How is the Tory government doing?

Norpig wrote:And don't forget that Sluffy vets them all before they are delivered 

Why would I, I'm sure they are all singing my praises anyway!

Mine are usually from Nat, asking for some more pictures of me all oiled up, and in only my boxers.

Because this dragged on after I'd been banned and couldn't speak for myself just wanted to point out -

I thought it was an interesting topic, and we reached a good outcome: that mistakes need to be scrutinised.

It was the later claim that this was all a social media conspiracy which dragged me back in, that's just an outright lie.

I am yet to receive any PMs including pics of Karly's, or any other member's, penis.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I am yet to receive any PMs including pics of Karly's, or any other member's, penis.

It's not a PM list you want to be on, trust me.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

It's not a PM list you want to be on, trust me.

There's a list! Now I'm feeling really left out.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Because this dragged on after I'd been banned and couldn't speak for myself just wanted to point out -

I thought it was an interesting topic, and we reached a good outcome: that mistakes need to be scrutinised.

It was the later claim that this was all a social media conspiracy which dragged me back in, that's just an outright lie.

I am yet to receive any PMs including pics of Karly's, or any other member's, penis.

It is not a lie.

The facts are all the hoo-ha is from one person (Jolyon Maugham) seeking a judicial review of the Governments awarding of the contracts.

He's highlighted three company's he believes should not been awarded them.

That's his opinion.

One of the three he identified had an issue with a part of an order they delivered.

The government refutes his opinion as they refuted his opinions in respect of the judicial reviews he brought against them over Brexit.

His 'opinion' has been aired in the public domain for quite sometime via his company 'Good Law Project', and are known to the Labour Party and all the national newspapers.

Non have made much of an issue of it.

However simply look at Maugham's Twitter account - and you think I'm obsessed over things???

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham

Wanderlust who doesn't do social media (anybody believe that?) found it on Reddit or somewhere similar and posted it up because one - it suits his agenda and two - he seems to believe this sort of stuff without fact checking - and (tellingly) did not/would not supply a link to where he quoted from.

Rather randomly I came across this tweet about Maugham

Read into it what you want but this bloke certainly views Maugham in a different light.

Jolyon Maugham, the arch-Remainer QC who repeatedly took the government to court over Brexit, is now taking it to court over facemasks. The Remainers are determined to get Boris one way or another. Their hatred hasn’t dimmed.

— Alan Sked (@profsked) August 6, 2020

The fact remains that the narrative is being pushed solely on twitter and being sold as a conspiracy.

And fwiw, what dragged you 'back in' wasn't 'social media conspiracy' you hadn't even mention that following our mutual agreement in post 721, instead it was me allegedly misinterpreting a post of your and 'softening my stance; in post 724 and me being 'obsessive about not being wrong in post 728 it was only in post 732 that you mention the social media conspiracy I had made.

It's all a game to you, I know that but I'm sick of it now.

I've said what I've had to say, up to you how you want to play it from now on.

Clearly this isn’t solely a twitter issue or there wouldn’t be an open court case on it would there?

You only began to mention ‘social media conspiracy’s’ on here recently to undermine and mock opinions different to your own. Yet here you are posting an opposing view point from social media - you think deserves attention and clearly you not a ‘conspiracy theory’. Point being there are plenty of worthwhile and intelligent views posted on Twitter.

The government bungled this purchase - if they hadn’t then the stock would be in use by the NHS. That fact disproves your entire argument that it’s all just a ‘conspiracy theory’ I’m afraid.

So just give it up.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Clearly this isn’t solely a twitter issue or there wouldn’t be an open court case on it would there?

Eh, there's open court cases ever day for centuries - how many are high profile - few - the high profile ones are in the news, in the papers, and on social media these days.

This case is void of being in the news and in the papers - why - because it isn't high profile/sexy - it's a judicial review on something the governments done that one person has an issue about - he's got previous about this as well!

He's the one 'pushing it on conspiracy/corruption issues - non of these have been proven - no police investigations, no charges, no arrests, nothing!

If it was corruption/sleaze/whatever it is, don't you think the big boys would be all over this instead of one man and his twitter account?

The simple fact is they are not.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You only began to mention ‘social media conspiracy’s’ on here recently to undermine and mock opinions different to your own. Yet here you are posting an opposing view point from social media - you think deserves attention and clearly you not a ‘conspiracy theory’. Point being there are plenty of worthwhile and intelligent views posted on Twitter.

There's plenty of worthwhile and intelligent views spouted down the pub and even on here - doesn't mean they are right though does it?

I don't know Maugham from Adam, hadn't even heard of him until a day or so ago but just a cursory check on him turns up that he's the man behind the story, he's done the same before in respect of Brexit, it's HIS company than breaking the story and its him personally running the twitter 'conspiracy' campaign.

Nobody else.

Just him.

