goodbye,
563 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Sun Nov 27 2022, 18:11
Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Cajun
WS63
Bonce
Norpig
Natasha
Sluffy's getting rid of us one by one. Stay on your toes.
p.s. Don't do it HP, I'll miss your musical taste.
564 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Sun Nov 27 2022, 19:47
okocha
El Hadji Diouf
Can understand HP's utter frustration at his treatment, especially as the option of pressing the "Ignore" button does not exist in this case.Natasha Whittam wrote:Bwfc1958BanksofcroalxmilesGloswhiteMartinBWFCwanderlustHip Priest
Cajun
WS63
Bonce
Norpig
Natasha
Sluffy's getting rid of us one by one. Stay on your toes.
p.s. Don't do it HP, I'll miss your musical taste.
He is/was a valuable, respected, interesting poster.
565 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Sun Nov 27 2022, 20:04
boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
HP is the Tom Waits of Nuts, appearing in the early hours, through a haze of cigarette smoke, and with a powerful hint of Jack Daniels pervading the gloom.okocha wrote:
Can understand HP's utter frustration at his treatment, especially as the option of pressing the "Ignore" button does not exist in this case.
He is/was a valuable, respected, interesting poster.
Thelonious Monk, hat at a jaunty angle, completes the picture, making sweet music on the piano. Stay HP.
566 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Sun Nov 27 2022, 23:37
Sluffy
Admin
Hip Priest wrote:Did my post warrant that rude and aggressive reply?
Especially from someone who is supposed to be serving a self imposed ban for being rude and aggressive.
He's just called me a "muppet," an "idiot" and a "mug" and says I am basically stupid because I don't agree with his opinions and I should know really that he is always right about everything.
The point I made was hotly debated in the commons so obviously the Government has explaining to do.
This site is in a mess. He thinks he can abuse whoever he wants, whenever he wants with no consequence. And he's right. What's the point of posting on a forum if you're likely to receive unwarranted abuse from the site owner if he doesn't share your views. I've really tried hard to ignore him but it doesn't work for me. He winds me up and I get drawn in.
I've got no ambitions to be Wanderlust 2.0
Goodbye,
I claim a right to reply and here it is.
God help you if you believe being called a "muppet", "idiot" and "mug" is abuse on a social media, you really must be extremely thin skinned if you do.
Fwiw I have said that this forum should reflect the language we hear at the match (less of course racial and homophobic abuse) and no one has ever been banned for calling me a "cunt", "wanker" or anything else on here.
Was my reply to you aggressive?
I simply pointed out that you have taken some random bloke from Scunthorpe views and treated them as gospel - and quite frankly he's talking shite.
That by the way is not my "view" or "opinion" as you seem to believe it is but rather what the High Court have ruled and numerous inquiries such as from the Audit Commission and the all-party Public Select Committee have already reported publicly upon - and fwiw which I have posted up their findings at the time. on here, for you and everyone else to read.
Clearly you mustn't have bothered to enlighten yourself by doing so then.
I don't know where you got the idea I've banned myself for being "rude and aggressive" - I've not.
I've simply abstained from posting to show you all what the site is without the Wanderlust and Sluffy show and I've done this because most of you wanted the Wanderlust and Sluffy show to stop - and I've given people their wish on that.
Am I right about everything, I certainly only make statements on the things I know in some depth and I'm willing to bet that my so called "opinion" which is more correctly me simply reporting the High Court rulings, Audit Commission findings and Parliamentary inquiries which have interrogated the Ministers and Civil Servants directly involved in evaluating and awarding the PPE contracts - is more nearer the mark as to what actually occurred than your "opinion" that Phil the Science Teacher from Scunthorpe knows better than all the judges, auditors and parliament who have examined the facts, do!
Do I think you are "basically stupid" for ignoring those facts and findings from numerous impartial public inquiries in favour of someone who basically has 'monetarised' his wild rants on YouTube and provides no facts whatsoever to back up his claims - Yes I most certainly do!
Anyone with any sense at all would too!
