Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Of all the crowd funding I wonder why they’ve chosen to discredit Maugham.

I very strongly suspect it is simply down to this line in the article...

"...particularly concerned about the increasing practice of crowdfunding applications for judicial review, forcing the Government to 'waste time and resourcess fending off unmeritorious but popular claims'."

I've said all along that he is a vexatious litigant, having had the not so pleasurable experience of having to deal with one once in more professional career.

Vexatious litigants are people who persistently take legal action against employers and other businesses, regardless of the merits of the claims, either in the hope of persuading the business of making a settlement to get rid of the inconvenience of the claim, or because they are on a mission to cause as much harm to the business [substitute Tory government instead - Sluffy] as they can. The time and expense involved in dealing with a vexatious litigant is a harrowing prospect for any employer.

https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-media/general/vexatious-litigants-and-how-to-stop-them

You're apparently are keeping score of all the outcomes of all the 27 cases has brought against the government in the last four years, so can you tell me how many has he actually won and more specifically what if any actual benefit have we seen resulting from it?  

I suspect little if any.

The only one I'm aware of is the government not reporting the PPE contract awards within 28 days and the government itself acknowledged it had failed before even going to court!

The current Judicial Review awaiting the judgement - isn't anything to do with sleaze and cronyism, it is about did the civil servants act in strict accordance with the legislation - but you would never know that if you simply followed Maugham/GLP on social media who paints it all about cronyism and sleaze - do they not?

Did you even know that the Judicial Review awaiting judgement was based around three specific company's awarded PPE contracts, maybe you did, but did you know at the JR GLP gave no evidence against one company, they in effect withdrew their action against it (Clandeboye Agencies Ltd).

They didn't seem to let anyone know that...

...I wonder why???

Surely the action wasn't without merit was it, I mean after all they had said about it being awarded due to cronyism and sleaze...

Maugham has set himself up a system whereby he can take 'free' shots at the government without spending a penny of his own money (all of it coming from mugs contributing via crowd funding who believe what Maugham feeds them on social media) and with the sole aim of bringing discredit to the government with no actual proof - and if he loses, people will simply believe it to be a 'fix' and the judiciary are as corrupt as they believe the government to be!

This is really bad on many levels not least that people start to believe the system we are governed by is corrupt and not to be trusted and that it may ultimate lead to less access for genuine and worthy cases seeking judicial review for the purpose that it is intended for namely the correct application of legislation.

I know I've been ploughing a lone furrow on here in the face of Tory government haters who also believe everything they read on social media but Maugham has simply hijacked the Judicial Review system (based on crowd funding) to progress his personal agenda against the government, at no cost to himself.

Quite brilliant of him in a sense but also massively destructive longer term if people begin to no longer trust the government or judiciary any more.

Clearly measures will now be put in place to stop that abuse of the system and if I may say so - rightly too.

Is the "fox-clubbing left wing barrister" friendly with the "dead pig shagging Tory ex Prime Minister"?
At least I assume that's the terminology that rag used to describe Cameron....or could there be a touch of political bias in their reportage?

wanderlust wrote:Is the "fox-clubbing left wing barrister" friendly with the "dead pig shagging Tory ex Prime Minister"?
At least I assume that's the terminology that rag used to describe Cameron....or could there be a touch of political bias in their reportage?

No doubt there is a touch of political bias in their article, it is the Daily Mail, but that aside the message is clear (at least to me) Maugham has found a clever way to use the system to humiliate the Tory government in many peoples eyes, without actually having to prove any of his multiple innuendos of sleaze and corruption as actually being factual - in other words without any smoking guns ever being found.  The Judicial Reviews looks at the civil servants application of the law and not any of the many claims of wrong doing by politicians.

However his cleverness to further his personal agenda could end up severely eroding peoples trust in the system of government and the judiciary and for that reason alone it needs to be stopped.

Unfortunately by bringing it to an end it may well impinge on the accessibility of others to use Judicial Reviews for their intended (and worthy) use in the future.

Hopefully it won't.

Can you point me to any court papers where the judge has said the GLP are responsible for wasting the courts time?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Can you point me to any court papers where the judge has said the GLP are responsible for wasting the courts time?

