Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Hip Priest wrote: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.

I could never vote for a leader or party which is willing to break the law, attempt to prorogue parliament, commit and excuse flagrant breaches of its own rules, risk peace in N.I., deceive the public with untruths or half-lies, deny clear examples of wrong-doing and incompetence, and present a glib hard-heartedness towards the poor and weak here and abroad.

But then, we knew all about Boris being morally bankrupt long before he was ever elected to the highest office....dating back to the time when he was interviewed by Eddie Maire on the BBC....and those that support him are similarly bereft or sadly lacking in awareness, kindness or concern for others. 
It's Carrie I'm going to feel sorry for!

Hip Priest wrote: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.

I think you will find I have!

A number of times...

Sluffy wrote:And fwiw I'm not conceited enough to claim a judge to be wrong....

The judge ruled (and fwiw I can find no fault in her reasoning - not that I count anyway!)....

Fwiw he [Cummings]is right morally BUT as I often tell people we aren't governed by morals we are 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!....

But to put the decision in to some perspective for you as you clearly see the headline but don't understand the detail, think of this decision as a VAR review in football, where a goal is struck off because of some utterly trivial matter.

Technically the decision is correct but we all know the goal really should have counted and would have done without VAR's triviality.

So as the FA are looking into improving how VAR will work in the future the government is already looking into how people are using Judicial Reviews for their own ends rather than what they actually exist for and to bring to an end the misuse of then.

Earlier in this thread I was called an idiot multiple times for suggesting an MP could have any influence over the awarding of a contract.

But the Court found that Gove’s:

“failure to consider any other research agency… would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the decision maker was biased” (paragraph 168).

I’ll wait for your admission of fault Sluffy… 

okocha wrote:
I could never vote for a leader or party which is willing to break the law, attempt to prorogue parliament, commit and excuse flagrant breaches of its own rules, risk peace in N.I., deceive the public with untruths or half-lies, deny clear examples of wrong-doing and incompetence, and present a glib hard-heartedness towards the poor and weak here and abroad.

But then, we knew all about Boris being morally bankrupt long before he was ever elected to the highest office....dating back to the time when he was interviewed by Eddie Maire on the BBC....and those that support him are similarly bereft or sadly lacking in awareness, kindness or concern for others. 
It's Carrie I'm going to feel sorry for!

And so it goes on:- 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-57432760

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Earlier in this thread I was called an idiot multiple times for suggesting an MP could have any influence over the awarding of a contract.

But the Court found that Gove’s:

“failure to consider any other research agency… would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the decision maker was biased” (paragraph 168).

I’ll wait for your admission of fault Sluffy… 

The Judge stated -

"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".

(Point 136 on page 34)

Nothing untoward or illegal was found.

The ruling was that the civil servants in the mist of the first wave of the pandemic omitted to do in effect a box ticking exercise.

Gove as an individual or MP had no say the the awarding of the contract - fact.

As head of the Department he is held accountable for the civil servants in it - that is why 'he' is held to be guilty - not because he as an individual is guilty.

I called you what I did on this thread because you DID NOT KNOW that it is civil servants that award contracts NOT MP's.

The judge was required to examine the civil servants actions and compare them to what Public Law required them to do.  The only thing in the whole case she found for the claimant (and they had filed numerous issues) was a failure to 'ring around' a few agencies to see if they could do some 'specialised' work that they already had Public First working on (and which at that time even the judge agreed they were doing so legally!).

It was a simple error that was made - no more no less - and to put it into context it was made some time following the first weeks of the pandemic and initial lockdown!

Gove DIDN'T influence the contract, there was/is no cronyism to be found in the awarding of the contract - so I still stand by what I've said.

Gove has got the his knuckles rapt for his civil servants error of omission not for any influencing of contracts you seem to be alleging he has done.

I note however that your mate Maugham is certainly not presenting the facts of the matter as they actually are though - he's loving it!!!

Fwiw GLP sought from the judge that she rule the Public First contract unlawful - she rejected this and threw that claim out.

They sought to quash the contract (in other words void it and make it illegal) again she rejected this and threw it out.

Do you think she would have done those things if she had grounds to believe the contract was awarded illegally to Gove's crony's???

