Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Things i really dislike or downright hate.

Things i really dislike or downright hate.

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Go down  Message [Page 8 of 9]

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Sluffy.
You just prove my view that you have not understood a point explained to you multiples times, I don’t know why you insist on doing it over and over again. 

The debate is not who made the final decision and awarded the contract, it was if MPs had had an influence over the process of finding and prioritising suppliers.

The VIP lane, in my view, shows they did. Unless you think a civil servant would have found Matt Hancock’s pub landlord to supply PPE without the health Secretary recommending him?

Nobody wants to read this debate again, so accept a different view and drop it or PM me if you really want to drag it out. I’m not getting sucked into your games on here.



Last edited by T.R.O.Y. on Thu Mar 11 2021, 07:07; edited 2 times in total

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@Sluffy wrote:

Car crash of an interview!

As for Harry's assertion, do you real believe The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The FT, The Observer or even the Bolton News for example to be racist and bigoted because I certainly don't?



I wouldn't describe any of them as racist, Sluffy, but I would describe virtually all of them as having journalists with personal prejudices and agendas.

Most journos think of themselves as being smart, quick-witted, broad-shouldered and incisive. Few more so than Piers Morgan but when he first met La Markle he fell for her well-practised charm hook, line and sinker.

It was only when she later snubbed him that the penny dropped and he realised how manipulative she was and what a twerp he'd been. He didn't exactly need a twerp like Alex Beresford to remind him.

Isn't that why he blew a fuse, not to mention having a Guardianista for a boss, of course?

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Sluffy, you've only been back posting for a short while after your sabbatical, and in that time you've managed to upset Bonce, Norpig, (Lusty??), TROY, xm, Nat, me and common decency.....sometimes deliberately. 

Interesting debates had been peaceful and harmonious during your voluntary withdrawal from contributing, but now it seems that you want to continue to prove black's blue and to have digs at people, resurrecting issues that had, we thought, long been buried and agreed upon.

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
From today's BBC website:

EDIT

Copy and paste article removed due yet again to no link being provided.

Sluffy

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Silly me, I missed out the pregnant mother card. If I'd been dumb enough to watch the entire performance, I've little doubt there was a whole pack of cards in it. Yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk.

What a shame the Snivelling Sussex's weren't interviewed by Judge Judy with Ms Winfrey as their character witness. That I would watch. Ten minutes would be plenty.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@okocha wrote:Sluffy, you've only been back posting for a short while after your sabbatical, and in that time you've managed to upset Bonce, Norpig, (Lusty??), TROY, xm, Nat, me and common decency.....sometimes deliberately. 

Interesting debates had been peaceful and harmonious during your voluntary withdrawal from contributing, but now it seems that you want to continue to prove black's blue and to have digs at people, resurrecting issues that had, we thought, long been buried and agreed upon.

I am not here to be trolled and I have no doubt that is what you have been attempting to do for a very considerable time now.

I've posted nothing to cause any offence to anyone and given perfectly valid reasons and explanations to what I have said.

If you or anyone else do not like what I post then don't bother reading it.

It's as simple as that.



Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy.
You just prove my view that you have not understood a point explained to you multiples times, I don’t know why you insist on doing it over and over again. 

The debate is not who made the final decision and awarded the contract, it was if MPs had had an influence over the process of finding and prioritising suppliers.

The VIP lane, in my view, shows they did. Unless you think a civil servant would have found Matt Hancock’s pub landlord to supply PPE without the health Secretary recommending him?

Nobody wants to read this debate again, so accept a different view and drop it or PM me if you really want to drag it out. I’m not getting sucked into your games on here.

And yet again I point out that they had not.

A system was set up as per the explanation I posted back in November and which I link to below.

In short this system was the third string of an emergency procurement stategy to source PPE with one entry point to it and open to any company who were NOT already dealing directly to the NHS.

ANYONE could apply to what is now known as the 'fast track' system, it wasn't just mutually exclusive for 'friends' of the Tory party (see point 25 on the link below)

So in short Hancock's pub landlord might have said 'Matt, can I have one of these juicy fat contracts you are handing out', to which he would have had to reply 'I don't give them out, you have to go through the system and meet the approriate criteria like everyone else.  All I can do is provide you with that office details and you have to go there as everyone else has to do!'.

WHICH HE DID!!!

