Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Sluffy wrote:I must have missed the smoking gun?

Where is it?

MP's and tory peers don't award contracts - civil servants do!

When are you going to understand that?

‘Eh’?


Unless you are suggesting the civil service sourced this company of its own accord then your point makes no sense whatsoever. 

It’s about how and why did they jump to the front of the queue, not what happened once they got there.

And just to be absolutely clear (this has been explained multiple times to you now) this isn’t necessarily about criminal intent, it’s a question of whether key decisions on the usage of tax payer money is taken based on relationships or competency. 

If it’s the former, then we have a problem.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I must have missed the smoking gun?

Where is it?

MP's and tory peers don't award contracts - civil servants do!

When are you going to understand that?

‘Eh’?


Unless you are suggesting the civil service sourced this company of its own accord then your point makes no sense whatsoever. 

It’s about how and why did they jump to the front of the queue, not what happened once they got there.

And just to be absolutely clear (this has been explained multiple times to you now) this isn’t necessarily about criminal intent, it’s a question of whether key decisions on the usage of tax payer money is taken based on relationships or competency. 

If it’s the former, then we have a problem.

In simple terms Janet and John style for you.

Government asks for any help to source PPE.

Most of the World's PPE is made in China.

Government asks if anyone has access to Chinese manufactures.

Seems Mone and her husband did.

Looks as though they set up a front end business to win contracts and act as middle men to the actual Chinese suppliers.

Mone has access to the government email address (which turns out to be the VIP lane) and asks fellow peer to pass on her offer of supplying goods from China.

Let's stop there for a minute.

From what is being reported - and in the light of not hearing any explanation from Mone's side apart from here lawyers denial of everything - it does 'look' that she has not declared an interest which IF she IS involved with the company she should have done.

Right, we carry on again.

Email received by civil servants about offer to supply urgent PPE from Chinese manufacturers.

Civil servants evaluate the offer.

The offer passes the 8 stage criteria and contract awarded by civil servants.

Ok let us stop again.

The contract was evaluated and awarded on merit - if it simply didn't meet the 8 stage criteria, it would have been rejected (iirc something like 90% of the offers forwarded to the hotline email addressed were rejected) and also the head civil servant signing off a contract was never informed as to whether the contract they were awarding had come through the VIP lane or the other channels.

The point I'm making here is that NO contract was awarded because it came through the VIP lane or that a peer or MP or Tory donor referred it, they were awarded on merit following impartial criteria undertaken to validate that the offer was able to be delivered in accordance with the governments needs at that time.

Right moving on again.

Let us take the position that Mone and her husband are directly involved in the company that was awarded the contracts.

If she had contacted the email address herself and declared her interest, then NOTHING would have changed.  She had the same right to use the email address as everyone else who had access to it, the civil servants would have evaluated the offer and would still have awarded the contract.

Mone (nor anyone else) had any influence over the process of contract evaluation and the awarding of them - I have put up three separate links above (the governments submission to the High Court judge in regards to a legal case he's ruling on, and the findings of both the NAO and the PAC inquiries).

The issue here is not if the system has been abused - the email to the VIP was 'offered' to Mone and everyone else entitled to use it WITHOUT any "written rules to support those making referrals in deciding which leads to put forward..." but there does appear to be an apparent non reporting of a declaration of interest.

So to sum up - and I've explained this multiple times to you - 'the key decisions' as to the evaluation and awarding of contracts undertaken by civil servants had nothing at all to do with who referred the offer to them.

Equally those referring the offers by the email VIP lane had no advice/instructions as to what they should be using the email address for and seemingly did use it assuming that the civil servants would assess the suitability of the offers - which is indeed what they did.

No one knew what offers would be accepted/rejected until the 8 stage process was complete and the awarding civil service officers signed off the successful offers on the basis that they did not know which route (the VIP lane or other) the offer was received from.

It was the head civil servant in the process who decided to set up the VIP Lane for the right reasons - to source urgently needed PPE equipment.

I tend to believe that none of the Peers, MP's or anyone else abused the service because none of them were told really what the service was for because there was no guidance given about it or how to use the service - other than a method of communication to source the urgently needed PPE.

