Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Phenomenal bit of backtracking from Rees Mogg as the government do another u-turn and Paterson falls on his sword.

And Boris has finally admitted his holiday was paid for by the Goldsmiths.

Slowly but surely the truth is coming out.

....but the stench will linger for a while longer. The damage done to those MPs who voted with Boris will surely last. It will be interesting to see what will happen in the by-election created by Owen's resignation. 
The straight face that JRM managed to maintain throughout his cringeworthy speech in the HoC was remarkable for a human being....

okocha wrote:....but the stench will linger for a while longer. The damage done to those MPs who voted with Boris will surely last. It will be interesting to see what will happen in the by-election created by Owen's resignation. 
The straight face that JRM managed to maintain throughout his cringeworthy speech in the HoC was remarkable for a human being....

Never liked Mogg. Sort of chap who gets out of the shower to pee.

Apparently, twenty odd of the Tories that voted against the Standards Committee recommendation have been referred to the committee themselves since 2019 and many of the investigations are still ongoing.

The things they are under investigation for include:
- not declaring renting out a £4.5 million home for £2000 a night on airBnB
- regularly offering tours of the HoC as raffle ticket prizes
- failing to register a £13,500 donation from the Jacksonville Jaguars that was given to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for American Football - I kid you not.

The record holder for most sleaze investigations since 2019 is BloJo himself.

Hancocks been out on the attack, claiming his pub landlord never had a covid contract, demanding that Annelies Dodds retracts her comment to the contrary.

Hancock pointed to published contracts with Alpha Laboratories to support his defence - a company with no connection to his pub landlord. Certain information was removed from the contracts before publishing including the name of the manufacturer who the job was sub contracted to (guess where this is going).

Unfortunately for Hancock the censored contracts have leaked out, and it turns out it was his pub landlord’s company who had been awarded the sub contract to do the manufacturing.

Pretty clear effort to deceive by hiding that information in the first place, wonder why he would do that.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Hancocks been out on the attack, claiming his pub landlord never had a covid contract, demanding that Annelies Dodds retracts her comment to the contrary.

Hancock pointed to published contracts with Alpha Laboratories to support his defence - a company with no connection to his pub landlord. Certain information was removed from the contracts before publishing including the name of the manufacturer who the job was sub contracted to (guess where this is going).

Unfortunately for Hancock the censored contracts have leaked out, and it turns out it was his pub landlord’s company who had been awarded the sub contract to do the manufacturing.

Pretty clear effort to deceive by hiding that information in the first place, wonder why he would do that.

Utter bollocks I'm afraid!

You really need to stop believing everything you read on social media.

The story was first published over EIGHT MONTHS AGO in the Guardian! -

"Hinpack is specified as the sole subcontractor in one £40m contract between DHSC and Alpha Laboratories".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/covid-test-kit-supplier-joked-matt-hancock-whatsapp-never-heard-of-him-alex-bourne?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

...hardly 'hidden' or breaking news then is it?

The way awarding contracts work in government goes something like this.

First an invite to put your company forward to tender for future contracts is issued in order to form an approved contractors list.

Before any company is put on the list they are vetted to establish that they are financially secure and capable of doing the work they claim.

When a contract is required an invite to tender for the work is made and any company tendering for the work can bid for it themselves or bid for it using company's from the approved suppliers list as their sub-contractor/s.

In fact a company can employ whoever they want as subbies BUT these sub-contractors would need to be first evaluated and approved before any contract is awarded.

(That's probably why first FWR and latterly Alpha Labs used Hinpack as they had already been evaluated and approved and on the suppliers list and time was of the essence due to the needs of the ongoing pandemic and associated emergency powers).

The evaluation and award of the contract is always done by public servants and NOT elected representatives such as MP's or councillors.

It would seem to me (from the Guardian article above) that the pub landlord contacted Hancock (who was his MP) offered his company (Hinpack) for work and Hancock correctly referred him to the DHSC website and the Civil Servants there did whatever they were required to do so under the Emergency Legislation which they were acting on at the time to satisfy themselves that it should be added to the approved list of potential suppliers.