Bourne said his initial hope was that his packaging firm might be able to retool to provide personal protective equipment (PPE). Hancock messaged back, according to Bourne, directing him to a Department of Health and Social Care website, where he formally submitted details of the work his firm could do. Bourne’s lawyers said there was no further follow-up with Hancock.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/matt-hancock-former-neighbour-won-covid-test-kit-contract-after-whatsapp-message

That is the extent of the 'influence' any MP had over anyone getting a contract.

https://boltonnuts.forumotion.co.uk/t21726p120-nepotism-cronyism-watch

Once received into the system the civil servants may have considered prioritising referals from 'known' government sources - such as MP's, to be evaluated sooner on the basis that they (the MP's) must have had a genuine reason for forwarding them on for assessment - ie had some reason to believe the company could provide the urgently required PPE that was needed.

Even then at that point, the award of a contract would still not have been made if the company failed to meet the criteria, no matter if God himself had put the firm in touch with the process, let alone Matt Hancock et al.

The priority if you like was to get the equpment first and save lives and worry about everything else after.  

Fwiw it does genuinely look as though 'they' (the government/the civil servants/the system, or whoever you believe 'they' are) did actually achieve exactly that.

This wasn't about Conservative cronyism but thanks to Maugham and dislike even hatred of the Tory party by some/many, that is what it has turned into now and hence the witch hunt we now seem to be having. You indeed BELIEVE Hancock got his pub landlord a contract when the facts are there to show he didn't - that's how bad it is, when the truth seems to be the pub landlord never actually got a government contract at all but was a subcontractor to a company that did!

And it is worth repeating yet again that up to now NO evidence of cronyism as been uncovered, nothing, zero, zilch.



Last edited by Sluffy on Thu Mar 11 2021, 15:59; edited 1 time in total

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@Sluffy wrote:

Car crash of an interview!

As for Harry's assertion, do you real believe The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The FT, The Observer or even the Bolton News for example to be racist and bigoted because I certainly don't?


BTW Sluffy, do you really think that The Guardian, The Observer and the Bolton News aren't prejudiced, biased, partial, one-sided or in a word 'bigoted'. Isn't that exactly what they are, along with the small legion of zealots on Nuts? 

They and Ms Markle must be gleeful that their zealotry seems to have cost someone else his job.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:BTW Sluffy, do you really think that The Guardian, The Observer and the Bolton News aren't prejudiced, biased, partial, one-sided or in a word 'bigoted'. Isn't that exactly what they are, along with the small legion of zealots on Nuts? 

They and Ms Markle must be gleeful that their zealotry seems to have cost someone else his job.

The point I was really trying to make was that you can't judge everybody as being the same.

The Okocha account seems to be suggesting that the newspapers are all bad and need to be regulated - a very dangerous step to take if people want to see control over press freedom.

Of course not all newspapers are the same and hence my pointing out the absurdity of that accounts statement.

Of course newspapers/media companies, etc depend on 'selling' their content and thus 'target' their consumers accordingly and tailor their content to be attractive for them to buy - they 'preach' if you will to those that have already been converted - and that's how they build up their brand loyalty.

It's simply a business when all is said and done.

As for Harry and Megan you've got to ask what are there reasons for doing the Oprah interview, I mean they publically stated they removed themselves from the royal family and to live in another country to take themselves out of the UK public spotlight and have since gone on to put themselves very quickly into the world's public spotlight instead!!!

They have signed an mega-million dollar contract with Netflix and a further one with Spotify, and apparently did the Oprah interview for free - hardly the actions of someone wanting to live out the rest of their lives away from public intrusion is it?

Clearly the Oprah interview was intended for self publicity for themselves and thus they simply didn't just turn up on the day and 'pour their hearts out' to Ms Winfrey, they would have known and have been well advised and drilled as to how to present themselves and what message to send to best meet their objectives.

There was clear 'play' to their intended audience - and no doubt everyone involved in the program - Team Sussex and Team Oprah, would have been extremely pleased with the results - widespread sympathy and 'understanding' for the Sussex's and cementing their place in the 'Hollywood' royalty now - and another worldwide scoop and no doubt critical acclaim again to Oprah and verification that she is still the queen of talk shows.

However was all that was said by Megan and Harry the truth though???

Certainly easy to make such claims (which lets be realistic, most people are happy to accept these days as gospel without doing any fact checks nor listening to the other side of the story.  That's just a fact of how society is these days - and anyone dissenting to what the popular line is, are considered to be wrong and possibly even ostracised for being so) but almost impossible to disprove.