The clip you've shown above DOESN'T show that the topic was "hotly debated" and I suggest you listen to it again and try to hear without your usual prejudice what the Minister is saying as that IS what has happened/is currently happening.
The oft claimed remarks trotted out by many that the VIP Lane was illegal is true in name only - what the judge actually ruled was that the contracts awarded would have been awarded whichever route they were received in and because of that he REFUSED to award a 'remedy' to Good Law Practice/Maugham which meant they couldn't clame costs and had to pay the government theirs, and which more or less bankrupted GLP and stopped them dead in their tracks of using Judicial Reviews to challenge any further laws they didn't like.
I have stated on here before that I very much doubt that Maugham, etc will risk taking the government to task in the courts over Mone and PPE Medpro Ltd in view of the High Court judge's ruling on the other PPE contracts as I've said above but I've also mentioned that on the face of it that it does look as though Mone failed to disclose her interest in the company and if so I trust she will face the full weight of the law for not doing so.
Finally, it is entirely up to you if you leave the site or not but I've not abused you by simply calling you a muppet or an idiot - that's just the mildest of banter on social media, and you are stupid if you choose to close your mind to the actual facts of the matter in favour of what you want to be true based on your political prejudices.
Other than that, thank you for your contributions to Nuts over the years and I hope you find another forum more to your liking if you do decide to leave.
567 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Mon Nov 28 2022, 00:52
finlaymcdanger
Frank Worthington
This has started to become disturbingly weird. Victim after victim after victim.
568 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Mon Nov 28 2022, 02:02
Sluffy
Admin
finlaymcdanger wrote:This has started to become disturbingly weird. Victim after victim after victim.
Disturbingly weird??
Victims???
Are you really being serious?
Hip Priest believes in the 'conspiracy' that PPE contracts were awarded to Tory 'cronies' - they weren't unless you also believe High Court Juges, the UK's Audit Commission and the Labour and SNP MP's on the various Parliamentary Select Committees were all involved in this conspiracy too.
They of course were not, and the unambiguous facts are that the contracts were awarded honestly and correctly under the emergency procurement procedures active at the time.
If Hip Priest doesn't want to believe it then that's up to him - but it doesn't mean he's right and the High Court Judges, the country's highest independent Audit facility and all the Parliamentary cross-party Committees, who who have undertaken public inquiries, having examined all the records and interviewed all those who awarded these contracts, are the ones who are wrong.
If he wants to go off in a huff because I've pointed out how ridiculous his views are believing some random bloke from Scunthorpe over some of the country's highest Law Lords as well as the independent organisation that actually audits the governments PPE procurement, well that's entirely up to him.
There's no victim's here, stupidity - yes, not wanting to accept the truth - certainly, a badly bruised ego - most definitely - but certainly no victims whatsoever.
Maybe you don't fully understand what is going on here with you being stateside, if so it is somewhat akin to Trump followers STILL believing he won the 2020 based on absolutely NO evidence whatsoever and ALL the evidence showing that he didn't - our scenario being you have the likes of Hip Priest (and many thousands of others) STILL believing in Tory sleaze and corruption - in this case the awarding of the PPE contracts - based on absolutely NO evidence whatsoever and ALL the evidence showing that it didn't happen!
It's simply as stupidly crazy as that.
569 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Mon Nov 28 2022, 07:59
boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Stupidity is the norm, Sluffy. Look at religion.
Not a shred of evidence, yet they'll kill and die for it.
Not a shred of evidence, yet they'll kill and die for it.
570 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Mon Nov 28 2022, 09:23
Sluffy
Admin
boltonbonce wrote:Stupidity is the norm, Sluffy. Look at religion.
Not a shred of evidence, yet they'll kill and die for it.
I fully agree.
But stupidity as in the case of religion is believing where there is no proof to the contrary. People simply 'want it to be true'.
However the difference here is that in all the instance over the years that I have stood up and told the likes of Hip Priest and Wanderlust in the full force of their BELIEF that they were right about something such as Anderson, or how the public sector/Civil Service works, or in this case the awarding of PPE contracts, I've given them the facts (and the links to sources where they can check out the facts for themselves) that totally DISPROVE their belief they had.