Certainly there was no influence or pressure put on the civil servants on their decisions to award contracts.

Or should I express myself more clearly, nothing found as such in the NAO and PAC inquiries into what had happened and no whistle blowers in now nearly two years have come forward to say that there had been influence and pressure used to in the awarding of any of the contracts.

As it stands at the moment Mone's lawyers deny that she had any involvement with the company that won the contracts and until hard evidence to the contrary is proven that is the position we have to accept at this time.

So as I wrote above, where is the smoking gun?

And even if it is proved she was involved with the company, the awarding of the contract was dealt with properly - and Mone could have told the truth right from the start and the same process and result would have happened.

So no - and as I've said from the start - decisions have NOT been made based on relationships.

Civil Servants award the contracts not Peers, Ministers or MP's.

And I'm not the one saying that - the two inquiries and court submission are the ones stating that!

I wasn't counting operational meetings of a secretariat that answers to the Council Cabinet - not really a board is it?

Hope it wasn't Slough - which has practically declared bankruptcy and the CEO is on a sickie


And to confirm - the only key decisions civil servants take are to do what they are told or lose their jobs. Bit of a no-brainer really.

wanderlust wrote:I wasn't counting operational meetings of a secretariat that answers to the Council Cabinet - not really a board is it?

Hope it wasn't Slough - which has practically declared bankruptcy and the CEO is on a sickie


And to confirm - the only key decisions civil servants take are to do what they are told or lose their jobs. Bit of a no-brainer really.

Utterly pathetic and fully expected response from you as per normal...

Sluffy wrote:So feel free to continue to post your uninformed, putrid bile and hatred and I'll happily continue to take the piss out of you, your ignorance and also your following petty and petulant behaviour when I do so!

Fwiw I left my managerial role in that authority long before the financial and leadership predicament they apparently are in now.

And a warning to all - I've stated a number of times recently that it is unacceptable to post personal information of another poster that may lead to them being identified in real life, without their permission.

The next time that happens will lead to an immediate ban.

Feel free to call me all the names you like or take the piss out of me working for a council but stay well clear of stating any specifics that may help identify me and my family.

I've had to deal with one nutjob in the past who tried to find out who I was and where I lived and I'm never going to go through that ever again.

Personal information? You said you work for the Council and you said you live in Slough. That didn't necessarily mean you worked for Slough Council - could have been any of them - the only "personal information" is what you've posted yourself. And FWIW I've no interest in disclosing who you are to anyone.

wanderlust wrote:Personal information? You said you work for the Council and you said you live in Slough. That didn't necessarily mean you worked for Slough Council - could have been any of them - the only "personal information" is what you've posted yourself. And FWIW I've no interest in disclosing who you are to anyone.

Good so leave it there.

Fwiw I've said I've worked in a number of council's in my career but never named any of them and I've explained in the past that my user name was from where I lived at one time - and I've kept that same user name for the best part of fifteen years or so now, rather than change it as and whenever I moved.

I've already experienced one nutjob trying to find out my personal details all because he holds some internet grudge against me and that's already one too many.

Covid: Government's PPE VIP lane unlawful, court rules

The government's use of "VIP lane" to award contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) to two companies was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

Campaigners claimed the VIP lane was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials and gave some companies an unfair advantage.

A judge ruled it was unlawful to give the two companies preferential treatment as part of the VIP lane.

But she said both offers were likely to have been given contracts anyway.

The legal action was brought by the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor which claimed the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) unlawfully awarded contracts to supply PPE during the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.

The groups took legal action over more than £340m in contracts awarded to pest control firm PestFix and a contract worth about £252m to the hedge fund Ayanda Capital.

The campaigners said the DHSC "prioritised suppliers including PestFix and Ayanda because of who they knew, not what they could deliver".

But the DHSC told the court it "wholeheartedly" rejected the case against it and said the VIP lane was rational and resulted in a "large number of credible offers" in an environment where PPE deals often failed within "minutes".