(Note: being on the list doesn't equate that a company would ever be awarded a contract - that would depend on the evaluation of any bid for a contract either directly by them or being part of the evaluation of any company using them as a sub- contractor)

Hancock would not have put him on the list, indeed this is what he said...



...nor would any Civil Servant do so at Hancock (or anyone else's) behest without making damn sure this was recorded and their back was securely covered - in fact I would resign before ever doing so and make public why I resigned.

Once on the approved list an existing NHS supplier, VWR, used the landlords company as a sub-contractor, without it seemingly being an issue to anyone.

Some months latter another existing NHS supplier, Alpha Labs, did the same but this time for whatever reason it suddenly became an issue for the good folks at Good Law Project.

There is absolutely nothing in the story other than once again innuendo and spin and may I say, swallowed whole by people like you wanting to believe it is true and that there is rampant sleaze and corruption going on.

As always if there is any truth in the story it can only be achieved by a corrupt Civil Servant - as they are the ones who evaluate and award contracts.

I don't believe such as happened.

One key point to underline what I've said above that everyone should note is that the National Audit Office has looked into this contract and found absolutely nothing wrong with the awarding of it!!!

As for this...



...what it means is simply the government AGREES the use of Hinpack as the sub-contractor - it DOES NOT MEAN that the government is instructing Alpha Labs to use Hinpack - or else...!

It's all just anti-Tory hatred from you know who!

Hysterical you had to amend that post after what happened in parliament today Stuffy. 

See if you can spot Hancocks latest lie in todays statement - after he was called back to explain why he misled parliament (as per my post here - which you termed ‘utter bollcoks’). 

Honestly if you just held your hands up and admitted a mistake you’d get a lot further.

We all know that ain't going to happen Troy. He doesn't do backing down or being wrong. And all this while he's only half fit, sniping from the sidelines as he awaits a return, fully fit, to first team action. 
God help us all when he comes back full time.

Hip Priest wrote:We all know that ain't going to happen Troy. He doesn't do backing down or being wrong. And all this while he's only half fit, sniping from the sidelines as he awaits a return, fully fit, to first team action. 
God help us all when he comes back full time.

God help you, you poor unfortunate lambs. How do you ever get to sleep?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Hysterical you had to amend that post after what happened in parliament today Stuffy. 

See if you can spot Hancocks latest lie in todays statement - after he was called back to explain why he misled parliament (as per my post here - which you termed ‘utter bollcoks’). 

Honestly if you just held your hands up and admitted a mistake you’d get a lot further.

Hysterical that I updated a post that no one had yet responded to in light of further rabid and utterly unfounded bullshit claims?

I could have simply made a further post under my post to do that, or I could have waited for you to naively 'swallow' then point out these allegations on here, and replied to them then - but why bother, it was easier for me to update what was there and may I point out, I didn't change anything I'd stated previously but rather dealt with more of the hyperbole being said.

As for Hancock's latest 'lie', what are you claiming that to be?

I've seen his point of order response in Parliament and his interview by Peston and not heard anything that didn't ring true to me, maybe you'd like to point out what you believe to be untrue?

Seems that the BBC and national press don't believe there's anything in the story either, as far as I can see so far only the 'usual suspect' The Guardian (whose journalist Felicity Lawrence, first broke the story back in November 2020 and with the collaboration with Maugham has been trying to make something of it ever since) has made passing mention of it.

In fact his comments last night about his private life seems to be of more interest to the papers!

You'd think it would have been the lead story for all the media if a Minister (at the time) had been outed publicly in Parliament and been found to have been corrupt to the tune of £40m wouldn't you?

Well I would.

Do you believe there is a cover up by the national press and the establishment to protect him perhaps or do you think that maybe there is nothing in the story at all and you've been taken in, hook line and sinker, by Maugham, like all the other idiots who rather believe any old crap as long as it fits in with their hatred of the Tory government?