There's one thing having a belief about something you want to be true - with no evidence that can prove you are wrong in that belief, but it is simply another thing completely when overwhelming evidence is provided to you in order to see for yourself that the belief you have held is totally wrong - yet you're so blinded by your hatred that you simply can't accept that truth.
Trump didn't win the election, there is no Heaven (or Hell) to go to when we die, and Phil from Scunthorpe is not the new Jesus for those like Hip Priest who want to follow someone on their crusade about their factually wrong 'belief' of cronyism in the awarding of PPE contracts.
Furthermore, there are no 'victims' on here and I am not on a "disturbingly weird" mission to destroy this site.
I simply tell people the facts - and link them to the sources where they can see the proof for themselves.
571 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Mon Nov 28 2022, 09:46
boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
You live and learn. Sometimes.
572 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Tue Nov 29 2022, 12:51
Whitesince63
El Hadji Diouf
Crikey not another exit, I’ll be on my own soon because I’m going nowhere (sorry to disappoint you Nat 🥴). I genuinely hope HP doesn’t go though because agree with posts or not I respect others right to express them. Clearly pointing out the facts isn’t always popular and as Sluffy says, there is much false stuff around which gets plenty of noise. I personally believe nothing from any side until I’ve convinced myself it’s true. Not saying I’m always right even then but I’m always happy to consider alternatives to prove me wrong without having to resort to insults. This is a good site but all this banning and forcing out through personalities looks crazy to me. I personally didn’t have a major problem with the Sluffy/Lust show, I just ignored most of it so I’d be surprised if there really was a majority to ban Lusty as stated. I am sure it’s not there now though.
573 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Wed Mar 01 2023, 22:58
Sluffy
Admin
I'm surprised non of the hysterical Nuts lynch mob have picked up on the fact that Matt Hancock recently handed over a 100,000 WhatsApp messages of his during his time during Covid to his ghost writer who is writing his memoirs for him - who in turn handed them over to The Daily Telegraph to publish!!!
..." A newspaper investigation has revealed more than 100,000 WhatsApp messages which suggest that Matt Hancock ignored official advice at the height of the coronavirus lockdown.
The messages were passed to The Telegraph by journalist Isabel Oakeshott, who obtained them while ghostwriting the former health secretary’s memoir Pandemic Diaries.
Ms Oakeshott claimed that she chose to release the messages as it would take “many years” before the inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic concluded."...
I rather like this comment from Paul Waugh Chief Political Commentator at i-news about this happening...
..."The millions of words unlocked from the former Health Secretary’s phone are a treasure trove that lay bare not just key decisions but the ministerial mood and back-and-forth with officials.
From care homes to schools, the Daily Telegraph’s “Lockdown Files” are certainly a fascinating insight into some big judgement calls made in real time during a pandemic.
Of course, the only reason the public can see any of them is down to a curious mix of vanity, disloyalty and ruthless journalistic opportunism.
The vanity was Hancock’s in believing he could hand over the entire contents of his phone (an extraordinary 100,000 messages) to an openly anti-lockdown journalist, in order to polish his own account of the Covid years.
The disloyalty was that same journalist deciding to breach their agreement. Or, as Hancock ally and former health minister Lord Bethell put it on Wednesday, Isabel Oakeshott was “not a very good friend”.
If Hancock somehow views this whole episode as an invasion of his privacy, it’s clear he invaded it himself. Yet it’s clear that many of these “private” messages should indeed be subject to scrutiny by the public."...
If you read his views (link immediately below) he goes on to make a more wider and important point about future security and accountability of the use by officials using mobile apps for conducting government business.
https://inews.co.uk/news/revelations-matt-hancock-whatsapp-exchanges-2179961?ico=in-line_link
Although The Telegraph have published a few 'exclusives' (see link below) the surprising bit (or rather should I say the NON surprising bit to me at least) is that there is absolutely NO evidence found (at least up to now) of ANY corruption, sleaze, cronyism, or whatever people who wish to label it, in the awarding of any PPE contract.