I simply did a search on twitter to see what he's been posting and it's just him on a mission.

When I did the search for him the tweet that popped up and that I posted just appeared, I didn't go looking for someone doing a hatchet job on him or anything, it was just there.  I don't doubt though that he's just a lone voice though.

Twitter is just the modern day version of being told something by the man down the pub.

Every now and again it turns out true but the vast majority is just pure self-opinionated bullshit.

I never believed anything I was told down the pub back in the day, unless I checked it out myself first and I don't believe anything I read on Twitter/social media in this age, unless again I check it out myself.

My scathing remarks against Twitter/social media is aimed at the gormless who take as gospel anything they read on there without doing any fact checking themselves.

Wanderlust was even too embarrassed to even link to where he got the story from, which is strange because he links to everything else.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The government bungled this purchase - if they hadn’t then the stock would be in use by the NHS. That fact disproves your entire argument that it’s all just a ‘conspiracy theory’ I’m afraid.

Please link me to where the government has admitted liability for the 'error/mistake'.

For all we know the error/mistake is a manufacturing one.

Also is it not possible that a contract free of 'conspiracy' claims against it could have made an error on production too - I'm sure the volume of PPE's delivered so far some mistakes most have inevitably happened - why hasn't Maugham been on the case about those - is it because they simply don't fit his agenda about corruption/conspiracy by the government on the issuing of the contracts?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So just give it up.

You're the one who refuses to give it up, mate not me.

It's this simple - if there is a genuine story here, the press would be all over it.

The fact is, they are not.

We only know about it because Wanderlust found it on social media and it fitted his anti-government stance and didn't bother to fact check it before posting.

Seems you've not been too bothered about checking out the story either.

I see the point your making on the manufacturer making the error - but if that was true do you not think we’d have heard about it immediately? Would it not be in the court documents or the government rebuttal? Just feels like a massive stretch to me.

Why do you keep saying it’s not in the national press - I keep ignoring this point, but it seems to be one you genuinely think is true. I’ve read it in Guardian, Times and even the Mail - so let’s drop that one hey.

Please stop with the patronising attitude by the way, it won’t get a rise out of me. I heard about this story and the court case days ago, this isn’t a niche story Lust posted up. I’ve quoted nothing but facts to you, and my opinion of them. We can have opposing opinions on those facts and just discuss it amicably without all the digs - and that’s how I’d prefer to operate. No need for all this shit Sluffy.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I see the point your making on the manufacturer making the error - but if that was true do you not think we’d have heard about it immediately? Would it not be in the court documents or the government rebuttal? Just feels like a massive stretch to me.

It would be a contractual issue nothing to do with the court case which is about how contracts had been awarded under government emergency powers - not day to day operation of them.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Why do you keep saying it’s not in the national press - I keep ignoring this point, but it seems to be one you genuinely think is true. I’ve read it in Guardian, Times and even the Mail - so let’s drop that one hey.

I've not said it's not been in the national press, there has been passing mention of it.

What I have been saying is it certainly isn't major news.  It would be akin to the Cummings issue, with it being headlines in the press for day, after day, after day, if the big boys smelt blood.

The fact is that it isn't and it's only Maugham on Twitter keeping it alive.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Please stop with the patronising attitude by the way, it won’t get a rise out of me. I heard about this story and the court case days ago, this isn’t a niche story Lust posted up. I’ve quoted nothing but facts to you, and my opinion of them. We can have opposing opinions on those facts and just discuss it amicably without all the digs - and that’s how I’d prefer to operate. No need for all this shit Sluffy.

Well no you haven't posted facts - you said in your last post the government bungled this purchase - that isn't a fact, that was your opinion based on nothing more than your personal view of the government.  You now acknowledge that it could well be the supplier that bungled the manufacture of the PPE.

This FACT as you claim - it is right there in your post - disproves my entire argument apparently.

But it simply wasn't a fact was it - just your opinion - your pet theory.

Aren't you the one who tells me I don't know the difference between fact and theories???

At least I've never claimed my theories to be fact as you just have.

Am I being patronising or just telling it as it is.

As far as I'm concerned I'm just being straight.

Up to you and others if you want to interpret how you like, I'm certainly not claiming any moral or factual high ground over anyone.

Finally you prefer to operate without digs do you?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:As always your obsessions with disagreeing and never admitting fault tie you up in knots you can’t untangle.

You sure about that?

Do you have a view on this why it would not be in the court documents or the government rebuttal if it was a manufacturer error?

Excellent debate chaps!

Sluffy: FWIW I don't really do social media however...I confess my missus does and she sends me shit that she finds interesting (most of which isn't to me sadly - have you ever been sent ideas for furniture there's no need for?) - so you're half right and technically I'm 100% right (just joking) I'm a distant observer at most.