The only part of the judgement that was won was that in the mist of a global pandemic someone forgot to say, you know how we've been using Public First in March and April during the first lockdown and they've done all this urgent work for us, shouldn't we now phone around a couple more agency's to see how they are fixed to do some for a change?

The obvious thinking would have been stick with what we have if we have been happy with them - what's the point in bringing someone new in now?

For the sake if a paper trail and Potemkin thinking (as Cummings phrases it) to save us from a Judicial Review, that is what they SHOULD have done.

They didn't and that is simply why GLP won the case 'because it might look a bit dodgy' - and not that it was dodgy at all.

No smoking gun.
Gove won't resign.
The civil servants won't be sacked.
The contract won't be voided.
No one will make a claim on the government.
There will be no police case...

...the only effect of the case is GLC/Maugham embarrassing the government and the ongoing eroding public confidence in the state.

And that is exactly the goal the Maugham wanted.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Earlier in this thread I was called an idiot multiple times for suggesting an MP could have any influence over the awarding of a contract.

But the Court found that Gove’s:

“failure to consider any other research agency… would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the decision maker was biased” (paragraph 168).

I’ll wait for your admission of fault Sluffy… 

I'm afraid you're going to be waiting a long time TROY. He doesn't do admissions of fault.
But you have to admit it's great fun watching him squirm.

Hip Priest wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Earlier in this thread I was called an idiot multiple times for suggesting an MP could have any influence over the awarding of a contract.

But the Court found that Gove’s:

“failure to consider any other research agency… would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the decision maker was biased” (paragraph 168).

I’ll wait for your admission of fault Sluffy… 

I'm afraid you're going to be waiting a long time TROY. He doesn't do admissions of fault.
But you have to admit it's great fun watching him squirm.

If you say so.

It amuses me how you two are so prejudicial in your political views and so desperate to see me wrong that you can't see the woods for the trees.

You said something the other day about using your brains and your common sense, so use them and answer me this, if there is widespread cronyism as you clearly believe there to be (and thousands of other too) then why aren't the matters being put before a criminal court rather than one dealing simply with points of procedure?

The judicial review found in effect that one 'i' wasn't 'dotted' or one 't' crossed correctly - by a civil servant - that's all.

I'll squirm when people have been found guilty of cronyism and corruption - and not a meaningless pyrrhic victory on a point of law as you two are desperately clinging to.

Thought this was interesting.

Posted by Dawn Butler presumably because she sees the clip in someway validating her thoughts on Hancock and cronyism?

I don't see anything untoward in what Hancock replied to her questions including a flat out denial that he was ever involved in PPE procurement contacts.

Interestingly he let it be known that Rachel Reeves, Labours Shadow Chancellor used the High Priority Lane in just the same way as he had.

Anyway listen for yourselves.

(It would help if you tried to listen to what he said with an open mind and not the one where you've already pre-judged him of being guilty).

What exactly was Matt Hancock's role with procurement contracts?

The Department of Health is one of few depts that hasn't estimated the risk of fraud. Why is that?

If we're going to learn the lessons from the pandemic, particularly on public procurement, then we need answers pic.twitter.com/JpCAiFoZZh

— Dawn Butler MP (@DawnButlerBrent) June 10, 2021

Sluffy wrote:

If you say so.

It amuses me how you two are so prejudicial in your political views and so desperate to see me wrong that you can't see the woods for the trees.

You said something the other day about using your brains and your common sense, so use them and answer me this, if there is widespread cronyism as you clearly believe there to be (and thousands of other too) then why aren't the matters being put before a criminal court rather than one dealing simply with points of procedure?

The judicial review found in effect that one 'i' wasn't 'dotted' or one 't' crossed correctly - by a civil servant - that's all.

I'll squirm when people have been found guilty of cronyism and corruption - and not a meaningless pyrrhic victory on a point of law as you two are desperately clinging to.

You claimed that Maugham is just a nutcase with a grudge, wasting public money and the governments time. 

You even had the audacity to liken anyone who entertained his claims to a QAnon conspiracy theorist - before you knew anything about the facts.

So show some contrition and admit you were wrong. It’s only the internet so why do you even care?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

If you say so.

It amuses me how you two are so prejudicial in your political views and so desperate to see me wrong that you can't see the woods for the trees.

You said something the other day about using your brains and your common sense, so use them and answer me this, if there is widespread cronyism as you clearly believe there to be (and thousands of other too) then why aren't the matters being put before a criminal court rather than one dealing simply with points of procedure?

The judicial review found in effect that one 'i' wasn't 'dotted' or one 't' crossed correctly - by a civil servant - that's all.

I'll squirm when people have been found guilty of cronyism and corruption - and not a meaningless pyrrhic victory on a point of law as you two are desperately clinging to.

You claimed that Maugham is just a nutcase with a grudge, wasting public money and the governments time. 

You even had the audacity to liken anyone who entertained his claims to a QAnon conspiracy theorist - before you knew anything about the facts.

So show some contrition and admit you were wrong. It’s only the internet so why do you even care?

The fact that the government is looking at how Judicial Reviews are being used suggest that they too think Maugham is a nutcase with a grudge against them and certainly wasting both public money in defending themselves in court and the cost in doing so.

I'll repeat yet again that Maugham has produce NO facts to prove his multiple claims about cronyism and corruption taking place and the police have NOT started a single investigation as to any crime even being committed.

The headlines might scream that Maugham has won two recent cases against the government but when you look deeper into them No corruption, sleaze or nepotism has been found, ALL his allegations of such put forward by his legal team have ALL been ruled out as INADMISSIBLE as HEARSAY evidence (or in other words unsubstantiated rumours!!!).

The cases he won included one where the government had previously admitted they had not managed to meet the 28 day deadline of publishing notification of contract awards and one where a 'ring around' of a few agencies was overlooked to be done.

Both of these failings by CIVIL SERVANTS in the mist of a worldwide pandemic!!!

If you recall I've said mistakes were have bounded to have happened because no one had ever dealt with such a thing before and things were having to be decided on the spot and not all of them looking back would have been the best decisions.

As for QAnon, sufficient people believed that to storm the Capitol.

I suggest that anyone believing Maugham doesn't have a grudge against the government and isn't working in the way he is to discredit it, may as well follow QAnon because that is far more credible!!!

Come back to me when ONE prosecution is made in respect of cronyism and corruption as up to now neither he, you nor anyone else has anything other than plenty of hot air and empty words and not a single shred of hard evidence.

I'll tell you what, I'll donate £100 to the charity of your choice if and when one MP or Tory party 'crony' is convicted of corruption in the awarding of any contract linked to the Covid crisis.

Care to put your money where your mouth is too?

I mean you will be backing on Maugham being able to PROVE what he's been saying is more than just innuendo...

Dose this tweet fill you with confidence he's got loads of proof in his pocket already...?

Got a tip off you think we should know about? We've set up a secure drop to enable you to share information with us. Details of how to use it here: https://t.co/XOwnLuTOKg

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) June 11, 2021

T.R.O.Y. wrote:
Once again, this isn't about a crime being committed - it's a question of competence.

If a delivery contract is being decided based on personal relationships questions need to be asked. 

Not sure what your issue is with that.

That’s post 23 on this thread, we’re on 350 now and you still haven’t understood. Maybe you’re the thick one?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:
Once again, this isn't about a crime being committed - it's a question of competence.

If a delivery contract is being decided based on personal relationships questions need to be asked. 

Not sure what your issue is with that.

That’s post 23 on this thread, we’re on 350 now and you still haven’t understood. Maybe you’re the thick one?

Maybe I am because I've yet to see where a contract award has been ACTUALLY awarded on personal relationships.

Perhaps you could point 'thick' old me to where one has?

What evidence are you expecting to see? Do you think Public First just came up top on Google and that’s why they were chosen?

Who (apart from you) is even denying that they won this contract for any reason other than Cummings recommended them?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:What evidence are you expecting to see? Do you think Public First just came up top on Google and that’s why they were chosen?

Who (apart from you) is even denying that they won this contract for any reason other than Cummings recommended them?

Don't you even realise that Public First were already working for the government at the time???

Are the facts spoiling your prejudice perhaps?

The Judicial Review found the contract was LEGAL - the judge threw out the claimants claim that it wasn't!!!!

She then stated the work they carried out as requested by the government was LEGAL too even though it had not been out to others to tender for - she again threw out the claimants attempt to have it made VOID.

Those are the facts FROM the judge who also went on to rule that because the civil servants omitted to do a 'ring around' after the the first wave of the pandemic had swept through that 'technically' they breached the law and gave reasonable cause to 'link' Cummings (who was working in the Cabinet Office at the time) to Public First (who he personally knew the Directors of) and the awarding of the contract to them - in fact the very 'impression' you have posted that I'm replying to.

She stated that she found NO ACTUAL case that it was, just that it may APPEAR to some that way.

Hardly a convincing burden of proof of any cronyism or corruption is it really?

Do you think the police will be starting an investigation into it now?

I certainly don't.

And it doesn't matter a jot what I think, it's the judges ruling and any following police investigations that matters.

Why are you talking about corruption again?

Go back to page 1 of this thread, see if you can figure out what the issue is.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Why are you talking about corruption again?

Go back to page 1 of this thread, see if you can figure out what the issue is.

Well the first post on the thread is all about alleged corruption!!!

I take it you didn't bother to read it before you posted what you have...

Anyway...

There as been absolutely NO PROOF of any contract awarded based on any personal relationship.

Maybe you need to stop arguing based on allegations and innuendo (and your personal prejudices) and come back when facts of such have been proven.

Until then it is all just hearsay.

The governments argument was that nobody else could do the job. That was rejected by the court.

The truth was actually that nobody else was even considered.

So in your head Sluffy, why do you think that was?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The governments argument was that nobody else could do the job. That was rejected by the court.

The truth was actually that nobody else was even considered.

So in your head Sluffy, why do you think that was?

No your logic and interpretation of the facts are wrong.

The governments argument was that nobody else could do the job - the judge didn't say that was wrong - in fact she couldn't - so she didn't find for that at all!!!

She couldn't because the question as to any other company being able to do it was never asked.

For all we know - including the judge - that might actually have been the case.

The fact the they were not asked to establish that fact was the point she made in determining her judgement.

If the question had been asked and indeed found to be the case as the government had stated then the claimant would have lost the whole judicial review in its entirety.

That's how fine the margin of victory for them was!

Maybe the other companies might have said they could have done it BUT we will never know now, the moment has gone.

Her award is on APPARENT bias in the awarding of the contract and NOT ACTUAL bias - of which non was found.

Indeed Cummings statement that he "would not have brought in Public First because they were his friends" was NEVER CHALLENGED by the claimant!

So in your head TROY try to use your brain more and your prejudices less.

I’ll let Cummings answer for you as you ignore the question - ‘The fact that I knew the key Public First people well was a bonus, not a problem,”

Doesn’t sound like somebody who was pushing for Public First to be chosen independent of his own opinion on them does it?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’ll let Cummings answer for you as you ignore the question - ‘The fact that I knew the key Public First people well was a bonus, not a problem,”

Doesn’t sound like somebody who was pushing for Public First to be chosen independent of his own opinion on them does it?

Let me give you the full quote as you've decided to edit it to fit your agenda...

I wonder why...

Anyway...

"Obviously I did not request Public First because they were my friends.  I would never do such a thing... This was an emergency, so in my opinion, the award of the contract without delay was entirely justified.  I wanted Public First to be used to provide the necessary focus group services for the reasons set out above.  The fact that I knew the key Public First people well was a bonus, not a problem,as in such a high pressure environment trust is very important, as well as technical competence.”

Seems you missed a whole load and just to change the context of what he actually said and why...!!!

And for about the fourteenth time now the Judicial Review found the contract was LEGAL - the judge threw out the claimants claim that it wasn't!!!!

She then stated the work they carried out by Public First as requested by the government was LEGAL too even though it had not been out to others to tender for - she again threw out the claimants attempt to have it made VOID.

I'll make it as simple as I can for you - the judge found NOTHING WRONG IN THE AWARDING OF THE CONTRACT, what she did find wrong was that no one covered their backs by asking any other agencies if they had the skill, expertise and resources to do so in the urgent time frame required.

And for all we know they may even not have!

This and only this was why she found on just this single point brought by the claimant for - she threw out everything else!!!