Wow, after months and months and months of me continually arguing with several utter loons on here and repeatedly pointing out time and time again that civil servants award contracts, NOT politicians, that the VIP lane was NOT abused at all as many (led by Maugham and GLP) undoubtedly believed it had - many, many still do(!!!), and that ALL subsequent inquiries and judicial actions in to these Covid PPE awards have ALL found NO wrongdoing in the awarding of any contact.
In simple terms NO smoking guns have ever been found because there were never any there to begin with...
The Telegraph article (which is behind membership only paywall)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/28/lockdown-files-matt-hancock-whatsapp-whitty-care-homes-covid/
Alternatively,
A readable summary of the Telegraph's article by i-news
https://inews.co.uk/news/revelations-matt-hancock-whatsapp-exchanges-2179961?ico=in-line_link
..." A newspaper investigation has revealed more than 100,000 WhatsApp messages which suggest that Matt Hancock ignored official advice at the height of the coronavirus lockdown.
The messages were passed to The Telegraph by journalist Isabel Oakeshott, who obtained them while ghostwriting the former health secretary’s memoir Pandemic Diaries.
Ms Oakeshott claimed that she chose to release the messages as it would take “many years” before the inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic concluded."...
I rather like this comment from Paul Waugh Chief Political Commentator at i-news about this happening...
..."The millions of words unlocked from the former Health Secretary’s phone are a treasure trove that lay bare not just key decisions but the ministerial mood and back-and-forth with officials.
From care homes to schools, the Daily Telegraph’s “Lockdown Files” are certainly a fascinating insight into some big judgement calls made in real time during a pandemic.
Of course, the only reason the public can see any of them is down to a curious mix of vanity, disloyalty and ruthless journalistic opportunism.
The vanity was Hancock’s in believing he could hand over the entire contents of his phone (an extraordinary 100,000 messages) to an openly anti-lockdown journalist, in order to polish his own account of the Covid years.
The disloyalty was that same journalist deciding to breach their agreement. Or, as Hancock ally and former health minister Lord Bethell put it on Wednesday, Isabel Oakeshott was “not a very good friend”.
If Hancock somehow views this whole episode as an invasion of his privacy, it’s clear he invaded it himself. Yet it’s clear that many of these “private” messages should indeed be subject to scrutiny by the public."...
If you read his views (link immediately below) he goes on to make a more wider and important point about future security and accountability of the use by officials using mobile apps for conducting government business.
https://inews.co.uk/news/revelations-matt-hancock-whatsapp-exchanges-2179961?ico=in-line_link
Although The Telegraph have published a few 'exclusives' (see link below) the surprising bit (or rather should I say the NON surprising bit to me at least) is that there is absolutely NO evidence found (at least up to now) of ANY corruption, sleaze, cronyism, or whatever people who wish to label it, in the awarding of any PPE contract.
Wow, after months and months and months of me continually arguing with several utter loons on here and repeatedly pointing out time and time again that civil servants award contracts, NOT politicians, that the VIP lane was NOT abused at all as many (led by Maugham and GLP) undoubtedly believed it had - many, many still do(!!!), and that ALL subsequent inquiries and judicial actions in to these Covid PPE awards have ALL found NO wrongdoing in the awarding of any contact.
In simple terms NO smoking guns have ever been found because there were never any there to begin with...
The Telegraph article (which is behind membership only paywall)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/28/lockdown-files-matt-hancock-whatsapp-whitty-care-homes-covid/
Alternatively,
A readable summary of the Telegraph's article by i-news
https://inews.co.uk/news/revelations-matt-hancock-whatsapp-exchanges-2179961?ico=in-line_link
574 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Wed Mar 01 2023, 23:27
Sluffy
Admin
Oh, I might as well chuck in whilst I'm on, that the utterly ridiculous Judicial Review sought by Maugham/GLP in how the Met Police should do their job (in respect of Partygate) was thrown out!!!
"Mr Justice Swift refused to grant a full hearing of the case, saying the legal argument had "no prospect of success".
He added: "It is not for the court to second-guess the steps the police should take for the purposes of investigation."