See FWIW I’m all over Twitter and have followed Maughom for a few years - mainly for his Brexit tweets along with secret barrister, Steve Analyst, Phil Sypris and many more there are loads of very knowledgeable tweeters who have made names for themselves with their analysis of events over the last few years, well worth a look for anyone interested - Twitter’s a great source of news and opinion.

Never mind all that. This is how the Tory Government are doing.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Do you have a view on this why it would not be in the court documents or the government rebuttal if it was a manufacturer error?

I'm neither a legal expert or have full access to what is happening.

My understanding is that what is being sought is a judicial review as to how the government awarded contracts under the emergency powers at the time.

Going back some forty years ago, what I was taught was is that there are three branches of government, namely the executive, the ones who take the decisions (the government of the day) the legislative, the ones who vote in the law (parliament) and the judiciary, the ones who oversees the laws.

From time to time challenges are made if someone believes one of the three branches have gone beyond their powers.

In this case Maugham's opinion is that the government exceeded their powers to do something - presumably why they brought in emergency powers, or how they used them, or something along those lines.

A Judiciary Review is basically another arm of the branches of government scrutinising that another 'arm' have 'administered' things in accordance with the rules at the time and have not gone beyond them or have misused them etc.

It isn't a judgement on the rights and wrongs of the decisions taken as such more more to do with that what was done was done by the book.  Well I say that but in theory the are grounds of 'unreasonableness' but I've never heard of any Judicial Review succeeding on those grounds.

So the case simply isn't about how contacts have been run, it is about following the correct administrative procedures behind and leading up to how the contracts were awarded - namely under emergency powers which suspended the need to do all the checks and balances that would normally have been required in normal evaluation and awarding of such contracts.

It seems self evident to me that in view of a world pandemic and a universal need for PPE's across the world that such emergency powers were needed in order to obtain the require PPE's in the face of worldwide competition.

The bits about Liz Trusses advisors shell company or facemasks with ear loops instead of head loops are simply spurious to what is at issue, namely did the government follow the correct administrative procedures at the time, or I guess was it reasonable enough to do what they did.

Issues within the contract themselves would be dealt with by contractual law, not judicial reviews.

Issues of corruption would be dealt with by criminal law.

You might find this link explains it somewhat simpler than I have -

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/judicial-review

If I may be so bold, it is yet another example of social media sensationalism without people understand even the basics of what is actually going on.

That's obviously why the papers and even the Labour Party haven't run with it (yes they've had a sly dig about the face masks but I believe have kept away from alleging corruption or patronage).

There really isn't a genuine case here I believe, it is more to do with one mans crusade against a government he clearly doesn't like.

I very much doubt this will ever get before the court as I said earlier on in the thread.

So putting aside the legal aspects, do you think that giving them the contract was a) wise, b) not nepotistic and c) the safest option in an emergency Sluffy?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:See FWIW I’m all over Twitter and have followed Maughom for a few years - mainly for his Brexit tweets along with secret barrister, Steve Analyst, Phil Sypris and many more there are loads of very knowledgeable tweeters who have made names for themselves with their analysis of events over the last few years, well worth a look for anyone interested - Twitter’s a great source of news and opinion.

Each to their own and all of that.

I take what I see on social media with a large pinch of salt myself.

I suspect many of them have their own reasons and agendas for saying what they do.

I prefer to keep an open mind and judge things in context and not in isolation and/or retrospect.

If these people can do a better job than those they presumably are criticising/lampooning, then why don't they step forward and put themselves in the firing line and practice what they preach rather than spend there lives tweeting to strangers on the internet?

wanderlust wrote:So putting aside the legal aspects, do you think that giving them the contract was a) wise, b) not nepotistic and c) the safest option in an emergency Sluffy?

I'm not playing stupid games.

You can't set aside the legal aspects - that's the framework you have to work to.

Could the required PPE's be obtained in sufficient quantities, within required timescales to prevent widespread deaths - presumably of the front line doctors and nurses who were requiring the PPE's in an emergency situation - by normal procurement procedures?

I would think not.

Did the emergency procurements prevent the NHS running out of PPE?

I believe so, I've not read of any NHS hospital or trust turning people way because thy had run out of PPE

What do we know about the numbers?

The government letter states that 600 contracts had been awarded at the time and we have heard about just two instances of issues of things going wrong - the ear/face loops and the stuff from Turkey.

Two failures out of 600 is an error rate of 0.33%.

Even then we have no idea who was at fault, whether it was a part of the order or the whole order and has the issues been dealt with to everybody's mutual satisfaction

Has the government done anything illegal?

As far as we are aware - no.

If you have proof that they have then take it to your nearest police station and do us all a favour.

I don't like corruption and illegality any less than you do.

As I’ve highlighted the point isn’t necessarily about corruption (unless it can be proved) it’s definitely about competence though - and this government lack of it.

I don’t buy that this was a manufacturing mistake - it would have been all over the governments response if so. You are obviously welcome to run with that should you want to though.