Fwiw the Royal family has said that "recollections may vary" which in otherwords is that 'it is lies' and other issues that were mentioned such as Harry's 'cut off financially' and Megan's they wouldn't make Archie a prince in order to 'protect' him seem somewhat contrary to known facts already in the public domain -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51047186
https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/annual-review/2019-2020/income-expenditure-and-staff
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56325934

As for Morgan and the Editor bloke, Morgan is big enough to speak for himself and the Editor threw himself under the bus with his dreadful public interview.

Seems also that Megan complained to ITV about Morgan BEFORE he quit.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/meghan-markle-complained-itv-piers-morgan-good-morning-britain-b923270.html

Morgan shared a quote by Winston Churchill, which read: “Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”

Hard to disagre with that these days is it?

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Not just an outrage Sluffy, but you must pay for any protest with your head.

Victoria Derbyshire is a capable journalist and was giving Ian Murray a grilling but did he have to lose his job because she got the better of him on that occasion? 

Sadly this is the atmosphere that has been built up today by zealots who seem to have taken over much if not most of the broadcast media. The same zealotry is much in evidence on Nuts too.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Not just an outrage Sluffy, but you must pay for any protest with your head.

Victoria Derbyshire is a capable journalist and was giving Ian Murray a grilling but did he have to lose his job because she got the better of him on that occasion? 

Sadly this is the atmosphere that has been built up today by zealots who seem to have taken much if not most of the broadcast media. The same zealotry is much in evidence on Nuts too.

It is how it is Bob unfortunately, people believe what is put in front of them, these days, seemingly without question.

Anybody who seems to question that narative seems instanly to be seen to be wrong - even when facts are provided to show the original narrative to be somewhat 'questionable' to begin with.

If Nuts is a microcom of society, which it seems to be, then could we expect it to be any other than the same as the world at large is?

I can laugh about it on here but I can't change the world.

Christ people who believed Trump was fighting a child molesting, devil worshiping elitist cabal, stormed the US Capitol when it was in session, what chance then have I got in changing any of the closed minds we have on here!

Fwiw I think Murray put himself in an untenable position with his interview, his job was to be statesman like and represent his members and he failed woefully, and consequently he needed to fall on his sword for the good his organisation thereafter.

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
I didn't see it that way. Some researchers had been given the task, presumably by the producer, of dredging up a collection of cack-handed headlines in some rags and Murray had them rained down on him as proof that most of his members were raging racists and given less than two minutes to refute it all. 

If he'd been really composed and on top of his game, maybe he could have handled it better but it wasn't what you'd call a fair fight, was it?

Not what I'd call a fair fight anyway.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:I didn't see it that way. Some researchers had been given the task, presumably by the producer, of dredging up a collection of cack-handed headlines in some rags and Murray had them rained down on him as proof that most of his members were raging racists and given less than two minutes to refute it all. 

If he'd been really composed and on top of his game, maybe he could have handled it better but it wasn't what you'd call a fair fight, was it?

Not what I'd call a fair fight anyway.

I'm assuming Murray is/was an editor of a paper/s at some point in his career, so I assume he knows how the 'game' works.

I would have thought he would not only expected something like dredged up headlines from past papers but would also have devised a strategy of how to deal with it.

The saying 'failing to prepare is preparing to fail' came to my mind when I saw the interview.

I doubt the man is a fool and he must know that all papers show some sort of bias or other, even when it comes to racism, so I would have thought he'd have some reply back even if it was along the lines of 'we abhor any form of rascim and the newspaper industry has taken great strides in recent years to have put our house in order and the headlines you quote are from a number of years ago' - or some such thing.

He clearly went for the 'talking over' anything the questioner was trying to say approach, which was completely the wrong way to deal with the issue.

It was a fair fight to me, just that he decided to stand toe to toe instead of floating like a butterfly away from the obvious punches that were going to be thrown at him.

He got it completely wrong and lost on everyones scorecards after the final bell had gone.

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:

And yet again I point out that they had not.

A system was set up as per the explanation I posted back in November and which I link to below.

In short this system was the third string of an emergency procurement stategy to source PPE with one entry point to it and open to any company who were NOT already dealing directly to the NHS.

ANYONE could apply to what is now known as the 'fast track' system, it wasn't just mutually exclusive for 'friends' of the Tory party (see point 25 on the link below)

So in short Hancock's pub landlord might have said 'Matt, can I have one of these juicy fat contracts you are handing out', to which he would have had to reply 'I don't give them out, you have to go through the system and meet the approriate criteria like everyone else.  All I can do is provide you with that office details and you have to go there as everyone else has to do!'.

