Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I seem incapable of grasping that needs must and priorities change.

Yet I’ve said the entire time it was the right decision to deregulate so contracts could be completed more quickly. I even reiterated it to you earlier on this thread see post 110.

The brass neck on you to keep dragging this out with lie after lie about what I’ve said is just weird Sluffy. I’ve no desire to keep this going, but I won’t stop correcting your bullshit.

No lies from me!

It's your lack of understanding that's the problem.

You've mention deregulation at least twice now, there's been no deregulation taken place, simply existing regulations superseded by Emergency regulations -

"Under emergency laws brought in at the start of the pandemic crisis, the Cabinet Office - which oversees government’s buying policies - has changed some of the procurement rules for contracts relating to the government’s response to COVID-19".

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/731/covid19-government-procurement/

You've shown substantial evidence throughout this thread of your comprehensive ignorance of basic understanding of this whole matter, from what components even form a  contract, through the whole regulatorily process of procurement and awarding of them and to the statutory, judicial and Parliamentary checks and balances that oversees the integrity of it all.

Just because YOU don't understand the process doesn't equate to me in someway in your head believing I'm telling lies???

All I've been doing is correcting your rhetoric on the position you've chosen to take based on nothing more than innuendo.

I told you from the very beginning how these things work and just as I stated at that time an inquiry on government procurement is about to start in a couple of weeks -

"This inquiry will look at the scale of Government’s COVID-19-related contracting, how procurement rules have changed and how the government is managing the risks associated with these changes.

For a chosen sample of these contracts it will look specifically at who bought what, from whom, and at what cost, during the pandemic - and whether this is delivering value for taxpayers money in the crisis".

Unlike you I KNOW what I've been talking about and have ALWAYS said the value for money aspect (that you are so keen on) would need to be considered in terms of the legality in the awarding of the contracts and what value for money is deemed to be in the 'crisis' (their word not mine) - and I refer you back to the Government Legal Department's statement as to what the effects of the crisis had on government procurement.

In short I've explained to you (as simply and as patiently as I can) how the whole system works and given you links and references to everything so you could see for yourself!!!

If you aren't capable of understanding it then that's your deficiency not mine.

If anything corrupt has gone on - and clearly that's the picture Maugham has insinuated - then throw them in jail - otherwise let the system do what it was always going to do and that is to scrutinise and hold to account what took place and the people who were involved.

There's never needed to have been the hysteria and witch hunts - the system doesn't work like that but unfortunately you and countless others have been played by someone who knows that but used social media to stir up the many who didn't.

Have a nice day.

You’re arguing it’s not corruption again unbelievable.

You just can’t help yourself can you? Once you realise you’ve ran out of wiggle room, you just invent points to argue with.

The exact same thing happened with Anderson, and to this day you cry about that.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You’re arguing it’s not corruption again unbelievable.

You just can’t help yourself can you? Once you realise you’ve ran out of wiggle room, you just invent points to argue with.

The exact same thing happened with Anderson, and to this day you cry about that.

Well I said based on my knowledge that I doubted very much that Anderson had done anything legally wrong in the running of the club - apart from Bob I don't know of any other person who held that same view.

I've said the same here that based on my knowledge I very much doubt that the government has done anything legally wrong in the procurement of PPE's during the crisis.

I've said on both subjects that the law is the only measure that we have to judge by.  That is the bases of how society functions.

I'm very much a believer in law and order, I'm strong on my views that anyone who breaks them should be punished.

I trust in the judiciary, the law, the regulators, the peoples representatives and public servants who serve the people and uphold the law by the systems and procedures that have been tried and tested over the century's.

I do not however trust social media activists and mob rule to be able to fulfil such a crucial societal role.

That way leads to anarchy.

If you are one of those to believe what they read on social media then that's up to you as I will wait and believe what I read in the results of the inquiry findings and judicial determinations in the same way as I believed what I've read in the Administrators reports and the lack of subsequent legal action against Mr Anderson.

And 'crying about Anderson' what does that supposed to mean - Bob and I were the only ones to be proven right by subsequent events in what we said.

We most certainly could have 'crowed' about it and following all the vile abuse we endured we had every right to as well, but we didn't - but 'cry' about it???

No idea what you mean?

The comment was related to how you spin comments and then spend hours attacking others for positions they don’t actually hold.