Instead of the usual deflections trying there are two questions you should ask yourself:

1. Why would Alpha Laboratories choose Hinpack as their sub contractor - a company with zero track record in this area.
2. Why would their name be redacted from contracts before publishing.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Instead of the usual deflections trying there are two questions you should ask yourself:

1. Why would Alpha Laboratories choose Hinpack as their sub contractor - a company with zero track record in this area.
2. Why would their name be redacted from contracts before publishing.

No deflections from me, just explanations as to how public sector procurement works rather than how the likes of Maughan and seemingly the Labour Party is portraying it to be - namely sleazy and corrupt.

Civil Servants evaluate and award contracts NOT MP's.

1- I've explained why in my post above and also when Alpha Labs sub-contracted Hinpack it had already satisfactorily fulfilled a previous contract with VWR prior to the Alpha contract so had both experience and a good track record in the field at that time.

2 - It's standard practice to redact private and commercial details from official documents put in to the public domain.

I knew about Hinpack being a subbie to Alpha Labs from the time I first read the article at the beginning of the year sometime, and I recall posting about it being a sub-contractor on here - almost certainly in reply to you on this thread!!!

How else do you think I knew about it???

I dare say if you bothered to look back over the thread you will find both my post and the Guardian article naming Hinpack as the subby to Alpha!

If we've discussed it months ago then how can it suddenly be breaking news now and some sort of a government cover up???

Might it be because Maughan has deliberately presented it that way for the dumb and gullible to swallow???

I do.

Funny you mention VWR, what a coincidence that such a close ‘buddy’ if Hancocks managed to swing that one with no prior experience. 

It’s standard practice to redact sensitive information from documents going into the public domain - yes, what makes Hinpack a sensitive piece of information is the question.

All the evidence we’ve seen over the past few weeks exposes your naivety - any apology coming? Nah.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Funny you mention VWR, what a coincidence that such a close ‘buddy’ if Hancocks managed to swing that one with no prior experience. 

It’s standard practice to redact sensitive information from documents going into the public domain - yes, what makes Hinpack a sensitive piece of information is the question.

All the evidence we’ve seen over the past few weeks exposes your naivety - any apology coming? Nah.

Your grasping at straws now.

The point you seem to continually (and conveniently) miss is that there is NO evidence but plenty of innuendo - that's all there is, that's all there has ever been!

I've told you how things work and why things happened, up to you if you believe me or not - clearly you don't.

Do you really believe that Parliament, the press and the police wouldn't look deeply into this if there was even a smidgen of truth in the allegations?

Do you think Labour wouldn't smell blood over this and refuse to let it go until Hancock was locked up?

Do you think I've just be 'lucky' for the last year and a half when I stated openly that no smoking guns will be found because and despite what Maughan wants you to believe, nothing corrupt or sleazy has actually happened - it's Civil Servants that evaluate and award contracts NOT MP's - can't you understand that???

I think you can but it suits your purpose not to.

I await any actual proof of wrong doing and people being arrested and tried for it.

I won't be holding my breath though.

You'd think with all these so called corrupt and sleazy dealings that have gone on that someone would have whistle-blown before now and hard factual evidence would have been found by now.

Does it not put doubts in to your mind that despite the eyes of the country being drawn to all this for the best part of two years that absolutely nothing has been found to take to the police?

It certainly would have me questioning if I was on the wrong horse for all that time!

In my experience, civil servants do what the elected members tell them to do and that applies all the way up from local councils to government departments. Often decisions are delegated from committees on which the civil servants merely act as a secretariat - and I've been in enough "smoke-filled rooms" to know that the committees themselves merely act as a show of so-called democracy to rubber stamp decisions that have already been made before the meetings - despite the fact that the discussions are had to ensure there is a record of debate.

Nice to see you back Lusty, we were getting worried about you 

wanderlust wrote:In my experience, civil servants do what the elected members tell them to do and that applies all the way up from local councils to government departments. Often decisions are delegated from committees on which the civil servants merely act as a secretariat - and I've been in enough "smoke-filled rooms" to know that the committees themselves merely act as a show of so-called democracy to rubber stamp decisions that have already been made before the meetings - despite the fact that the discussions are had to ensure there is a record of debate.