WHICH HE DID!!!

Bourne said his initial hope was that his packaging firm might be able to retool to provide personal protective equipment (PPE). Hancock messaged back, according to Bourne, directing him to a Department of Health and Social Care website, where he formally submitted details of the work his firm could do. Bourne’s lawyers said there was no further follow-up with Hancock.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/matt-hancock-former-neighbour-won-covid-test-kit-contract-after-whatsapp-message

That is the extent of the 'influence' any MP had over anyone getting a contract.

https://boltonnuts.forumotion.co.uk/t21726p120-nepotism-cronyism-watch

Once received into the system the civil servants may have considered prioritising referals from 'known' government sources - such as MP's, to be evaluated sooner on the basis that they (the MP's) must have had a genuine reason for forwarding them on for assessment - ie had some reason to believe the company could provide the urgently required PPE that was needed.

Even then at that point, the award of a contract would still not have been made if the company failed to meet the criteria, no matter if God himself had put the firm in touch with the process, let alone Matt Hancock et al.

The priority if you like was to get the equpment first and save lives and worry about everything else after.  

Fwiw it does genuinely look as though 'they' (the government/the civil servants/the system, or whoever you believe 'they' are) did actually achieve exactly that.

This wasn't about Conservative cronyism but thanks to Maugham and dislike even hatred of the Tory party by some/many, that is what it has turned into now and hence the witch hunt we now seem to be having.  You indeed BELIEVE Hancock got his pub landlord a contract when the facts are there to show he didn't - that's how bad it is, when the truth seems to be the pub landlord never actually got a government contract at all but was a subcontractor to a company that did!  

And it is worth repeating yet again that up to now NO evidence of cronyism as been uncovered, nothing, zero, zilch.

Wow months later you dredge this back up just so you can admit to me that MPs did have influence over the process. Fantastic stuff.

'Even then at that point, the award of a contract would still not have been made if the company failed to meet the criteria, no matter if God himself had put the firm in touch with the process, let alone Matt Hancock et al.'

Yes indeed, but what was the criteria in this instance? That's the question you should be asking.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Wow months later you dredge this back up just so you can admit to me that MPs did have influence over the process. Fantastic stuff.

'Even then at that point, the award of a contract would still not have been made if the company failed to meet the criteria, no matter if God himself had put the firm in touch with the process, let alone Matt Hancock et al.'

Yes indeed, but what was the criteria in this instance? That's the question you should be asking.

Wow???

What are you on about?

The point I clearly made above was that MP's DIDN'T have influence over the procedure - did you not read what I put or could you not understand it???

As for the criteria it is shown in the link I've provided to you THREE TIMES now already!!!

And you had the balls to say this to me...

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:You were once a decent poster but now this character you play is either a complete idiot or a wind up merchant.

It certainly isn't me that is the 'complete idiot' or 'wind up merchant' here!

Rolling Eyes

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:The point I clearly made above was that MP's DIDN'T have influence over the procedure - did you not read what I put or could you not understand it???

Well you literally just admitted there was influence over the procedure. Having spent months calling me an idiot for suggesting the opposite. 

@Sluffy wrote:That is the extent of the 'influence' any MP had over anyone getting a contract.

'That' being his local's landlord emerging on the list of suppliers and subsequently winning a contract to deliver test kits during a health crisis.

And you have not shown the criteria for being on the high priority channel you Silly or annoying person, the documentation doesn't exist. Here's what a Professor of governance and integrity (Liz David Barrett, University of Sussex) said about it:

“The criterion [for being referred into the high-priority channel] seems extremely wide and discretionary, it’s not clear to me why MPs or peers should have any special expertise on whether a company is qualified to provide PPE.”

So it’s unclear to a Professor of governance and integrity, but retired bloke from the internet has explained it three times. Wonder who’s got it right?

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@Sluffy wrote:

I'm assuming Murray is/was an editor of a paper/s at some point in his career, so I assume he knows how the 'game' works.

I would have thought he would not only expected something like dredged up headlines from past papers but would also have devised a strategy of how to deal with it.

The saying 'failing to prepare is preparing to fail' came to my mind when I saw  the interview.

I doubt the man is a fool and he must know that all papers show some sort of bias or other, even when it comes to racism, so I would have thought he'd have some reply back even if it was along the lines of 'we abhor any form of rascim and the newspaper industry has taken great strides in recent years to have put our house in order and the headlines you quote are from a number of years ago' - or some such thing.