Such as the myth you were attacked on here for saying KA hadn’t broken the law. Nobody argued otherwise, it was never the point.

I can't tell a lie, Sluffy, but Dale Vince and David Conn made Ken Anderson seem like George Washington for veracity.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The comment was related to how you spin comments and then spend hours attacking others for positions they don’t actually hold.

Such as the myth you were attacked on here for saying KA hadn’t broken the law. Nobody argued otherwise, it was never the point.

Trying to move the narrative away from your ignorance over much of what you've been talking about for the last week and on to Anderson instead - you couldn't even manage to do that subtly - you really are having a mare!

The position you hold is this -

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Happy to agree to disagree with you, but you don't seem to have any grasp on what my position is. I'll repeat it once again for you:

Strength of personal relationship should have no bearing over a decision making process.

I answered it -

Sluffy wrote:And if your position is that 'Strength of personal relationship should have no bearing over a decision making process', then you've not got anything to worry about because those awarding the contracts are the government procurement offices in accordance with this and NOT the MP's, government advisors or the sister of the Prime Minister who went to school with someone who was awarded a contract ffs!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-policy-note-0120-responding-to-covid-19

People like my good self would be the ones working to policy, the ones who would care about what they've been professionally trained to do and spent many years climbing up the ladder to the top of the tree and wouldn't throw it all away because some random MP said, 'Sluffy, you don't know me but do me a favour and award this half billion pound contract to my mate who actually doesn't know anything about PPE but we'll make sure you get a very nice Christmas bonus, nudge, nudge, wink, wink!!!'

Do you REALLY believe that actually happened???

Poorly educated and gullible on this matter truly would sum you up if you did.

So it's certainly is not me who has continued to argue on because their premise was completely undermined - that's you who have been manipulating and steering the argument from the clear reply I had given to you that you clearly didn't like.

Now it seems you've invented your own version of Godwin's Law namely when you have all but lost the argument you throw in Anderson's name as a means of detracting me from the point!

Best laugh you've given me all week so far!!!

Sorry, Sluffy, I should have mentioned the not insignificant contributions of Marc Iles to the tangled web of falsehoods that had the lynch mob types foaming at the mouth.

Can you highlight for me where it says on that link that MPs have no say on procurement decisions?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry, Sluffy, I should have mentioned the not insignificant contributions of Marc Iles to the tangled web of falsehoods that had the lynch mob types foaming at the mouth.

The thing is Bob that the times have moved on and society works differently to the way we do, now it isn't about questioning and fact checking what's been said and by whom that said it, it is now instantly accepted, by more than a few, that what they read on social media is true and what they read by their favourite social media influencers such as Maugham and/or Iles is absolutely, definitely true!!!

Mass manipulation is not a new thing, control of the media/or backing from it, as often been sought by those in power but in the last decade or so social media has allowed anyone who wants it a voice and anyone who is dumb enough to believe what they read as being the truth.

Millions on social media believe QAnon - is that the truth, is Maugham telling the truth, or Iles, or me?

What is the truth, is it a few facts mixed with a bucket full of innuendo that paints a picture you want others to see, or is it a weird old pensioner no mark who says, you know what, things are like they are being portrayed, there are agendas in play here, games are being played, people misled.

I can't change the world, people believe what they want to.

I've said what I have and if people don't want to accept it then that's fine.

The Administrators have gone through the books and in effect cleared Anderson - but most people believe he was up to no good.  I fully expect the PAC and judges to clear the government but people will just believe it to be a cover up and cronyism definitely did happen and millions were made.

They don't believe respected, highly intelligent people, professionally qualified with years of experience and with a career in finding out the truth but they are more than happy to fully convinced that Donald Trump is fighting a group of alien lizard paedophiles or whatever the story is!

You've just got to laugh really.

I mean what else can you do?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Can you highlight for me where it says on that link that MPs have no say on procurement decisions?

You're just embarrassing yourself further with every post you are making now.

If you don't know how Parliament works it's not up to me to teach you.

Nothing to do with teaching me you say MPs have no say over it and it’s handled by people like you. I’m asking you where on that link you’ve posted as evidence supports that?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Nothing to do with teaching me you say MPs have no say over it and it’s handled by people like you. I’m asking you where on that link you’ve posted as evidence supports that?

Are you for real???

Hahahaha

You don't even know how the relationship between elected members and public employees operates!!!!