You're showing your ignorance again I'm afraid.

In order for any Judicial Review to take place the claimant has to outline the basis of their case and the defence an outline of their response to it (this is where the government starts accruing costs the claimant in this case has no costs as it is crowdfunded).

These outlines are sent to the judge for his/her consideration as to whether their is any merit in the action sufficient to hold a Judicial Review.

If the judge determines there is no merit in any part of the claimants case he will strike out the relevant sections or indeed give his decision that there is no merit in the claimants case at all and deny the Judicial Review completely.

An example of such was GLP's intended case over Operation Moonshot -

High Court refuses permission to challenge ‘Moonshot’ mass asymptomatic testing programme
1st February 2021

The High Court has today refused a group of claimants permission to apply for judicial review in their high-profile challenge to the Government’s Covid-19 mass asymptomatic testing programme, referred to as ‘Operation Moonshot’.  Nicholas Chapman acted for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

The claimants, led by the Good Law Project, alleged that the Government’s decision to allocate what was said to be around £100bn in public money and to enter into a series of contracts for rapid-turnaround testing technology breached procurement laws and legally enforceable duties of consultation, and was irrational.  In refusing permission, Mr Justice Lavender ruled that all the grounds of challenge are unarguable.  The claimants have been given 7 days to apply to renew their application.

Nicholas Chapman is first junior for the Prime Minister and Health Secretary in a team led by Philip Moser QC.

https://tgchambers.com/news-and-resources/news/high-court-refuses-permission-to-challenge-moonshot-mass-asymptomatic-testing-programme/


So in simple terms the judge looked at GLP's case decided it didn't stand up, gave them a week to do better and they couldn't and they withdrew their action.

GLP raised £82,961 via crowdfunding...

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/operation-moonshot/

...on a case the Judge decided from just the brief outline of their claim had no merit in it and threw it out before it even got to court.

(Incidentally I believe GLP takes 10% of all crowdfunded donations to pay for its own running costs - so it is in effect completely self funded from the public and you could argue the 'juicier' they publicise a need for a Judicial Review then the more crowdfunding they will get and the more money they will receive to keep themselves solvent).

The GLP paid their legal team from the crowdfunder and what remained they have put to other legal actions they are taking - thus those who contributed because they felt strongly about the thing they donated to have now financed something entirely different than what it was intended for - this is a point of concern the government is now looking to address.

The government legal case put together in in rebuttal of GLP's claim was funded by the taxpayer - and so is out of pocket due to a judge determined meritless Judicial Review court application.

So a judge would never say the GLP was ever wasting the courts time because the judge would have already chucked it out before it had even got as far as the Judicial Review court!

okocha wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57413115

Beat me to it.

boltonbonce wrote:
Beat me to it.

Great minds.....

Ha Ha Ha!!..... as a certain poster on here might exclaim (but not in this case)
Is there not an emoji for a smoking gun.  

I'm still waiting for Sluffys essay on why the Judge is wrong 

Norpig wrote:I'm still waiting for Sluffys essay on why the Judge is wrong 

I'll get back to you as I'm still reading the judges verdict.

Fwiw up to now from what I've read the judge considered three grounds of challenge by the complainant (Good Law Project) namely

1 - The government had no grounds to award a contract in the first place - the judge rejected this.

2 - If allowed then the length of contract (six months) was too long - the judge rejected this also.

3 - If allowed the contract could appear to have bias - this is the bit the judge granted.

I still reading up how she construed that.

The judgement is 43 pages long, I'm only up to page 17 so far.


And fwiw I'm not conceited enough to claim a judge to be wrong - but as far as I understand the government does have a right to appeal against her decision.

I'm still reading but thought it worthwhile to state the following that the judge has said in her findings -

Point 136 on page 34 -

"There is no suggestion of actual bias in this case. The allegation is that the circumstances in which the contract was awarded to Public First gave rise to apparent bias".

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zf_3NXeMNd_c0yqF301e-oBt81ZuiA6T/view

No smoking gun in other words!

The judge didn't rule that it was unlawful because failing to consider any other suppliers "looked like" nepotism. It was ruled unlawful because they broke their own procurement rules.