Mrs Justice O'Farrell ruled that while the use of the VIP lane - officially known as the high-priority lane - was unlawful, she found that both of the companies' offers "justified priority treatment on its merits" and were "very likely" to have been awarded contracts even without it.

A PestFix spokesman said the company was pleased to have been "completely vindicated" by the High Court over how the contract was awarded, saying the decision was "based purely on our ability to deliver".

He added the company had only been made aware that it had been placed in the high-priority lane by a National Audit Office report in November 2020.

Liberal Democrat health spokesperson Daisy Cooper described the ruling as a "damning judgement" and said: "Not only did the Conservatives give their mates privileged access to lucrative Covid contracts, they did it unlawfully."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037

Sluffy wrote:The point I'm making here is that NO contract was awarded because it came through the VIP lane or that a peer or MP or Tory donor referred it, they were awarded on merit following impartial criteria undertaken to validate that the offer was able to be delivered in accordance with the governments needs at that time.

It was the head civil servant in the process who decided to set up the VIP Lane for the right reasons - to source urgently needed PPE equipment.

I tend to believe that none of the Peers, MP's or anyone else abused the service because none of them were told really what the service was for because there was no guidance given about it or how to use the service - other than a method of communication to source the urgently needed PPE.

Certainly there was no influence or pressure put on the civil servants on their decisions to award contracts.

Or should I express myself more clearly, nothing found as such in the NAO and PAC inquiries into what had happened and no whistle blowers in now nearly two years have come forward to say that there had been influence and pressure used to in the awarding of any of the contracts.

So as I wrote above, where is the smoking gun?

So no - and as I've said from the start - decisions have NOT been made based on relationships.

Civil Servants award the contracts not Peers, Ministers or MP's.

And I'm not the one saying that - the two inquiries and court submission are the ones stating that!

And now that is what the judge is stating too!

Her ruling is that the civil servants were wrong to establish a VIP lane but not that any MP used it for any dodgy reasons or that there was any pressure or instructions from them to award contracts to their mates.

In fact as the judge herself says the contracts (which were claimed to be the basis of all the Tory sleaze and corruption by Maugham/GLP would have been awarded anyway because they both justified PRIORITY treatment and both awarded on their merit - not because they were mates of the Tory party or MP's.


It is somewhat ironic of the judge to be saying the setting up of a priority lane WAS unlawful yet also the two companies she based her ruling on in fact deserved priority treatment!

Still no smoking gun found yet....

You should be Boris's new spin doctor Sluffy

Norpig wrote:You should be Boris's new spin doctor Sluffy

I don't like Boris mate, I agree with the views of most other people of him.

The thing though is society is governed and regulated by laws and not opinions.

There's been an awful lot of opinion that the government has been corrupt but very few facts can be shown that they actually have.

I'd be delighted for such facts to be found.

If there are no facts to prove sleaze or corruption then all you are left with is just an opinion.

Do you go out and hang people on an opinion?

Some obviously would because they want it to be so.

But wanting it to be so doesn't mean it actually is so.

All the facts keep coming back to what I said had happened from the beginning and that is MP's don't award contracts, civil servants do!

This case simply shows that.

The ruling is not showing any interference, corruption, sleaze or whatever from the MP's or Tory funders but that the civil servants set up a VIP lane to source 'priority' offers and in the judges determination that was wrong of them to do so - but went on to state that both the companies which she ruled the case on were indeed 'priority' cases and would have been awarded contracts on their merits.

No doubt Maugham will whip up a shit storm over this and plenty Tory haters will join in - but the simple truth still remains that NO corruption, sleaze, deliberate priority to mates or whatever you wish to view it was done by MP's or Tory backers - the view of the judge is simply that the civil servants set up a system in dealing with the prioritising of the offers they were receiving which they should not have done.

That is all.

No smoking guns have been found because there never was any sleaze or corruption in the awarding of these contracts in the first place.

One interesting part of this judgement -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vJHxocQbUmp5nj1b71ry3W352MHS1nhg/view

- which I must be honest I don't fully understand the consequences of - is that the judge refused GLP's claim for Declaratory Relief.

Let me try to explain what I think that means and the consequences of it.

