Norpig wrote:Not sure the PPE argument stands up now Sluffy after what's come out in the last day or two.
Sorry but you (and millions of others) don't understand the nuances of PPE and the Mone case.
To put it simply the hoo-ha created over PPE by the right wing nutters such as Maugham/Good Law Project focused on two things - the alleged corruption and cronyism in awarding the contracts and the illegality of the VIP lane.
It has now been proved many times over to various inquiry's and audits that the awarding of the contracts was done honestly by civil servants with no influence or input into the decisions by Ministers, MP's or anyone else.
Maugham/Good Law Project won on a very minor technicality that the VIP lane did not comply fully with EU advertising to tender time limits (the government reasonably argued that the time limits should have been suspended in the face of the global epidemic that was killing people) but the judge could only apply the law as it stood and thus ruled the VIP lane illegal in law on that sole basis.
The judge however blew the whole case out of the water and making the win an entirely pyrrhic victory by stating that the PPE contract would have been awarded to the company in question in any event whether it was received by the VIP lane or not (the bottom line being was it a company who could provide massive stocks of PPE from China immediately - which it could and nearly everyone else couldn't) and thus refused to award a 'remedy' (a remedy in legal terms is to put things right - but if the same result would have occurred whether by the illegal means (the VIP lane) or by the other routes (the non VIP lanes) then the end result is exactly the same and no 'harm' has taken place).
The effect of not awarding a remedy meant that Maugham/GLP could not claim their costs.
Maugham/GLP decided to appeal the decision and the Appeal Court Judge upheld the non award of a remedy and strongly implied that Maugham/GLP were attempting to manipulate the political system through use of the Judicial Review System and that such cases would be rejected in future - which basically killed off Maugham and GLP from that day onwards.
I've not visited their sites for ages but did take a peep the other day as to what propaganda they were trying to make out of Mone's 'denial' and had to laugh out loud when I fond that they were reduced to promoting (the utterly bonkers) Carol Vorderman video on the matter!
Mone's case has a third element to it in terms of Declaring an Interest (the following is from Parliament's own guide book which would directly apply to Baroness Mone).
Declaring interestsDeclaration means drawing attention to registered or unregistered interests on almost any occasion when someone else might consider them to influence what you say or do.You are required to declare your interests, if relevant, from the time of your election, even before you’ve submitted an entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. You are expected to declare a wide range of interests. They include not just registered interests but
the interests of partners and family members
past interests up to one year old
expected future interestsYou must declare interests not just when speaking but, for example, when submitting questions and early day motions, when requesting adjournment debates or emergency debates, when joining a select committee and when adding names to early day motions and other motions. In these circumstances an [R] will be included against your name when it appears on the Order Paper. But you’re not expected to declare an interest when asking an oral question or a supplementary question in the Chamber, or when it would unduly delay the business of the House.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]The Declaration is prior to the other two stages above, so the only question is would her not making such a declaration effect the outcome of the award?
On the basis of the Appeal Court Ruling and the inquiries into the awarding of all the other PPE contracts, I can't see how it could?
It would seem to me on the face of it that she has told some lies (she admits that herself) and must therefore face the appropriate sanctions in respect of those (maybe she will be 'defrocked' as a Baroness if they do that sort of thing?)
I'm out of my depth to know if her husband will face any sanctions for concealing he was the end beneficiary of the company that won the PPE contracts but I can't see how the contract could be effected as such.
The irony (as I pointed out at the time) was that if Mone had simply told the truth at the time there would be no story in all of this.
Mone and her husband may face some kind of knuckle rap and the company may be found to have broken its contract in terms of the quality of the goods it sold to the government but I can't see how legally Mone and her husband can be proved to have illegally been awarded the contract to benefit from - or in other words the awarding of the contract was done legally and without favour by the Civil Servants - the issue over legality precedes and may have ramifications beyond it if recovery action is taken.
So yes there is a lot of shit around this case BUT it doesn't actually pertain to the fact that the awarding of the contract was done honestly and fairly by the ones doing so AND there was NO government interference of them whilst doing so.
Unfortunately people only read the headlines and believe whatever shit they are fed.
And fwiw I hope Mone and her husband face the most severest sanctions available to them if as looks likely they tried to illegally play the system.
I don't like liars and thieves who ever they are.