Hahaha!!!

You've not seemed to be around for the last week or so and I've missed you giving me my laughs - it really is the best medicine!

I'm sure we are all grateful for your in depth knowledge of how government work based on your extensive involvement with a NON GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION (it still gives me the giggles does that!) but dare I say it, you don't know what you are talking about.

Public sector employees are no different from anyone else and are subject to the law.  Knowingly acting in a corrupt or illegal manner will send them to jail and career officers who have risen through the ranks over the years - and they are the ones who are responsible for putting their names to such decisions - make absolutely certain that the is a record and audit trail of why they arrived at that decision they did.

Yes, it is the job of public servants to enact the policy of MP's and councillors but only within the remit of the law.

Meetings will be held between elected officials and public servants in advance of any public meetings in order for the MP'S/councillors to understand what is possible for them to do (and say) within the law.

They simply DON'T instruct public servants to 'fix' contracts for their 'mates'.

Don't you think someone, somewhere, within the Civil Service would by now have blown the whistle (leaked to the press) on such things?

Government policy is leaked in advance all the time, where do you think the leak about last years Tory Xmas party came from, yet absolutely nothing at all about all these so called dodgy PPE contracts which has been rumbling on for nearly two years now.

Not all Civil Servants vote Tory you know..!

Do you think the government, all the Civil Service, all the companies and staff of those who were awarded contracts, the press, the National Audit Office, the Parliamentary scrutiny committees, the police, the judiciary and even Dominic Cummings (who is no lover of Hancock, nor Boris now) are all conspiring together to hide the fact the things were 'fixed' to allow cronyism, sleaze and corruption of billions of pounds???

It simply isn't true.

But I'm sure the facts won't stand in the way of your, and other peoples, hatred of the government and believing it did absolutely happened - without the slightest bit of hard evidence.

I still wait for the smoking gun to be produced.

As I say, I won't be holding my breath though!

In September 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that Johnson and his Government broke the law: attempts to prorogue Parliament were illegal.

 Boris lied to the Queen to try to make it happen. This was how low he was prepared to stoop to stop MPs scrutinising his government.

Parliament, not Government, is sovereign. It is the basis of our democracy.

Johnson was shown to have broken constitutional, rather than criminal law, so he continues to run our country. In the process, he has presided over a welter of shady practices that have shamed the UK.

 Lies and denials come naturally. He is a mini-Trump and will eventually go the same way.

Norpig wrote:Nice to see you back Lusty, we were getting worried about you 

Was having a very chilled 2 weeks snorkling in the Red Sea, although it was sad to see that some familiar reefs are dying and there was a fraction of the species that were there when I last did it 8 years ago. Brushed up my Arabic a bit although it remains very rusty - but not so bad I can't still order a drink and have a laugh with the waiters

See that guy from the Council is back questioning my experience again...

wanderlust wrote:

Norpig wrote:Nice to see you back Lusty, we were getting worried about you 

Was having a very chilled 2 weeks snorkling in the Red Sea, although it was sad to see that some familiar reefs are dying and there was a fraction of the species that were there when I last did it 8 years ago. Brushed up my Arabic a bit although it remains very rusty - but not so bad I can't still order a drink and have a laugh with the waiters

See that guy from the Council is back questioning my experience again...

Hahaha!!!

I've been missing this!

One post from me to you after what seven weeks or so and I've got straight under your skin again!!!

You really think I give a toss about you likening me to a street cleaner - hahaha!

I actually knew a few in my time and I always treated them (and everyone else for that matter) with the respect and warmth I would give to the Chief Exec, Leader of the Council or local MP.

My dad worked on the building sites and my mother worked in the mills, so there's no airs and graces or feeling superior to others with me.

Clearly you think you're a cut above some folk like the bloke in the picture...

As my dad told me as a lad, if you don't respect people, then why would you think they would respect you back?

A lesson I never forgot and one it seems you never had.