The Good Law Project previously challenged the force over its decision not to investigate parties at Downing Street in January 2021.
I said at the time that Maugham was only attempting elicit crowdfunding from idiots who simply hated the Tory Party and that the case stood absolutely no chance of going ahead!
Seems I did know what I was saying after all - presumably GLP will now send those who donated their money back...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/anger-legal-challenge-over-partygate-29284315
"Mr Justice Swift refused to grant a full hearing of the case, saying the legal argument had "no prospect of success".
He added: "It is not for the court to second-guess the steps the police should take for the purposes of investigation."
The Good Law Project previously challenged the force over its decision not to investigate parties at Downing Street in January 2021.
I said at the time that Maugham was only attempting elicit crowdfunding from idiots who simply hated the Tory Party and that the case stood absolutely no chance of going ahead!
Seems I did know what I was saying after all - presumably GLP will now send those who donated their money back...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/anger-legal-challenge-over-partygate-29284315
575 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Thu Mar 02 2023, 14:56
Sluffy
Admin
Isabel Oakeshott reveals why she leaked Matt Hancock's WhatsApp messages
576 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Tue Mar 07 2023, 14:14
okocha
El Hadji Diouf
More cronyism? The BBC's review of the day's papers today reports that the Daily Mirror takes issue with the news that Boris Johnson has nominated his father, former MEP Stanley Johnson, for a knighthood as being beyond belief. "Sunak must stop this farce", it implores.
The Independent website quotes unnamed Conservatives who think the nomination is "outrageous" and "ridiculous nepotism, completely without merit". Its headline reads: "Arise, Sir Dad." Other papers remind us that Boris also nominated his brother for the same privilege.a few years ago.
Worth remembering too that Stanley was accused by Hampshire MP Caroline Nokes of smacking her bottom twice and exclaiming in public that she has a lovely seat.
The Independent website quotes unnamed Conservatives who think the nomination is "outrageous" and "ridiculous nepotism, completely without merit". Its headline reads: "Arise, Sir Dad." Other papers remind us that Boris also nominated his brother for the same privilege.a few years ago.
Worth remembering too that Stanley was accused by Hampshire MP Caroline Nokes of smacking her bottom twice and exclaiming in public that she has a lovely seat.
577 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Tue Aug 15 2023, 00:44
Hip Priest
Andy Walker
As I've said before I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.
It's great that we have the likes of Lead By Donkeys, The Good Law Project, The Guardian etc to uncover this sort of stuff for us so that these white collar criminals are exposed to the public at large for what they really are but you just know nothing is going to be done about it.
There should be an urgent full Public Enquiry with a view to recovering as much as possible from these offshore bank accounts or by selling that fucking yacht.
578 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Tue Aug 15 2023, 03:51
Sluffy
Admin
Mate, you are simply bonkers.
I've repeatedly told folk over the years on this thread, and told you, and told you once again, what the government process is and how it works.
You clearly don't believe me - but it doesn't mean that I am wrong.
In fact I'm not.
As much as I like the man with the cat and the hat (Professor Tim Wilson) he is talking utter bollocks this time.
I've no idea why the left wing nut jobs of Good Law Project, (Lions) Led by Donkeys and the Guardian are apparently(?) kicking off about this yet again now, as nothing will happen (in law it can't) until due process occurs.
The Parliamentary Public Accounts committee undertook their INQUIRY (it is NOT an ENQUIRY ffs!!!) into PPE Medpro case and published its limited findings on the 18th July, 2023 which you can read in full here -
PPE Medpro: awarding of contracts during the pandemic - Committee of Public Accounts (parliament.uk)
Had you read it before you posted your rant...
...of course you hadn't, you didn't even know about it before you got on your soapbox, did you?
Why you may ask has the committee only published its 'limited' findings, well that is because other due processes are also on going.
Medpro were awarded TWO contracts, the second of which is the £122m one which Prof Tim seems to be all he knows about (clearly he hasn't bothered with the facts either!).
This contract is subject to a civil case (heading towards the courts in other words) for breach of contract by Medpro for not delivering goods according to the contract specification.