Bottom line? It was unlawful.

Ok, it is now getting very complicated to follow and is very specific to this case but we need to start here and understand how the judge line of reasoning flows -

Point 165 - p39 "Mr Cummings has expressly denied that the appointment of Public First was tainted by bias on his part... she then quotes what he said in court.

Point 166 "That evidence has not been challenged.  It is emphasised that the court is not concerned with any evidence of actual bias. But, as explained above, the absence of actual bias is not in its self a defence to the allegation of apparent bias".

So she is saying her judgement is not based on any factual evidence provided by GLP about sleaze or corruption but how it may look to others.

Looking like the the contract was awarded on apparent bias is a Common Law matter not a Criminal Law one where a burden of prove is required. The point of law argued by the complainant is that it could 'look' that bias in the award has been made and the law requires steps should normally be made to show that it hasn't.  The point of law being that the contract should have been submitted to a more open tender process to allay any concerns about bias (cronyism).

But even that in itself isn't directly sufficient under the circumstances in this case and it basically boils down to basically two things here.

The first being - is there anyone involved in the process of awarding the contract and the company is was awarded too (Public First) known to each other - ie Cummings who was physically linked to both those civil servants who awarded the contract and friendship with the directors of Public First.

The second bit and the point the decision revolves upon is that the governments case was that they didn't have the time to contact other potential contractors to establish they didn't have the knowledge or capacity to take on the contract which Public First had.

The judge noted that the circumstances leading up to Public First award of the contract was that they were actually working for the government at the time but on a different matter.  The sudden arrival of Covid to this country resulted in Cummings wanting to see urgently what the governments message to the public on coronavirus was being perceived by using market research on focus groups.  It just so happened Public First were holding focus groups at the time but on different matters.

The key to the judges finding was that Public First was asked to change what they were doing and were given a 'brief' on what was needed.

This briefing was able to be achieved within a short time (maybe even hours if I followed the case correctly).

The judge ruled (and fwiw I can find no fault in her reasoning - not that I count anyway!) that if Public First could be briefed in just a few hours to establish that they had the expertise and resources to do the task, then other companies could have been asked too.

Let me however make clear that this would not needed to be the case if there wasn't a physical link between the civil servants awarding the contract and the company - ie Dominic Cummings.

Also note that the 'testing of the market' could be based on just a few hours - ie the briefing - this is not the same as putting the contracts out to tender which the judge noted would have taken several weeks  and which she had already thrown out the claimants for.


In other words no actual bias (sleaze) was found (or evidence of which even produced in court by the complainant) and with Cummings being linked to both the decision making process and the company awarded the contract and with the ability to test the market for other companies able to do similar work (within a timescale of just a few hours owing to the need for immediate action) then apparent bias may be seen to have occurred - although the judge noted non actually happened.

Fwiw I don't believe this judgement will effect the judicial review on the PPE 'crony' allegations simply because of the difference in timescales required in terms of a few hours in this instant to what would be required for PPE procurement purposes.

Anyway we will find out soon enough.

wanderlust wrote:The judge didn't rule that it was unlawful because failing to consider any other suppliers "looked like" nepotism. It was ruled unlawful because they broke their own procurement rules.

Bottom line? It was unlawful.

No not exactly, as I've explained above.

The finding could not even have happened if there wasn't a direct link to both party's - ie Cummings working in the Cabinet Office at the time whilst also being friends with the directors of Public First.  If he was distant to the awarding of the contract there would be no case to answer - because he was it gave rise to 'apparent' bias

It was ruled unlawful because the civil servants made a mistake by not taking into account of Cummings proximity to both sides.

At the time their actions seemed completely reasonable but in retrospect and with all the following sleaze allegations nobody took the decision to do a 'belt and braces job' to contact the other companies to see if they could do the work required - which now looks that they should have done but I imagine it wasn't necessarily so obvious at the time.

Indeed the actions were taken immediately whilst Public First were already in situ albeit planning a different focus group - it seemed both obvious and convenient to see if they could change their plans to undertake this one instead - which they did.  On the face of things going on at the time (and working under emergency legislation which the judges had already ruled lawful) it would have seemed natural to continue with the company that already had started to do the work?  And it must be pointed out that the judge didn't have any concern about Public First being asked to do the initial focus groups - just that once Public First had started doing them, the civil servants at that point should have rung around the other agencies to see if they were in a position, and capable of, doing them too.

