What you wrote WAS childish.
If I cared to be pedantic I could point out that the definition of sarcasm is 'the use of irony to mock' and the definition of irony being 'the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite'.
So on one hand you claim 'sarcastically' that I'm a 'know it all' yet you openly admit I DO know what I'm talking about...
Hip Priest wrote:I understand also that you completely know your onions as far as the legal procedures here are concerned. I am out of my depth compared to you here.
It seems you clearly don't understand how sarcasm and irony actually works.
That may be explained by Oscar Wilde's definition of sarcasm...
“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence.”
Anyway let us move on.
You clearly seem to believe that I am of the learned opinion that she has apparently done nothing wrong...?
Hip Priest wrote:So there it is, I think she's toast, you think she has no case to answer.
...the problem here is that I've never claimed that to be the case.
If you had bothered to read my replies to you...
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.
You would have clearly seen that I believe she has several cases to answer!
Sluffy wrote: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.
Your problem mate is that you are reading and believing what you want to hear - from the likes of right wing activist groups (Good Law Project, Led by Donkeys) and completely unwilling to listen to an alternative (and non politically biased) explanation of what has gone on by someone who you state yourself, to know what I'm talking about!!!
Hip Priest wrote:I understand also that you completely know your onions as far as the legal procedures here are concerned.
Maybe you should reflect on how closed your mind really is on these issues, how easily you are swayed manipulated and led by political activists that you follow and how you rubbish (can't even be bothered to read...!) what the situation is really about when you strip away the political spin which you so much want to be true, when I attempt to explain what is actually happening.
Maybe now you can see why I laugh at your behaviour?
There are a number of issues to be addressed on this matter, which are these.
1 - Mone's behaviour in pushing the Medpro bid - on the face of it, it seems to have been unacceptable and is being investigated by the House of Lords.
2 - Mone's denial that she had an interest in Medpro - on the face of it, it looks as though she had - but that needs to be proved - I imagine that the House of Lords and possibly the police are both looking into this separately. This would be 'civil' offences if proved to be so - most probably some sort of censure from the House of Lords if so.
3 - The awarding of the Medpro contract - as I've stated previously there has been a Judicial Review (which was referred to the Appeal Court - and REFUSED) about basically the same thing (Pestfix PPE) which set a precedent, which I think will be applied to the Medpro case as well. If so I don't believe there will be an issue here. To be honest I'm not sure if anyone is now looking at this case since the REFUSAL by the Appeal Court - I assume the Good Law Project has taken their ball home on these case now (and the improper use of Judicial Reviews that they had been doing until this REFUSAL), so I don't think this is even an issue anymore?
4 - Did Mone gain any illegal financial benefit from Medpro - this I would suggest is what the police are looking into? On the face of it she did benefit financially from Medpro but was that benefit illegal?
Did she 'push' the Medpro bid - yes she did. Did she have any interest in the company at the time (she denies this), Did her pushing it help Medpro win the contract - NO it didn't - see Pestfix judgement and the REFUSAL to award a 'remedy' (that's why Good Law Project took it to the Appeal Court and was REFUSED).
My logic is that even if she did have an interest in Medpro at that time - and that she 'pushed' their offer, that ultimately she had no bearing on the awarding of the contracts to Medpro - as I keep repeatedly saying Civil Servants award contracts not MP's and Baronesses!
I'm not sure therefore if she's actually broken any law although on the face of it that is pretty much what she was attempting to do - unknowingly that Medpro would have been awarded the contract anyway and she could have been honest about everything, declared an interest and not face any of the shit she is doing now.
5 - Medpro contract - goods not up to specification - this will be a civil case, settled in the courts between HM Gov and Medpro Ltd.
So there you have it, I've always held that Mone's behaviour seems to have been dodgy but that all it seems to amount to is that she didn't declare an interest in Medpro.
I can't see how she benefitted illegally from Medpro as Medpro would (under the ruling in Pestfix PPE) have been awarded the contract without Mone 'championing it?
I am not a barrister however and there may be a case where Mone is prosecuted but I can't see it being in respect of the awarding of the PPE contracts by the Department of Health Civil Servants (as per the JR decision on Pestfix).
However, from the evidence in the materials made available to us we cannot comprehensively conclude whether emails from Baroness Mone and the route through the High Priority Lane led to the PPE Medpro offer being treated differently by government than other offers made in the same way during those abnormal times.Public Accounts Committee 18th July, 2023.
As for bullying anyone...
You make me laugh!
Pointing out ones lack of knowledge and understanding on something you believe implicitly, who won't listen to anyone who isn't chanting the same left wing political mantra as yourself and refusing even to read an explanation from someone you even acknowledge does know what he's talking about as to what is really going on is NOT bullying when I simply laugh at your behaviour.
As they say, sticks and stones may break my bones but
words will never hurt me...