He clearly went for the 'talking over' anything the questioner was trying to say approach, which was completely the wrong way to deal with the issue.

It was a fair fight to me, just that he decided to stand toe to toe instead of floating like a butterfly away from the obvious punches that were going to be thrown at him.

He got it completely wrong and lost on everyones scorecards after the final bell had gone.
Sorry Sluffy. I've no idea who Ian Murray is but there's a smell of rotten fish about all this.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:The point I clearly made above was that MP's DIDN'T have influence over the procedure - did you not read what I put or could you not understand it???

Well you literally just admitted there was influence over the procedure. Having spent months calling me an idiot for suggesting the opposite. 

@Sluffy wrote:That is the extent of the 'influence' any MP had over anyone getting a contract.

'That' being his local's landlord emerging on the list of suppliers and subsequently winning a contract to deliver test kits during a health crisis.

And you have not shown the criteria for being on the high priority channel you Silly or annoying person, the documentation doesn't exist. Here's what a Professor of governance and integrity (Liz David Barrett, University of Sussex) said about it:

“The criterion [for being referred into the high-priority channel] seems extremely wide and discretionary, it’s not clear to me why MPs or peers should have any special expertise on whether a company is qualified to provide PPE.”

So it’s unclear to a Professor of governance and integrity, but retired bloke from the internet has explained it three times. Wonder who’s got it right?

Jesus Christ you are hard work.

My line 'That is the extent of the 'influence' any MP had over anyone getting a contract' if you read all that I had wrote simply meant that all an MP could do was to refer them to the governments website - which was available to anyone - nothing more!

I even highlighted it in bold for you to see ffs!

@Sluffy wrote:Bourne said his initial hope was that his packaging firm might be able to retool to provide personal protective equipment (PPE). Hancock messaged back, according to Bourne, directing him to a Department of Health and Social Care website, where he formally submitted details of the work his firm could do. Bourne’s lawyers said there was no further follow-up with Hancock.

I was saying / giving you an understanding (or trying to) that the only influence an MP had was exactly the same influence as you, I or Uncle Tom Cobley had - namely non, other than to point someone in the direction of the governments website!!!

And the landlord DIDN'T win a governent PPE contract either!

If you read the link I supplied you will find he never had a government PPE contract - his company was a SUB-CONTRACTOR to other companies that had had won contracts!!!

"In August, he switched distributor, and is now supplying the same tubes via Alpha Laboratories, which also had a pre-existing contract with DHSC. In a statement, Alpha Laboratories said: “Although we were aware Alex Bourne had met Mr Hancock, this was irrelevant to our discussions as we were sourcing from Hinpack a price-competitive product for the NHS supply chain which fitted within our product range.



And have I not repeatedly shown you the criteria?

Well let me show it you for the fourth time then.

Stage 1 Set up the system -

22. In order to address the crisis in supply of PPE, the UK Government utilised three main buying routes.  The first comprised existing suppliers, working through SCCL. The second involved using a strengthened team of staff in the UK Embassy in Beijing to identify potential sources of supply on the ground. The third, comprised new suppliers who did not currently work through SCCL.  

24. Accordingly, in order to address the challenge of surging demand for PPE within the NHS, it was decided to set up a new organisation to focus solely on procuring PPE supplies for the public sector: this was known as the “PPE Cell”, and comprised a dedicated cross-governmental team of officials from DHSC, the MoD, Cabinet Office and NHS England. This prevented undue pressure on NHS Supply Chain’s existing administrative capability, allowing it to continue to meet the need for other consumables in the healthcare system more generally and deal with existing PPE suppliers. The new task force decided to adopt an innovative “open-source” approach to procurement, calling for help from across the UK business community to help ensure critical supplies were maintained, with a view to buying the items urgently needed whencesoever it was necessary and appropriate to do so.

Stage 2 How anyone can make contact with the PPE contract awarding office

27. This Open Contracting approach was reinforced by the launch of the “Coronavirus Support from Business” Scheme on 27 March 2020.This initiative encouraged businesses supplying a range of products and services, including PPE, to register on a new online portal, to indicate how they might assist the government’s response to the pandemic, and the scheme was widely advertised at the time.

28. Suppliers who registered with offers of PPE were asked to complete a form indicating (inter alia) the products they were offering and details of price, quantity and technical certifications (including evidence thereof). They also had to give details of their business for the purposes of vetting. Many of the suppliers who registered were new to the PPE market but some did have previous valuable experience of international supply-chain management and importing goods. As already indicated, the UK Government was particularly interested in potential suppliers who had existing strong relationships on the ground in the East Asia with companies which either manufactured PPE or were re-purposing to do so, or had good local knowledge and contacts which might assist in identifying such manufacturers.