That was the point they acted 'unlawfully' although it certainly doesn't appear it was done in anyway intentionally or to facilitate 'nepotism' or sleaze.

Looking at the law in black and white, which judicial reviews are all about, the civil servants omitted to do this 'ring around' and thus unwittingly gave the appearance that their could nave been perceived to be bias in the contract award.

That in a nutshell is what the judge's decision is based on - and viewing it in black and white she is absolutely correct.

The judicial review looks at how the law was applied and in this case for a number of reasons unique to it - it wasn't.

So yes, bottom line it was unlawful.

The government however can still appeal the finding although I can't see on what grounds.

I thought this might be fun for people to mull over, the following is a series of tweet from Cummings following the judges ruling today -

A couple of definitions before you start reading them -

Potemkin

Having a false or deceptive appearance, especially one presented for the purpose of propaganda.

SW1 - The government.

73/ I.e if I’d said as the Cabinet Office imploded around me, let’s spend days writing a RAG-rated scorecard for ‘objective criteria’ to guard vs bad PR, then a/ more dead, but b/ it wd have been ‘lawful’. Court is saying: I/officials shd have focused on (b)

— Dominic Cummings (@Dominic2306) June 9, 2021

75/ Court is telling SW1: even in a crisis like a once-a-century pandemic, your real focus shd ALWAYS be the paper trail. This is already a hugely destructive problem & today’s judgment will make it even worse. If covid doesn't justify focus on outcome>process, nothing will

— Dominic Cummings (@Dominic2306) June 9, 2021

77/ When it became clear DHSC/PHE/CABOFF weren't gathering vital data, I acted urgently. This data immediately helped key decisions & saved lives. But *our JR process values paper trails over effective action* & this incentivises officials + is very destructive as I wrote 2014 pic.twitter.com/fYaAAStnpk

— Dominic Cummings (@Dominic2306) June 9, 2021

Fwiw he is right morally BUT as I often tell people we aren't governed by morals we governed by the law - and whether we like the outcome or not - the judge scrutinised the civil servants actions compared them to what they were legally required to do under the existing law and found them lacking - worldwide pandemic happening at the time or not!

I don't know if Maugham had planned to be so successful at throwing shit at the government (and making it stick as he has) flowing from the governments actions they took in dealing with the urgency of the pandemic but he's spectacularly has been.

I'm not sure his point scoring (which effectively is all it is) is beneficial to anyone but himself as the consequence may end up being huge loss of faith by the populous in how the country is governed and run.

Look at America for instance and how the people stormed the Capitol (the equivalent of our Parliament) - if you can't trust authority then what alternative is there other than anarchy?

I still await any smoking guns - and in case no one has noticed, the police have yet to start a single investigation based on any of Maugham's multiple allegations of sleaze and corruption.

I wonder why...

...complete lack of any proof perhaps...?

All through this pantomime you have insisted that because the government hadn't been legally proven to be doing anything underhand or unlawful in the awarding of these contracts, that everything was above board and rumours of Tory nepotism/cronyism were completely unfounded.
Well a court of law today ruled that in this particular case the awarding of the contract to Cumming's mates was unlawful.
Doesn't matter how many 12 page essays you write or how you try to dress things up with fancy legalese language, the awarding of the contract was unlawful.
With your usual complete lack of self awareness, you're always having a go at certain other posters on here accusing them of being desperate not to be proved wrong.
Why can't you just back down for once and admit you were wrong in this instance?
It's no big deal and you would get a lot more respect on here if you did.
By the way, that last question was a rhetorical one, please don't answer it.

Sluffy wrote:

No not exactly, as I've explained above.

The finding could not even have happened if there wasn't a direct link to both party's - ie Cummings working in the Cabinet Office at the time whilst also being friends with the directors of Public First.  If he was distant to the awarding of the contract there would be no case to answer - because he was it gave rise to 'apparent' bias

It was ruled unlawful because the civil servants made a mistake by not taking into account of Cummings proximity to both sides.