Before I do though it is worth pointing out that this GLP JR action started out with iirc 5 issues of which the judge ruled out two of them before the JR took place - and found against GLP in her determination of the case.

Judicial Review Courts have only a limited number of'remedies' (powers to 'put right' if you will) open to it - stuff like 'stop doing what you have been doing' or 'start doing what you should be doing' type of things for example.

The remedy GLP was seeking was Declaratory Relief -

Declaration
A declaration is a judgment by the Administrative Court which clarifies the respective rights and obligations of the parties to the proceedings, without actually making any order

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law#Declaration

So as I'm understanding it GLP wanted the judge to solely rule that the awarding of the contracts to the two companies was unlawful (222 page 56) but the judge didn't find that to be the case - what she found instead that the process (by means of using the VIP lane ) was the bit that was unlawful.

This as I understand it (and I may be wrong) is because irrespective of whether there was a VIP lane or not, the two companies would still have been prioritised and both would have won the contracts they did.

(In fact GLP brought claims against three companies but as the judge struck out GLP's other four claims and only found on the VIP lane which this third company wasn't involved with, it in effect made the case against them collapse)

So as the JR ruling in respect of the VIP would not have effected the outcome in that both company's would have been awarded contracts if the VIP never existed in the first place - then there was no need to issue a Declaratory Relief Order.

Now I'm therefore not sure because of that if GLP are able to claim their court costs?

I don't think they can?

Not that it matters to them really as they were crowdfunded - but if the government (us the taxpayer remember!) have had to pay their costs they aren't returned to those who crowd funded them but instead goes to the GLP's pot instead.

The Court found the Government allocated offers to the VIP lane on a “flawed basis” (§396) and did not properly prioritise bids:

“there is evidence that opportunities were treated as high priority even where there were no objectively justifiable grounds for expediting the offer.” (§383).

AKA personal relationships rather than competence is all that was required for the VIP lane.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The Court found the Government allocated offers to the VIP lane on a “flawed basis” (§396) and did not properly prioritise bids:

“there is evidence that opportunities were treated as high priority even where there were no objectively justifiable grounds for expediting the offer.” (§383).

AKA personal relationships rather than competence is all that was required for the VIP lane.

Not so.

That's not what the judge ruled.

And that's why she refused to issue Declaratory Relief Order.

What she did find is that under the existing EU regulations at the time the VIP lane led to preferential determining of offers than others received by the other routes.

She did not rule that the service was abused in anyway, that those people referring offers to the VIP lane were doing so with any ulterior motives other than to source urgently needed PPE and even went on to state that the contracts were determined and awarded on their own merit and not because they came via the VIP lane or because it was a Tory MP/Peer who referred it in the first place.

I know exactly where your quotes come from...

https://actions.goodlawproject.org/ppe_win_update_120122/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=VIPLaneJudgment12012022&utm_medium=social%20media

...but that's just the spin he's putting on it for gullible fools like you to swallow.

Read for yourself what her reasoning and ruling actually was - it's only 125 pages long and I've enjoyed reading them today.

I bet not many others have though - particularly those who believe implicitly what Maugham/GLC tell them.

I bet the money comes flooding in even further for them now though - ka-ching, ka-ching!!!

Hope you aren't one of those daft enough to be funding them!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vJHxocQbUmp5nj1b71ry3W352MHS1nhg/view

The service can't be abused, there were no rules around what could be submitted to it. That's why your constant 'smoking gun' comment really is nonsense. How many times do you need to be told that?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The service can't be abused, there were no rules around what could be submitted to it. That's why your constant 'smoking gun' comment really is nonsense. How many times do you need to be told that?

Eh???

Can you put that into a coherent sentence please.

Look back at GLP's timeline on this case -

First they were up in arms because the government awarded contracts to a pet company, a sweet company and a capital venture company - so there must be something dodgy.

Then, oh look we can link all these firms to senior Tory's - must be cronyism.

Oh now they find out that not all the goods were useable - so there must be inefficiency and corruption.

Then they hear about the VIP line - so its definite now, sleaze did happen...!

It just went on and on, painting the event as sleaze corruption, cash for contracts and everything else they've claimed...!