You really are a dumb ass to be arguing on a subject you clearly know nothing about!

There is nothing in the link about MP's - the system doesn't work that way you moron.

This is up there with you waiting for Hancock to tell the world if government contracts had remedy clauses in them or not!!!!

You really are making yourself out to be a complete and utter doughnut!!!

As always, no need for the insults. You’re saying that MPs have no influence over procurement then?

'I mean what else can you do?'


You can satirize and poke fun at 'em, Sluffy. They really don't like being satirized or having fun poked at 'em. Makes 'em foam at the mouth, it does

Or you can just pour yourself another glass of claret.

Its a bit early for another glass of claret so I'll save that later.

Mansfield are winning at the moment at FGR.  Come on you Stags, make it a weekend double.

One thing for sure is that if you can’t sleep then reading this thread will work better than Night Nurse!

karlypants wrote:One thing for sure is that if you can’t sleep then reading this thread will work better than Night Nurse!

Ha, for once I think you’re spot on.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:As always, no need for the insults. You’re saying that MPs have no influence over procurement then?

I'm not going to write you a book on this but in very, very simple terms elected members form groups and the biggest group usually is the one in power.  They put forward their policies and if they have enough votes it becomes the 'law'.

Public servants are simply paid employees who enact the laws, administer and work to them.

The document I linked to would have been part of an Act voted in by Parliament (where the MP's get their say) and the reference quoted in the document -  regulation 32(2)(c) under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 leads to this -

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/102/contents/made

 - and which is a Statutory Instrument (which basically means a lesser 'order' deriving from the actual Act itself - delegated legislation in simple terms).

People like me would act in accordance to the regulations (or in other words we would work to the law).

Let me draw a line there to show the separation between what public servants do and through which legal authority and return back to the role of elected members.

So say you were an MP and saw Maugham's tweet and it worried you, you would ask questions in the House of Commons.

If you were more directly involved with it, say one of the contracts awarded was to say one of your constituents (or one of your constituents had raised a concern with you) then you could write to the Cabinet Office (this is the office which has responsibility for procurement) and your letter would be answered by someone like me - who probably also briefed 'my' Cabinet Minister so he could answer your question in Parliament - namely what authority the award was made under and how the system works - in fact someone like me would have written most if not all of that long document for the legal reply too, as the solicitors wouldn't know much if anything about procurement during the crisis.

In all of these cases, in Parliament, in a constituency letter, in the legal letter, the facts would be the same - namely the work was done in accordance to the regulations or flowed from it and - and would also include who had the authority to award the contracts in value terms (it is all listed in that long extract I had to print out for you).

The more formal way an MP has to delve further would be to agitate for a formal inquiry - which is exactly what the Public Accounts Committee will be holding in two weeks time.  Here the all party members of the panel have the powers to basically audit all the records and interview any witness they want - no doubt if I was in my former position and involved in this I would certainly be expected to be called and questioned - but I've never had a problem with being interviewed by anyone because I know I've done my job correctly and ensured my staff have done the same.

After the enquiry the committee would issue its findings and the government will reply to them if required to do so.

Personally I can't see how any cronyism has deliberately occurred if the poor old public servants like I once was did their jobs properly.

Anyway no doubt PAC will do their job diligently and thoroughly and if there is anything to be found, will find it.

I attach an simplistic explanation on select committees that you may/may not find of interest.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/committees/select/






People don't find all this interesting?

Really???

What's wrong with you all!

No, not good enough. The question was ‘are you saying that MPs have no influence over procurement decision making’?

You’ve called me a dumb ass, an idiot, a doughnut and poorly educated for suggesting they do.

Simple yes or no answer.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:No, not good enough. The question was ‘are you saying that MPs have no influence over procurement decision making’?

You’ve called me a dumb ass, an idiot, a doughnut and poorly educated for suggesting they do.

Simple yes or no answer.

MP's DO NOT have influence over procurement decision making.

That what I've just spent the last five days telling you ffs!!!

You really are thick if you've not grasped that by now.

Procurement decision making is undertaken by public servants in accordance with the relevant statute.

If any MP is found to have influenced the award of any contract then they might well be paying an unwanted visit to the Old Bailey very soon!

The entire point of the investigation is to find out if they have Sluffy not if they are supposed to. Good god man.

What is the need for these explosions of abuse? Are you that wound up by this?