At the time their actions seemed completely reasonable but in retrospect and with all the following sleaze allegations nobody took the decision to do a 'belt and braces job' to contact the other companies to see if they could do the work required - which now looks that they should have done but I imagine it wasn't necessarily so obvious at the time.

Indeed the actions were taken immediately whilst Public First were already in situ albeit planning a different focus group - it seemed both obvious and convenient to see if they could change their plans to undertake this one instead - which they did.  On the face of things going on at the time (and working under emergency legislation which the judges had already ruled lawful) it would have seemed natural to continue with the company that already had started to do the work?  And it must be pointed out that the judge didn't have any concern about Public First being asked to do the initial focus groups - just that once Public First had started doing them, the civil servants at that point should have rung around the other agencies to see if they were in a position, and capable of, doing them too.

That was the point they acted 'unlawfully' although it certainly doesn't appear it was done in anyway intentionally or to facilitate 'nepotism' or sleaze.

Looking at the law in black and white, which judicial reviews are all about, the civil servants omitted to do this 'ring around' and thus unwittingly gave the appearance that their could nave been perceived to be bias in the contract award.

That in a nutshell is what the judge's decision is based on - and viewing it in black and white she is absolutely correct.

The judicial review looks at how the law was applied and in this case for a number of reasons unique to it - it wasn't.

So yes, bottom line it was unlawful.

The government however can still appeal the finding although I can't see on what grounds.

So given that the judged ruled that it was unlawful, how did they break the law and which law was broken?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

No not exactly, as I've explained above.

The finding could not even have happened if there wasn't a direct link to both party's - ie Cummings working in the Cabinet Office at the time whilst also being friends with the directors of Public First.  If he was distant to the awarding of the contract there would be no case to answer - because he was it gave rise to 'apparent' bias

It was ruled unlawful because the civil servants made a mistake by not taking into account of Cummings proximity to both sides.

At the time their actions seemed completely reasonable but in retrospect and with all the following sleaze allegations nobody took the decision to do a 'belt and braces job' to contact the other companies to see if they could do the work required - which now looks that they should have done but I imagine it wasn't necessarily so obvious at the time.

Indeed the actions were taken immediately whilst Public First were already in situ albeit planning a different focus group - it seemed both obvious and convenient to see if they could change their plans to undertake this one instead - which they did.  On the face of things going on at the time (and working under emergency legislation which the judges had already ruled lawful) it would have seemed natural to continue with the company that already had started to do the work?  And it must be pointed out that the judge didn't have any concern about Public First being asked to do the initial focus groups - just that once Public First had started doing them, the civil servants at that point should have rung around the other agencies to see if they were in a position, and capable of, doing them too.

That was the point they acted 'unlawfully' although it certainly doesn't appear it was done in anyway intentionally or to facilitate 'nepotism' or sleaze.

Looking at the law in black and white, which judicial reviews are all about, the civil servants omitted to do this 'ring around' and thus unwittingly gave the appearance that their could nave been perceived to be bias in the contract award.

That in a nutshell is what the judge's decision is based on - and viewing it in black and white she is absolutely correct.

The judicial review looks at how the law was applied and in this case for a number of reasons unique to it - it wasn't.

So yes, bottom line it was unlawful.

The government however can still appeal the finding although I can't see on what grounds.

So given that the judged ruled that it was unlawful, how did they break the law and which law was broken?

???

What are you on about?

The judges ruling was a Common Law one, not one based on statute.

That's the very reason why the Good Law Project nor anybody else hasn't taken the government to court but rather gone for Judicial Reviews!

The reason being they have no proof of what they allege.

Why do you think their claim which was upheld by the judge was for apparent bias and not actual bias?

apparent
adjective

Seeming real or true, but not necessarily so.

actual
adjective

Existing in fact; real.

They'd be straight down to the Criminal Court if they really had a shred of evidence wouldn't you think...?

I mean with the crowdfunding it would cost them nothing whichever court they went too so why faff about seeking a judges opinion on what 'might' have happened when they could get people put in jail for what 'did' happen?

Could it be they have no actual proof of anything...?

Just innuendo.