Here's an example of what they were saying - the VIP lane wasn't even an issue at the time - and it's the only point of law they've won on!!!

https://goodlawproject.org/update/were-in-court-tomorrow/

If you read the judges findings - I have - then you will read how she dismissed all those claims one by one - nope nothing wrong in awarding these contracts to the pet and sweet companies or the venture capitalists, nothing even presented as evidence of Tory MP's link to contract evaluation or award, the companies supplied the goods in accordance to the contract specifications - any failures of quality or fit for purpose was error on from the client side - ie us, our experts made the mistakes.

Even her ruling on the VIP lane basically said although it was wrong in the respect that those in it did have more of an advantage, that in itself had NO effect on the final outcome because these companies in question would have been awarded the contracts from any of the routes they came through and not because they came from the VIP lane.

This last bit is key to why she did not award a remedy.

GLP have not actually won anything - nothing changes from this ruling - nobody can be sued or sue.  No corruption, sleaze, cronyism, or whatever you believe went on - didn't happen!

All that's happened is that on a point of law it was wrong for the civil servants to have set up a VIP lane.

No doubt Maugham will sell it as a tremendous victory against the government and doubtless rake in another million or two in donations off the back of it but that's it - there's nothing that has been done that needs to be put right because the companies offers were meritorious in the first place and would have been awarded the contracts irrespective of coming from the VIP lane - in fact the sweet company one didn't even go through the VIP lane and that's why GLP no longer mentions the fact that they were once one third of their whole case!

In fact they've gone awfully quiet about the other two companies as well because all GLP's alleged cronyism and sleaze of them winning their contracts has been rubbished by the judge in her determining of the case!

Sleaze and cronyism simply didn't happen - it's all their in black and white in her findings!!!

Well considering GLP have been claiming the VIP lane was unlawful since it was revealed then this ruling clearly is some sort of victory - although i agree, it doesn't go as far as they would have liked.

You have managed to avoid the question again there though, what do you class as abuse of the VIP lane? And as such what does a 'smoking gun' even look like?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:... what does a 'smoking gun' even look like?

...a picture with the girl he's never met?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Well considering GLP have been claiming the VIP lane was unlawful since it was revealed then this ruling clearly is some sort of victory - although i agree, it doesn't go as far as they would have liked.

You have managed to avoid the question again there though, what do you class as abuse of the VIP lane? And as such what does a 'smoking gun' even look like?

Seems I have to do a Janet and John explanation to you every time now...

The VIP lane was found to be unlawful retrospectively - yes?

The judge ruled that it had no effect on the outcome, nothing would have been any different if that facility had not been established - yes?

As it had no effect on the outcome she refused to grant a remedy - yes?

Thus the ruling in effect was simply marking that the civil servants had made a mistake in law, but that the mistake did not change the end results any more than if the mistake had not been made in the first place - and her ruling reflected that fact and that was an end of the matter.

She did not rule that the VIP lane was abused - nobody gained from the VIP lane that they would not have gained if it was never there.

She simply ruled the the VIP lane should not have been there because it did not comply with the EU directive this country was still under at the time.

She also confirmed that all cases were evaluated and contracts awarded in the same way and that system showed no regard to who had initiated the contact with the PPE procurement team.

Therefore the 'win' was on a technicality, nobody gained or lost anything because of this technicality and therefore other than to record the 'technicality' to have been wrong in law, that was as far as she would go - refusing to award the remedy sought by GLP - which prevents any and other legal action arising from this JR.

GLP are allowed to appeal her ruling or make application for JR's in respect of other contracts awarded through the VIP lane.


Now bearing in mind all that Maugham has been after from the very start is to allege cronyism, sleaze and corruption from Tory politicians or party members in 'giving contracts to their mates' then this result simply hasn't shown that to have happened - indeed what the GLP bring to court through their JR's don't even mention such things (if they had such proof they would be seeking Criminal Court action instead!).

Following the judges ruling however he still says stuff like this...

"Never again should any government treat a public health crisis as an opportunity to enrich its associates and donors at public expense."

“Good Law Project revealed the red carpet-to-riches VIP lane for those with political connections in October 2020. And the High Court has now held that, unsurprisingly, the lane was illegal"

"The ruling ‘makes it clear to this government and future governments that setting up secretive back channels for friends and acquaintances to make use of is unlawful’."


My point all along is that this has never happened - simply because it is the civil servants that evaluate and award all the offers, by using the same process to evaluate all the offers and when awarding the contract to those successful, not even knowing by what means they arrived in the system - ie from the VIP lane or by the other routes.

The judge in her ruling confirms this to be the case (as did the previous NAO and PAC inquiries)

So if the MP's etc can't influence the outcome and the judge has ruled that the VIP lane hasn't had a bearing on why the contracts were awarded because they were meritorious in their own right, then how can all this so called sleaze and cronyism have happened?

It can't.

Therefore no smoking guns can possibly be found to back up the mountain of claims that such sleaze and corruption had ever been going on that Maugham propagated and even now still continues to do so!

This as always been about an aggressive and long standing campaign from Maugham to attempt to make the government look bad.

The irony is that the government and Johnson in particular have been doing a splendid job of this themselves!

This tweet from Maugham sums it all up to me - the BBC report on the case and point out that really nobody has won, GLP 'won' in the sense that the judge ruled that the VIP lane was wrong but also 'lost' in the sense that she also determined that it did not effect the outcome of the contracts being awarded and refused to make an order for a remedy which GLP were seeking.

And you can flip it around from the governments point of view, in that they 'lost' the ruling on the VIP lane but 'won' in the sense that the system was such that the contracts would have been awarded whether they arrived in the system from the VIP lane or not - the VIP lane had no bearing on the outcome - hence why she refused the legal remedy GLP sought.

What Maugham as always wanted is for the Tory government to look bad - hence the lead-in quote to the video.

"Frankly, is not a great look for the Government that this scheme has been found by the High Court to be unlawful"

Details https://t.co/mNXladMcnR pic.twitter.com/bfkjba9WmT

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) January 13, 2022

I thought this was interesting and illuminating as to how GLP works.

Are you sitting comfortably TROY?

On the 26th November lat year GLP tweeted this...

Government is acting like a mobster to its own MPs


It’s not much fun being a Tory backbench MP at the moment. Just when you think things couldn’t get any seedier, No 10 is reportedly threatening to withdraw funding for their constituencies if they don’t toe the party line in Commons votes.

It appears the Government threatened to punish voters to try to force MPs to support attempts to spare Tory MP Owen Paterson from suspension, after he broke parliamentary rules by lobbying for a private firm that paid him £100,000 a year. One backbencher said MPs were told “they would lose funding for their constituency” if they failed to vote with the Prime Minister, according to the Financial Times.

This is not the first time we’ve heard of No 10 using this underhand tactic to keep their MPs in line. One backbencher told PoliticsHome in September: ​​”There’s been threats made to a few people that they won’t get funding for projects if they don’t side with the Government… To try and hold back an entire area or prevent regeneration just to get you to vote for something you clearly don’t like, it’s not something I’m particularly comfortable with.”

This is shocking stuff. Not only does it undermine Parliament and weaken MPs’ independence, if true, the allegations are in the realms of criminal offence.

Threatening to cut off funding for local communities to force MPs to vote to save a disgraced MP also reveals the truth behind what the Government likes to style as ‘levelling up’. As always, it’s people from hard-up communities who end up paying the price.

Good Law Project has sent a pre-action protocol letter to Michael Gove inviting him to deny, if he can, that the alleged conduct happened, to turn over any documents evidencing it, and to stop the threats.

The reports suggest a very serious misuse of public money, in the realms of criminal conduct, by or for the Prime Minister. We will not stand by and watch.

If you are in a position to support this case, you can do so here.

Read our pre-action protocol (PAP) letter to Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NMjCyiDZxyWKn39ApTdUX60gDrXAsrub/view

https://goodlawproject.org/news/constituency-funding-government/


In Janet and John terms they basically said publicly that they 'believed' the government was doing something dodgy, sent a letter to the government saying in they were looking to seek a JR, and then linked to that letter to their tweet seeking crowdfunding.

Ka-ching, Ka-ching the money, as usual, came rolling in...


Today they tweet this...

Following our threat to issue judicial review proceedings over the threats made to Tory MPs who did not want to exonerate Owen Paterson - Government has promised not to repeat the misconduct. https://t.co/vlRJJ4CrFD

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) January 17, 2022

Yeah, another victory for GLP!!!

This is what they say in the article from the tweet...

No more threats – Government commits to cleaning up its act


Following numerous reports that Tory MPs were being threatened with funding cuts if they didn’t tow the party line in Commons votes, Good Law Project wrote to the Government asking for answers. Hard-up communities can’t be blackmailed in service of Owen Paterson’s political career.  

We have now heard back from the Government.

It does not deny that the threats were made (and neither do senior Tory figures like Dominic Raab). But it has assured us that the threats won’t happen again. Their response says unequivocally that “in any decision of the Government in relation to the Towns Fund or the Levelling Up Fund, the voting record of any Member of Parliament linked to any particular area will not be taken into account” and that it will “form no part of the decision‐making processes in respect of either Fund.”

This is significant.

We can’t change the past – but what we now have is a promise for the future. The Government says it will avoid a repetition of conduct that is unlawful – if not criminal. Should MPs, once again, be placed in the impossible position of choosing between their commitments to their constituents and their consciences they should contact us. We will promise – contractually – to keep their names confidential. And we will act again with proper vigour.

We have closed our crowdfunder for the case. With your help, we raised a significant amount of money. The costs we have incurred are very modest and we will meet them from our reserves.

It is impossible to make refunds via CrowdJustice. In the circumstances, we think the fairest thing to do with the net sum raised is allocated towards our challenge to the Met Police’s failure to investigate parties at No 10 Downing Street.

Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here.

https://goodlawproject.org/news/no-more-threats/

So a crushing victory and over a humbled, regretful and overwhelmed Government - yes?

Well it appears so doesn't it?

Certainly there is a link for more donations to the GLP at the bottom of the article...

...ka-ching, ka-ching....

...but has anyone bothered to read the government reply...?

Well I did.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LSdIp1160_x14jBiKyf_xxV3GnZrHUVY/view

I'd print it out if I could but it won't allow me to, so I'll Janet and John it for you.

It starts off as saying that GLP haven't actually given any specifics to what they are alleging, so there's nothing the government can look into and respond to, and that the timeline of their generalised claim simply doesn't add up because what they were claiming happened BEFORE  a vote actually happened AFTER the vote - so could not possibly have influenced it.

The government reply also points out that GLP haven't made a claim for relieve either, which as relief is an essential requirement of any JR application means you can't apply to even seek a JR!

They then turn to a reply to the GLP claim, pointing out how the timeline blows their case out of the water to begin with, and that other legal precedents would rule out their 'non' claim any way.

What they say in point 15 of their reply basically sums it all up...

"Your letter does not set out any action requested of our client (the government - the Secretary of State for Levelling Up).  That is presumably because in truth no such action (a JR) can be requested and no relief can be sought.


Can't people see that there's something going on here other than holding the government accountable???

There was a 'no case to answer' here, and I think that GLP lawyers knew that too - you can't really believe they missed something as fundamentally required of any JR, the 'remedy' requested, out of their proposal of seeking a JR - can you???

It beggars belief!!!

Yet GLP have on the back of all this implied the government had done something 'bad' which physically could not have happened, sought crowd funding for a JR, which physically could not be granted in the form proposed, and then claimed a 'victory' for something that physically had not happened - and then had the cheek to seek more donations - ka-ching, ka-ching!!!

Indeed look how GLP changed the context of the main quote from the letter they are 'claiming' victory for.

This is what they say in their text - (note the bold bit I've added)

We have now heard back from the Government.

It does not deny that the threats were made (and neither do senior Tory figures like Dominic Raab). But it has assured us that the threats won’t happen again. Their response says unequivocally that “in any decision of the Government in relation to the Towns Fund or the Levelling Up Fund, the voting record of any Member of Parliament linked to any particular area will not be taken into account” and that it will “form no part of the decision‐making processes in respect of either Fund.”

...and this is what was actually said in the governments reply...

Point 14 For the avoidance of any doubt, in any decision of the Government in relation to the Towns Fund or the Levelling Up Fund, the voting record of any Member of Parliament linked to any particular area will not be taken into account. Such considerations form no part of the decision‐making processes in respect of either Fund.”

GLP claim the government will not do it again but the government are stating it has never been done in the first place!!!

And let us look again at the start of that statement, this bit...

"We have now heard back from the Government.

It does not deny that the threats were made (and neither do senior Tory figures like Dominic Raab)".

Well this is what the government letter actually said...

Point 3 The duty of candour does not require the disclosure of any information where no proposed claim is even properly formulated.

What that simply means is that you've knowingly have not genuinely sought to seek a JR so therefore we have no case to answer too.

Not that threats were made and aren't being denied by the government but rather GLP claims couldn't physically have happened in the first place because the things they have alleged happened, happened AFTER the decision had been made!

People are simply falling for what GLP are telling them!

Finally note that the crowdfunding cannot be returned to those donating and is being put to another GLP 'proposed' JR, that those contributing may not wish their money to go to.

(I would imagine most of those donating to GLP wouldn't mind though as they seem totally besotted with the narrative they are reading from them!).


The irony is that if the government was doing something like this GLP would be the first to be screaming that something dodgy is going on!

As a disclaimer all of the above is just my opinion - I don't want any solicitors letters - and you should  draw your own conclusions and opinions as to what is written in the tweets and text above which are in the public domain.

I thought the government had sunk to unparalleled levels of cronyism and contempt for integrity, but I was wrong. How about this for rewarding failure as an attempt to buy silence?!

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/gavin-williamson-to-be-knighted-in-return-for-his-silence-308421/

GLP loses one of it's 'three' 'victories' over the government on appeal.

"With respect, we think the Court of Appeal has got it wrong. We think it is very important that the public purse be protected from decisions that favour the friends of those holding the strings. We’ll be asking the Supreme Court to hear our case."https://t.co/ZwD2VcbzWi

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) January 18, 2022

So far GLP had three 'wins' against the government over Covid contracts, the first that contract awards weren't published in 30 days even though there was a little matter of a worldwide stampede to obtain PPE.  The second was the government 'looked' dodgy (not that they were found to be) and the most recent one that the civil servants set up a VIP lane which was wrong - but didn't effect the outcome of things - so the judge didn't award a remedy - in other words it was all a meaningless JR exercise other than to note historically that the civil servants had made a technical mistake - which had no effect on the outcome of things - and nobody had suffered from it so no redress was needed to put things right.

Well on appeal the judge has just overturned the second 'win', namely the government looked dodgy.

In Janet and John terms the original judge said because Cummings and Gove knew the people they awarded the contract to Public First, she implied that they should have formally documented why they awarded the contract to Public First and not to anyone else - so by them not doing so made them look apparently 'shifty' (my word not the judges) in other people eyes.

The appeal by the government was upheld for two reasons really (see points from around 75 onwards), the first basically that the original judge had upheld earlier on in her determination that emergency powers were lawful and that meant time was of the essence - so to then say the government had to go through an exercise to document and justify why they awarded a contract to x instead of y, was in opposition to what she had ruled earlier (which the appeal judge had confirmed to be the correct decision) - namely time was of the essence - and secondly for 'apparent' bias to be shown, the 'independent' viewer must look at all things in retrospect, with all the information laid out before them.

The original trial judge omitted in her ruling to take into account of the witness statements - that were uncontested by GLP - from the civil servants who stated why Public First was the only company at the time able to carry out the work required.

The appeal judge therefore concluded if she had considered these, then she could not have come to the ruling she did.

As you can imagine Maugham /GLP are very bellicose about all this and talking about taking it to the Supreme court - so no doubt the money is already rolling in from their followers - ka-ching, ka-ching!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pg3J7o-ZJTKkRR60WdfF6LNFi2ZzcSIg/view


BBC now reporting on the ruling -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60039356