Stage 3 - Validate the potential offers

30. Rather than focusing on the identity of the potential supplier, the validity of the offer was the key focus, thereby allowing smaller suppliers with strong contacts in PPE supply to offer the support the Government urgently needed. Equally, past experience in PPE supply was not considered a prerequisite, as other businesses (of whatever size) might also be able to leverage their manufacturing contacts to engage with foreign enterprises converting existing facilities to PPE production. While it was of course possible for DHSC to continue liaising with existing large-scale suppliers during this period (and indeed it did so, through SCCL), the nature of the changed market conditions required the development of alternative sources of supply and it was appropriate not to impose unnecessary hurdles in the way of securing that objective.

Stage 4 - Establish priority

31. In this way over 24,000 offers of support were received from some 16,000 potential suppliers. The information they provided was initially assessed and verified by a cross-governmental team. Once this initial approval had been granted, offers were then passed to buying teams (some 500 staff seconded from a range of departments), who prioritised these offers on the basis, among other matters, of how urgently the particular product was needed, the quantity on offer, value for money (using existing price benchmarks), certainty of supply and lead times. Where appropriate, further financial checks were conducted prior to contracts being concluded.


Ok, with me so far???

Once all that was done there was a 'sifting' criteria (for want of a better word) whereby anyone within the 'system' could select what they consider met the criteria above -

The cross-government PPE team established a high-priority lane...

"Leads came into to a dedicated mailbox. There were no written rules that determined what went into this box. The existence and nature of the mailbox was publicised across the PPE procurement programme and to relevant private offices across government and Parliament".

...to assess and process potential PPE leads referred by government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and Lords, senior NHS staff and other health professionals. The team considered that leads referred by these sources were more credible or needed to be treated with more urgency.


It is worth noting that the NAO said this in their report on PPE procurement -

" The Cabinet Office asked the Government Internal Audit Agency to review six PPE contracts that have attracted media attention. The review found that while there was evidence for most controls being applied there were some gaps in the documentation"

Not perfect admittedly but if these were the six major cases the government was concerned over from the shit being stirred up by Maugham, then not bad either!

As for the Professor of governance and integrity, I agree with what she says, I'm certain most if not all MP's or peers have any special expertise on whether a company is qualified to provide PPE.

However that wasn't the criteria why they were some of those who had access to the high priority line it was more to do with -

"As already indicated, the UK Government was particularly interested in potential suppliers who had existing strong relationships on the ground in the East Asia with companies which either manufactured PPE or were re-purposing to do so, or had good local knowledge and contacts which might assist in identifying such manufacturers".  (Note 28 above).

In the unlikely event that some MP used the 'high priority lane' on behalf of his 'mate' (rather than the legitamate business in their constituency who had genuine potential to provide the urgently needed PPE within the required timeframes) the referal would still have had to pass the 'validity'and 'priority' checks and would have been either rejected at this stage OR would have passed IRRESPECTIVE of whether an MP put them forward or not.

The NAO report states that 90% of 500 'high priority lane' referals FAILED the tests!  

https://www.nao.org.uk/press-release/investigation-into-government-procurement-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

There is yet to be found any evidence by anyone of cronyism.

You would think there would be a whistleblower or two by now if there had been wouldn't you?

Well I would.



Last edited by Sluffy on Thu Mar 11 2021, 23:40; edited 2 times in total

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy. I've no idea who Ian Murray is but there's a smell of rotten fish about all this.

I've found this about him if it helps?

https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2017/news/former-regional-daily-editor-unveiled-as-new-soe-executive-director/

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Things i really dislike or downright hate. - Page 8 Duty_calls

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Things i really dislike or downright hate. - Page 8 200

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker

:rofl: Brilliant, Bonce!

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@Norpig wrote:Things i really dislike or downright hate. - Page 8 Duty_calls

:rofl:

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
More things to hate:  "Support" for an article by quoting some vague insider/a source/a close friend etc. without naming names.

Phrases like "fwiw".  If you think so little of what you are about to type, don't do it.....

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Fair enough, got sucked in again. I'll PM you instead Sluffy.

We should make this a rule, once a spat breaks out it's moved to PM once this GIF is sent:

Things i really dislike or downright hate. - Page 8 200

Solitary confinement for Nutters.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 8 of 9]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum