Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

boltonbonce wrote:Just add an L.

wanderlust wrote:
Didol? Only a drug addict would name their kid after a synthetic opiate.

Sluffy wrote:

1 - Your argument seems to be based on the government making poor decisions does it not?  If so I refer you to the impartial Head of the Civil Service at the time where he states that  he is adamant that the government coped fairly well during a once in a generation crisis.

Given a choice between your 'opinion' of what 'might' have happened and his 'knowledge' of what 'did', then I obviously believe him to actually know what actually happened!

You seem to be in denial about this presumably because it doesn't fit with your desired politically biased narrative?

2 - Some random points raised by Labour several months ago and occasional newspaper reporting of a campaign on social media from a lawyer with a massive axe to grind with this government does not constitute that this is all being continually driven from social media - particularly at this moment in time when Labour and the more reputable newspapers are well aware of a PAC inquiry scheduled for next month.

3 - Yes a substantial part of my professional qualification involved being taught contract law - and your flippant remark of "but what's to know?" clearly demonstrates your vast ignorance on the subject.

If you don't understand even the basics about contract law - and you clearly don't - then its pointless even discussing it any further with you as you clearly don't know what you are saying on the subject and how ridiculous some of the things you have said are.

Not your finest moment on Nut's I'm afraid.

4 - If you say so!

In the real world however the PAC inquiry was born out of the National Audit Office, Overview of the UK government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic
that was published on the 21st May, 2020

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/summary-of-uk-governments-response-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/

The National Audit Office started this process last month by reporting this -

In our previous report, Overview of the UK government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we signalled our intention to report on how government has managed risks created by its response to the crisis. This report will set out the scale of COVID-19-related procurement, how procurement rules have changed and how the government is managing the risks associated with these changes.

https://www.nao.org.uk/work-in-progress/government-procurement-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

This just goes to prove that the social media campaign has never had any bearing or relevance on the inquiry of the many billions of pounds spent on Government procurement during the pandemic and fwiw is they are undertaking exactly what I said they would be doing when you and others were in hysterics and the beginning of the pandemic and screaming that the government wasn't being held to account.

Amazingly I do actually know what I'm talking about occasionally although it does feel a massive waste of my breath at the time.

Onwards and upwards though.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:1. Again, you take a general comment and try and apply it to a specific point. You've no idea if Sedwill was referencing government procurement.

2. Shadow Cabinet Office minister Rachel Reeves, who analysed the contracts, told the Mirror: “It is outrageous that so much public money is being siphoned to Tory friends and donors. We need to know who agreed these contracts, when and why.” You clearly didn't read Xmiles post.

3. The products are faulty so need to be replaced or refunded is as far as I've gone on contract law. If that's inaccurate please do explain otherwise ill just discard that as more posturing.

4. Don't know what point you're trying to make, please try again.

boltonbonce wrote:Just add an L.

xmiles wrote:It isn't just the Daily Mirror that has covered this. The Times [ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-backers-net-180m-ppe-deals-xwd5kmnqr ], the Independent [ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-ppe-contracts-conservative-labour-covid-a9622131.html ], Metro [ https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/28/taking-legal-action-against-the-government-over-covid-19-contracts-13492266 /] and the BBC [ https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-53361167 ] amongst others have all carried this story.

Sluffy wrote:Funny how no other other national picked up the story and ran with it that day!

boltonbonce wrote:Just add an L.

Sluffy wrote:I couldn't care less if people fall out with me on an internet forum, do you real think that would bother me???

Anyone can have an opinion - doesn't mean they are right though does it.

Society is based ultimately on a framework of laws which we act in accordance with, it would appear no laws have been broken in the awarding of the contracts under emergency powers - even the Daily Mirror has gone to pains to say as much in it's article which lets be frank, is exactly the same story that has been rehashed for the umpteenth time since March.

It is simply one mans crusade about a government he doesn't like - in football terms a fan who wants to see the manager sacked.

And fwiw I do know a little bit more about some things than you or others from time to time because I've been professionally trained in them and you haven't.

If you want to believe a twitter nutjob who has a personal dislike and on a mission against the government, initially over Brexit and now this, then you believe him.  I on the other hand know how these things actually work, told you from the very beginning how things really are and why but you decided that I clearly didn't know my arse from my elbow and gone all in on backing Maugham (because he his saying what you want to hear which fits with your political and social beliefs).

Christ for the last six months you've gone on about the procedure of the awarding of contracts and you now reveal your complete ignorance on contract law!!!

Laughable really!

Poorly educated on the subject - clearly you are... eager to believe something that fits in with your preconceived agenda - certainly is... so yes I would class you as poorly educated and gullible on this matter and completely enraptured by a twitter activist with a personal agenda that you want to believe to be true.

And to put the cherry on the top of all this you are even wanting to be in denial that the Head of the Civil Service at the time somehow turned a blind eye to a high profile alleged billion pound fiddle during his watch!!!

Yeah right.

Even QAnon is more believable than that!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I couldn't care less if people fall out with me on an internet forum, do you real think that would bother me???

Anyone can have an opinion - doesn't mean they are right though does it.

Society is based ultimately on a framework of laws which we act in accordance with, it would appear no laws have been broken in the awarding of the contracts under emergency powers - even the Daily Mirror has gone to pains to say as much in it's article which lets be frank, is exactly the same story that has been rehashed for the umpteenth time since March.

It is simply one mans crusade about a government he doesn't like - in football terms a fan who wants to see the manager sacked.

And fwiw I do know a little bit more about some things than you or others from time to time because I've been professionally trained in them and you haven't.

If you want to believe a twitter nutjob who has a personal dislike and on a mission against the government, initially over Brexit and now this, then you believe him.  I on the other hand know how these things actually work, told you from the very beginning how things really are and why but you decided that I clearly didn't know my arse from my elbow and gone all in on backing Maugham (because he his saying what you want to hear which fits with your political and social beliefs).

Christ for the last six months you've gone on about the procedure of the awarding of contracts and you now reveal your complete ignorance on contract law!!!

Laughable really!

Poorly educated on the subject - clearly you are... eager to believe something that fits in with your preconceived agenda - certainly is... so yes I would class you as poorly educated and gullible on this matter and completely enraptured by a twitter activist with a personal agenda that you want to believe to be true.

And to put the cherry on the top of all this you are even wanting to be in denial that the Head of the Civil Service at the time somehow turned a blind eye to a high profile alleged billion pound fiddle during his watch!!!

Yeah right.

Even QAnon is more believable than that!

Finding it a bit frustrating that you've chosen to pretend I've said things on Sedwill and this being a fiddle of some sort - simply not true.

You say I've got a complete ignorance on contract law, no argument from me, does this mean what I've said (three times now) isn't true? 

'The products are faulty so need to be replaced or refunded is as far as I've gone on contract law. If that's inaccurate please do explain otherwise i'll just discard that as more posturing.'

Yet to read you disprove that, so either stop making me out to be an idiot or tell me where im going wrong there.

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.


All that's being asked is whether or not there has been, the sheer number of examples suggest there has. Yet to read anything from you that disputes that.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Owen Paterson, MP for North Shropshire, earns £100k a year as an adviser to little known health firm Randox - they’ve won half a billion pounds in uncontested contracts to supply COVID testing kits. The latest contract is worth £347 million and was won in spite of them having to recall 750,000 testing kits earlier in the year when spot checks revealed some of their kits weren’t even sterile.

Sluffy wrote:

Oh yes, I forgotten the cronyism angle haven't I

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Look, i've made my point and you're just going in circles now. If you can't debate them without the insults that's your problem but for all your moaning about others toeing the line i'm surprised to see you at it.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:To be honest with you Sluffy, I thought you had a rough time of it the other week being called a wanker and a cunt left right and centre. But this sort of attitude from you speaks volumes as to why you get the abuse you do.

You are no better than anybody else, and you certainly don’t have any inside information that would allow you to know these things with such certainty. And even if you did there’s no place to dismiss other people as gullible and poorly educated.

Grow up and learn how to have a conversation with people who don’t always share your view.

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Oh yes, I forgotten the cronyism angle haven't I

Yes apparently you have.

If the appointment of Kate Bingham (married to a Tory minister who was at Eton with Boris, went to school with Boris' sister and was at Oxford with Boris but has no knowledge of vaccines) and Dido Harding (married to Tory MP and at Oxford with Cameron but no health background) isn't blatant cronyism what is it?