A second due process taking place is that Standards investigation in to the conduct of Baroness Mone.
The third and most pertinent of the due processes is the National Crime Agency investigation in to PPE Medpro.
If there is something to be found - and I suspect it will be around if Mone did have an interest in Medpro and did not declare it - only then can the law can act.
If Medpro can prove they delivered their end of the contract in accordance with the specification, then the fault will lie with the government.
If Mone can prove she had no involvement with Medpro then she's off the hook.
If the courts rule that Medpro would have been awarded the contract even if it had not been referred via the VIP lane (and there is already a Judicial Review precedent from another case on this) - then they have not gained any unfair advantage in winning the contract.
Just because you hate the Tory government and want it to be shown to be corrupt doesn't mean it is!
We deal in FACTS not people's prejudices and hatred.
Have you learned nothing over the last three years on here - or are you still believing that random nutjob from Scunthorpe knows what he's talking about???
I told you THREE YEARS AGO that there was no corruption going on in the awarding of the PPE contracts - and THREE YEARS LATER despite your mates at the Good Law Project and all the investigative journalists in the world NO EVIDANCE as yet been found of any.
The Mone case IS somewhat different because it DOES look she had an interest in Medpro and DID NOT declare it.
If that is the case she will get her knuckles rapped.
Will it go further than that, I doubt it, as it all depends on whether Medpro gained an unfair advantage in being awarded the contract - and as I've said a previous Judicial Review has set something of a precedent that being if a company can meet certain urgent criteria's at the time they would have been awarded the contract irrespective of how their offer was received for consideration (ie in the VIP lane or not).
Anyway, maybe I'm wrong and something further emerges - and that is why we have to wait for due process to take place and not go around hanging people we don't like by forming lynch mobs like you seem to want to do all the time.
No doubt you will tell me to get stuffed and storm off for another six months or so. like you did the last time I pointed out how uninformed and hatred filled you are in matters like these.
If so it won't change anything that I've said above.
You should look further than the social media sites that you clearly believe and who just tell you the one side of the story that you want to hear.
Even Prof Tim should know better than to sound off on issues of contract law that have yet to be determined...
He certainly should know that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty - and not the other way around like you might want it to be.
I've repeatedly told folk over the years on this thread, and told you, and told you once again, what the government process is and how it works.
You clearly don't believe me - but it doesn't mean that I am wrong.
In fact I'm not.
As much as I like the man with the cat and the hat (Professor Tim Wilson) he is talking utter bollocks this time.
I've no idea why the left wing nut jobs of Good Law Project, (Lions) Led by Donkeys and the Guardian are apparently(?) kicking off about this yet again now, as nothing will happen (in law it can't) until due process occurs.
The Parliamentary Public Accounts committee undertook their INQUIRY (it is NOT an ENQUIRY ffs!!!) into PPE Medpro case and published its limited findings on the 18th July, 2023 which you can read in full here -
PPE Medpro: awarding of contracts during the pandemic - Committee of Public Accounts (parliament.uk)
Had you read it before you posted your rant...
...of course you hadn't, you didn't even know about it before you got on your soapbox, did you?
Why you may ask has the committee only published its 'limited' findings, well that is because other due processes are also on going.
Medpro were awarded TWO contracts, the second of which is the £122m one which Prof Tim seems to be all he knows about (clearly he hasn't bothered with the facts either!).
This contract is subject to a civil case (heading towards the courts in other words) for breach of contract by Medpro for not delivering goods according to the contract specification.
A second due process taking place is that Standards investigation in to the conduct of Baroness Mone.
The third and most pertinent of the due processes is the National Crime Agency investigation in to PPE Medpro.
If there is something to be found - and I suspect it will be around if Mone did have an interest in Medpro and did not declare it - only then can the law can act.
If Medpro can prove they delivered their end of the contract in accordance with the specification, then the fault will lie with the government.
If Mone can prove she had no involvement with Medpro then she's off the hook.
