Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Things i really dislike or downright hate.

+24
wanderlust
finlaymcdanger
Norpig
Ten Bobsworth
rammywhite
doffcocker
Soul Kitchen
boltonbonce
karlypants
Reebok Trotter
Michael Bolton
gloswhite
BoltonTillIDie
Natasha Whittam
xmiles
scottjames30
MartinBWFC
Boggersbelief
Copper Dragon
Mr Magoo
Banks of the Croal
aaron_bwfc
Keegan
Angry Dad
28 posters

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Go down  Message [Page 12 of 15]

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


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

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.

Guest


Guest

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

Guest


Guest

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


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

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
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Ten Bobsworth


Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Things i really dislike or downright hate. - Page 12 Duty_calls

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Things i really dislike or downright hate. - Page 12 200

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

boltonbonce wrote:

:rofl: Brilliant, Bonce!

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Norpig wrote:Things i really dislike or downright hate. - Page 12 Duty_calls

:rofl:

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

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.....

Guest


Guest

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 12 200

Solitary confinement for Nutters.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 12 of 15]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

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