If the courts rule that Medpro would have been awarded the contract even if it had not been referred via the VIP lane (and there is already a Judicial Review precedent from another case on this) - then they have not gained any unfair advantage in winning the contract.
Just because you hate the Tory government and want it to be shown to be corrupt doesn't mean it is!
We deal in FACTS not people's prejudices and hatred.
Have you learned nothing over the last three years on here - or are you still believing that random nutjob from Scunthorpe knows what he's talking about???
I told you THREE YEARS AGO that there was no corruption going on in the awarding of the PPE contracts - and THREE YEARS LATER despite your mates at the Good Law Project and all the investigative journalists in the world NO EVIDANCE as yet been found of any.
The Mone case IS somewhat different because it DOES look she had an interest in Medpro and DID NOT declare it.
If that is the case she will get her knuckles rapped.
Will it go further than that, I doubt it, as it all depends on whether Medpro gained an unfair advantage in being awarded the contract - and as I've said a previous Judicial Review has set something of a precedent that being if a company can meet certain urgent criteria's at the time they would have been awarded the contract irrespective of how their offer was received for consideration (ie in the VIP lane or not).
Anyway, maybe I'm wrong and something further emerges - and that is why we have to wait for due process to take place and not go around hanging people we don't like by forming lynch mobs like you seem to want to do all the time.
No doubt you will tell me to get stuffed and storm off for another six months or so. like you did the last time I pointed out how uninformed and hatred filled you are in matters like these.
If so it won't change anything that I've said above.
You should look further than the social media sites that you clearly believe and who just tell you the one side of the story that you want to hear.
Even Prof Tim should know better than to sound off on issues of contract law that have yet to be determined...
He certainly should know that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty - and not the other way around like you might want it to be.
579 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Wed Aug 16 2023, 01:44
Hip Priest
Andy Walker
Like everyone else, I can't be bothered reading your usual "sermon on the mount" drivel and even if I did it wouldn't change my thinking about this one bit. We've got completely different opinions about this as we discovered before.
I did notice that you've only called me crazy for holding my opinion this time. Not quite as bad as last time.
You just don't fucking learn do you. Believe it or not Sluffy, different people hold different opinions and sometimes you may just be wrong about things. As you have stated many times you clearly believe your beloved "Guardians of the Universe" civil service chappies can't be outsmarted by Tory ministers out to make a quick buck for themselves and their buddies. You probably still believe in the Tooth Fairy too.
I'll make a deal with you now.
If this is ever investigated properly and everything about this is found to be completely above board I will come on here and humbly apologise to you and admit I made a right tit of myself by suggesting such underhanded things could possibly happen under a Tory Government where such rigorous civil service controls would preclude this from happening.
Can you give me the same promise if my ridiculous suspicions about this matter turn out to be well founded.
Can you cope with admitting you were wrong Sluffy?
I did notice that you've only called me crazy for holding my opinion this time. Not quite as bad as last time.
You just don't fucking learn do you. Believe it or not Sluffy, different people hold different opinions and sometimes you may just be wrong about things. As you have stated many times you clearly believe your beloved "Guardians of the Universe" civil service chappies can't be outsmarted by Tory ministers out to make a quick buck for themselves and their buddies. You probably still believe in the Tooth Fairy too.
I'll make a deal with you now.
If this is ever investigated properly and everything about this is found to be completely above board I will come on here and humbly apologise to you and admit I made a right tit of myself by suggesting such underhanded things could possibly happen under a Tory Government where such rigorous civil service controls would preclude this from happening.
Can you give me the same promise if my ridiculous suspicions about this matter turn out to be well founded.
Can you cope with admitting you were wrong Sluffy?
580 Re: Nepotism/Cronyism Watch Wed Aug 16 2023, 02:55
Sluffy
Admin
Hip Priest wrote:Like everyone else, I can't be bothered reading your usual "sermon on the mount" drivel and even if I did it wouldn't change my thinking about this one bit. We've got completely different opinions about this as we discovered before.
I did notice that you've only called me crazy for holding my opinion this time. Not quite as bad as last time.
You just don't fucking learn do you. Believe it or not Sluffy, different people hold different opinions and sometimes you may just be wrong about things. As you have stated many times you clearly believe your beloved "Guardians of the Universe" civil service chappies can't be outsmarted by Tory ministers out to make a quick buck for themselves and their buddies. You probably still believe in the Tooth Fairy too.
I'll make a deal with you now.
If this is ever investigated properly and everything about this is found to be completely above board I will come on here and humbly apologise to you and admit I made a right tit of myself by suggesting such underhanded things could possibly happen under a Tory Government where such rigorous civil service controls would preclude this from happening.
Can you give me the same promise if my ridiculous suspicions about this matter turn out to be well founded.
Can you cope with admitting you were wrong about something?
I don't need an apology from you and what I say IS NOT AN OPINION it is the findings of the Appeal Court Judge Lord Justice Coulson in his refusal of Appeal to the Good Law Project in respect of the awarding of PPE contracts (Pestfix PPE).
The Good Law Project had appeal the case because although they won the case on a technicality, the Judge of the case REFUSED to award them a 'remedy' on the basis that even though technically the verdict made the VIP Lane 'illegal' the award of the contract would still have been made irrespective as to how Pestfix's tender to do works was received because it met all the priority criteria of the government at the time in terms of getting a ginormous amount of urgently required PPE from China (who manufactured nearly all of the worlds PPE goods), with immediate supply.
The REFUSAL to award GLP a remedy meant in simple terms they were not awarded costs, which almost sunk them financially and effectively put an end to their abuse of the Judicial Review process to challenge any and every government decision they may not like (termed as governing by other means).
In simple terms the Executive (the elected government) governs, Parliament votes on passing policies put before them in to Law, and the Judiciary administers the Law.
GLP's attempted by their actions to force the Judiciary into conflict with the Executive's right to formulate policy by ruling on the legality of these policies - and that is NOT the Judiciary's role.
https://www.monckton.com/court-of-appeal-refuses-the-good-law-project-permission-to-appeal-in-pestfix-ppe-procurement-challenges/
For your information The Court of Appeal is the highest court there is within the traditional court system and only the Supreme Court is higher than it...
The Court of Appeal (formally "His Majesty's Court of Appeal in England",[2] commonly cited as "CA", "EWCA" or "CoA") is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second in the legal system of England and Wales only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.[3] The Court of Appeal was created in 1875,[4] and today comprises 39 Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal.[4]
The court has two divisions, Criminal and Civil, led by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls respectively. Criminal appeals are heard in the Criminal Division, and civil appeals in the Civil Division. The Criminal Division hears appeals from the Crown Court, while the Civil Division hears appeals from the County Court, High Court of Justice and Family Court. Permission to appeal is normally required from either the lower court or the Court of Appeal itself; and with permission, further appeal may lie to the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeal deals only with appeals from other courts or tribunals. The Court of Appeal consists of two divisions: the Civil Division hears appeals from the High Court and the County Court and certain superior tribunals, while the Criminal Division may only hear appeals from the Crown Court connected with a trial on indictment (i.e., for a serious offence). Its decisions are binding on all courts, including itself, apart from the Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Appeal_(England_and_Wales)
This case is important because the judges examined how PPE contracts were awarded from the time the tender offers were received to the the signing off of awarded contracts - in other words the complete process involved.
Maybe if you troubled yourself to read what I've wrote (and even simplified for ignorant morons like yourself who can't even be bothered to try to understand the facts of the matter when served to you on a plate!), then you wouldn't have to have paddy tantrums and apologise that you've made a tit of yourself.
You make a tit of yourself every time you can't be arsed to read the facts presented to you, you make a tit of yourself when you can't be arsed to check these facts out for yourself, and you make a tit of yourself that even when everything is given to you to see, read and understand, that you still prefer to believe your biased and hate filled 'opinions' rather than the facts and the truth.
I'll stick with the facts as determined by the Law Lords of this country, and you stick to the bollocks spouted from that nutjob in Scunthorpe and ranting Professor Tim.
One of us will be right.
And I'm pretty certain it won't be you.
Message [Page 29 of 32]
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum