Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Sluffy, have you ever been wrong about anything, ever?

You must surely be the most intelligent person on the planet, we're so lucky you are staying up past 2am to educate us plebs.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Sluffy, have you ever been wrong about anything, ever?

You must surely be the most intelligent person on the planet, we're so lucky you are staying up past 2am to educate us plebs.

I've been wrong about plenty of things over the years, so I've learnt over that time that that if I found out the FACTS about things first instead of talking about things I really don't know anything about really, yet hold very strong opinions on, then suddenly I become less and less wrong.

Fancy that eh?

Who would have thought that doing a simple bit of research on the testimonies of the Civil Servants who actually were responsible for setting up the system for the receiving, evaluation, awarding and issuing of PPE contracts, that were put before the second most powerful court in the land, would give me a better understanding of what ACTUALLY happened, than some 'tit' with an overwhelming existing hatred of the Tory Party (and surprisingly I'm not referring to Wanderlust on this occasion) who reaffirms his long standing beliefs by following a random nutjob from Scunthorpe and a ranting, angry and zany, old professor wearing a smoking jacket and hat - who both have shared hatred against the very same Tory Party???  

AND if that isn't enough for you, I ALWAYS post my source of where my information comes from - so that people can SEE FOR THEMSELVES - that what I'm saying is TRUE.

And you ask why I post late into the night, well that's simple, I can't get to sleep because I'm too busy laughing at their stupidity and anger, when any half sane person, in the face of overwhelming factual evidence that maybe, just maybe, they might start to think that perhaps they may actually be wrong with their set in stone, beliefs and opinions on the matter?

I'm clearly not the most intelligent person on the planet but by simply seeking out the facts on things certainly gives me a massive head start on those who base their opinions simply on their pre-existing hatred. prejudice and bias!

Really sorry to disturb your Greatness at this late stage of an evening sir, but you know what they say, "Got a problem? Just ask Lord Sluffy on The Nuts, he'll sort you out." That's what they say isn't it. Isn't it?. I'm pretty sure it is.

Baroness Mone (She's lovely isn't she?. Fit as f**k for her age and a true Tory entrepreneur to boot) is currently under inquiry by some tin pot organisation or other (parliament or summat I think it's called) for alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro leading to potential breaches of paragraphs 9(a), 9(b), 9(c), 9(d), and 12(a), 12(b) and 16 of the House Of Lords Code of Conduct.

But hey, all that is meaningless because this committee can't publish it's findings on the lovely Baroness Michelle while the matter is still under any kind of police/criminal investigation. Once criminal investigations are complete then the committee can publish it's findings and a course of action can be agreed upon.

I find this staggering. Government bodies deliberating for months on end, wasting valuable time and incurring vast legal costs debating whether or not to pursue potential fraudsters trying to purloin public funds when all that is required is a visit to the "Ask Lord Sluffy" thread at Bolton Nuts.

Christ, how old are you, that's just childish petulance you've typed above.

Also shows your total lack of understanding once again as to what are proper procedures, why we have them, and how things work in real life.

When there are criminal investigations taking place, ALL other inquires are HALTED until after the police/courts do their work.

A recent example of this was Sue Gray's report when once she passed on her findings to the Met Police, 'her' report was 'halted' until the police investigation was concluded.

The reason for that is if something is found by the police and it leads to a criminal trial, then the jury members for the trial have to be totally impartial towards the accused and a raft of bad press in advance of the trail (which can end in a term of imprisonment) such as being kicked out of the House of Lords or something similar, will be highly prejudicial towards her and prevent her being seen to having a fair trial.

That's how the system works.

The trouble is morons like you simply are ignorant of how our democracy actually functions and why it does - in this case it is all about the jury not having preconceived opinions of the accused (Mone, if she ends up in court) and judging her only on the evidence presented to them at court - and not what they read about her in the papers pre-trial.

This is the bases of the judicial 'Golden Thread' (Viscount Sanky*) being that a person being presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.


*John Sankey, 1st Viscount Sankey

Several of his judgments in the House of Lords have become landmark statements of law. Sankey's judgment in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 is famous for iterating the duty inherent on the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In pertinent part, his judgment stated:

Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen – that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...

This judgment is usually referred to as the "golden thread"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sankey,_1st_Viscount_Sankey#Political_and_legal_career

Well you're definitely in the wrong there Sluffy. It wasn't childish petulance that I typed. It was sarcasm. Just gently taking the piss out of you and laughing at your increasingly silly overblown sense of self-importance.
Things are getting a bit more back to normal on here now as well aren't they sluff.
Because I don't kowtow to your bullying and hold a different opinion to you, I am "childish, petulant, totally thick and a complete moron." I try not to take offence any more because I realise it's par for the course in dealings with you on here.
I understand also that you completely know your onions as far as the legal procedures here are concerned. I am out of my depth compared to you here. But parliament clearly feels she has a case to answer, as do all the of the other private investigations (Led By Donkeys, The Guardian, Good Law project etc.) From the conclusive evidence I have seen I will be amazed if she can dig herself out of this hole.
So there it is, I think she's toast, you think she has no case to answer. One of us is going to have to come on here and admit we got it badly wrong. I'm up for that, is that ok with you Sluff?

What you wrote WAS childish.

If I cared to be pedantic I could point out that the definition of sarcasm is 'the use of irony to mock' and the definition of irony being 'the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite'.

So on one hand you claim 'sarcastically' that I'm a 'know it all' yet you openly admit I DO know what I'm talking about...

Hip Priest wrote:I understand also that you completely know your onions as far as the legal procedures here are concerned. I am out of my depth compared to you here.

It seems you clearly don't understand how sarcasm and irony actually works.

That may be explained by Oscar Wilde's definition of sarcasm...

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence.”


Anyway let us move on.

You clearly seem to believe that I am of the learned opinion that she has apparently done nothing wrong...?

Hip Priest wrote:So there it is, I think she's toast, you think she has no case to answer.

...the problem here is that I've never claimed that to be the case.

If you had bothered to read my replies to you...

Hip Priest wrote:Like everyone else, I can't be bothered reading your usual "sermon on the mount" drivel and even if I did it wouldn't change my thinking about this one bit.

You would have clearly seen that I believe she has several cases to answer!

Sluffy wrote:If there is something to be found - and I suspect it will be around if Mone did have an interest in Medpro and did not declare it - only then can the law can act.

If Medpro can prove they delivered their end of the contract in accordance with the specification, then the fault will lie with the government.

If Mone can prove she had no involvement with Medpro then she's off the hook.

If the courts rule that Medpro would have been awarded the contract even if it had not been referred via the VIP lane (and there is already a Judicial Review precedent from another case on this) - then they have not gained any unfair advantage in winning the contract.

Your problem mate is that you are reading and believing what you want to hear - from the likes of right wing activist groups (Good Law Project, Led by Donkeys) and completely unwilling to listen to an alternative (and non politically biased) explanation of what has gone on by someone who you state yourself, to know what I'm talking about!!!

Hip Priest wrote:I understand also that you completely know your onions as far as the legal procedures here are concerned.

Maybe you should reflect on how closed your mind really is on these issues, how easily you are swayed manipulated and led by political activists that you follow and how you rubbish (can't even be bothered to read...!) what the situation is really about when you strip away the political spin which you so much want to be true, when I attempt to explain what is actually happening.

Maybe now you can see why I laugh at your behaviour?

There are a number of issues to be addressed on this matter, which are these.

1 - Mone's behaviour in pushing the Medpro bid - on the face of it, it seems to have been unacceptable and is being investigated by the House of Lords.

2 - Mone's denial that she had an interest in Medpro - on the face of it, it looks as though she had - but that needs to be proved - I imagine that the House of Lords and possibly the police are both looking into this separately.  This would be 'civil' offences if proved to be so - most probably some sort of censure from the House of Lords if so.

3 - The awarding of the Medpro contract - as I've stated previously there has been a Judicial Review (which was referred to the Appeal Court - and REFUSED) about basically the same thing (Pestfix PPE) which set a precedent, which I think will be applied to the Medpro case as well.  If so I don't believe there will be an issue here.  To be honest I'm not sure if anyone is now looking at this case since the REFUSAL by the Appeal Court - I assume the Good Law Project has taken their ball home on these case now (and the improper use of Judicial Reviews that they had been doing until this REFUSAL), so I don't think this is even an issue anymore?

4 - Did Mone gain any illegal financial benefit from Medpro - this I would suggest is what the police are looking into?  On the face of it she did benefit financially from Medpro but was that benefit illegal?

Did she 'push' the Medpro bid - yes she did.  Did she have any interest in the company at the time (she denies this),  Did her pushing it help Medpro win the contract - NO it didn't - see Pestfix judgement and the REFUSAL to award a 'remedy' (that's why Good Law Project took it to the Appeal Court and was REFUSED).

My logic is that even if she did have an interest in Medpro at that time - and that she 'pushed' their offer, that ultimately she had no bearing on the awarding of the contracts to Medpro - as I keep repeatedly saying Civil Servants award contracts not MP's and Baronesses!

I'm not sure therefore if she's actually broken any law although on the face of it that is pretty much what she was attempting to do - unknowingly that Medpro would have been awarded the contract anyway and she could have been honest about everything, declared an interest and not face any of the shit she is doing now.

5 - Medpro contract - goods not up to specification - this will be a civil case, settled in the courts between HM Gov and Medpro Ltd.


So there you have it, I've always held that Mone's behaviour seems to have been dodgy but that all it seems to amount to is that she didn't declare an interest in Medpro.

I can't see how she benefitted illegally from Medpro as Medpro would (under the ruling in Pestfix PPE) have been awarded the contract without Mone 'championing it?

I am not a barrister however and there may be a case where Mone is prosecuted but I can't see it being in respect of the awarding of the PPE contracts by the Department of Health Civil Servants (as per the JR decision on Pestfix).

However, from the evidence in the materials made available to us we cannot comprehensively conclude whether emails from Baroness Mone and the route through the High Priority Lane led to the PPE Medpro offer being treated differently by government than other offers made in the same way during those abnormal times.

Public Accounts Committee 18th July, 2023.

As for bullying anyone...

You make me laugh!

Pointing out ones lack of knowledge and understanding on something you believe implicitly, who won't listen to anyone who isn't chanting the same left wing political mantra as yourself and refusing even to read an explanation from someone you even acknowledge does know what he's talking about as to what is really going on is NOT bullying when I simply laugh at your behaviour.

As they say, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me...

Sluffy do you ever sit back and re-read your posts? You have no self awareness of how petty and self righteous you sound on here sometimes.

Norpig wrote:Sluffy do you ever sit back and re-read your posts? You have no self awareness of how petty and self righteous you sound on here sometimes.

Is self righteous the same as telling it how it is - because that's all that I'm doing.

If people want to believe as gospel what they read on social media, without knowing anything about and not bothering to check what they have read is the true story, then that's up to them - but more often than not it's simply just bull shit.

I'm on social media too, so why would I think people would believe what I say - so I simply link them to the facts and people can check things out for themselves.

If people can't be arsed even reading what I post, ignore completely the facts they can read for themselves and carry on spouting the same bollocks as before, then I reserve the right to laugh at them.

If that is your definition of being self righteous then I must be, although I would consider it just simply stating the truth.

Norpig wrote:Sluffy do you ever sit back and re-read your posts? You have no self awareness of how petty and self righteous you sound on here sometimes.

Behave yourself Norpig, and come and sit with the rest of us!

You may well be right on lots of things Sluffy, but the way you put it across rubs people up the wrong way.  I suspect you know this and don't care but i'll keep pointing it out.

The word you are looking for Norpig is sheer ARROGANCE!

Careful KP, you'll be getting a ticking off in your behind the scenes part of the site 

karlypants wrote:The word you are looking for Norpig is sheer ARROGANCE!

Nah, not arrogance more exasperation.

I just don't get it, I really don't, how some people (most people in fact) believe what they are told (usually what they read on social media) and believe it without question?

I don't know if they are naive, or uneducated, dumb, lazy, unimaginative, can't think for themselves, submissive, simply want to be in a gang with everyone else, or whatever it is but the result is always the same - they take for granted what they are told is the truth - irrespective of who told them (the bloke from Scunthorpe) or what motives the people telling them had (Good Law Project - left wing 'grifting' site - they want your money folks!), or cult leader (Iles on finance!) or because it's what everyone else does - but the bottom line always is that they can't be bothered simply checking what they are going to believe is true or not!

How does their logic go, in this instance with Hip Priest for example - he ADMITS I DO KNOW what I'm talking about on this matter but CAN'T BE ARSED to read what I write and CAN'T BE BOTHERED to read the links to the information that backs up what I'm saying and still believes in the rubbish I've just proved is wrong???

Christ forget about me and just use your brain and answer me this...

If something dodgy happened with PPE then it happened over THREE YEARS AGO, and involved millions and millions of pounds.

And in that THREE YEARS the likes of Good Law Project, The Guardian, The Times and every other paper you can think off, has been looking, offering rewards, minutely examining every thing they can about the PEE contracts, they've had the leak of Hancock's phone messages over that time (over 100,000 of them iirc?), the public inquiry into Covid have Johnson's phone, and despite ALL of that, then why has NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING been found to have been illegal or corrupt, and no trace of cronyism or dishonesty???

No whistle blowers have come forward, no police investigations have been started, no trace of the mythical smoking gun has ever been found.

Nothing, nada, zilch!

We've had the National Audit Office looking into it, court case have gone up to the Appeal Courts and been 'thrown out' we've had Parliamentary committees (Chaired by Labour and with Conservatives in the minority) investigating and reporting that nothing illegal has happened - nothing at all!

Yet the brainwashed like Hip Priest firmly believes there's been industrial institutional style corruption - and why does he believe that, because he hates the Tories, he reads AND BELIEVES WITHOUT QUESTION sites like the Good Law Project and that random from Scunthorpe, and reinforces his beliefs by only reading and involving himself with others of the same mindset - the ones who says what he wants to hear, and who says the same things back to them, as that is what they want to hear too!

Common sense should be telling Hip Priest by now that something isn't right in his beliefs if nothing. not a single shred of evidence, has turned up yet THREE AND A HALF YEARS LATER.

But as they say, common sense isn't really that common.

Is it?

So no, not arrogance, definitely exasperation.

Norpig wrote:You may well be right on lots of things Sluffy, but the way you put it across rubs people up the wrong way.  I suspect you know this and don't care but i'll keep pointing it out.

THIS !!!!

You can keep pointing it out to him Norpig but I think by now we all know he's not capable of either :
a) changing or
b) developing even the slightest smidgeon of self awareness.

As proof of this I recommend you read the incoming 2 page essay he will fire off to me soon as he reads this.

Hip Priest wrote:

Norpig wrote:You may well be right on lots of things Sluffy, but the way you put it across rubs people up the wrong way.  I suspect you know this and don't care but i'll keep pointing it out.

THIS !!!!

You can keep pointing it out to him Norpig but I think by now we all know he's not capable of either :
a) changing or
b) developing even the slightest smidgeon of self awareness.

As proof of this I recommend you read the incoming 2 page essay he will fire off to me soon as he reads this.

Hahaha...

How the fuck does anyone get upset, wound up, annoyed, fuming, or whatever it is  you feel, when some anonymous person, who you don't know from Adam and will never meet, simply points out the absurdity of something you've said on social media ffs!?

Seriously, who cares what I say?

If you want to believe the utter bullshit you've read on social media and not me, then go ahead, it doesn't bother me.

If I laugh at you for doing so (and I do) why are you so bothered?

If you believe in the bollocks you spout then surely it doesn't matter what I think should it?

I've been called most everything you can think of over the years - so what, they're just words, they don't bother me, I just laugh at them back - I certainly don't lose any sleep over it.

If people are really so sensitive over some words from a random like me, on social media, then I suggest that perhaps you take a break from it and spend some time building up the self belief or whatever it is you need because no one should be getting in anyway upset about something said on the internet.

It isn't real life you know, don't you?



And as for being self aware, at least I've got enough awareness not to lie on the internet (who could I possibly be thinking about...?), not to take anything to heart on the internet and have enough about me to stand my ground when I know I'm right even if everyone else believes I'm wrong.

I think one or two of you on here really need to man up rather than going 'boo-hoo, that nasty Sluffy is laughing at me because he thinks I've been talking bollocks again...!'

(And I don't think you've been talking bollocks, I KNOW you have!).


Now ask yourselves has all that rubbed you up the wrong way, or did you laugh at it, as I would.

And if it has rubbed you up the wrong way, then don't you think you are taking the internet a bit too seriously???

We all have opinions. I do. And sometimes facts can be something of an inconvenience.
But I think Beau is the best man to sum up how I feel about things.

Perhaps the unkind words we are all searching for might include "insufferable, obsessive, tedious prig,"..... a man probably best ignored so as not to risk having to endure the same inconsequential arguments repeated even more endlessly due to his complete lack of self-awareness.

A kinder response might be to suggest that he ask his GP for an autism/asperger's test, though I seem to remember that he eschewed any suggestion of any need for psychological help. 

 Alternatively, he might be advised to take up a new hobby or interest....perhaps an evening class in English Studies, for example.

(Cue inevitable, predictable resurrection of his false claim that I am a "fake" poster, whatever that is!)

okocha wrote:Perhaps the unkind words we are all searching for might include "insufferable, obsessive, tedious prig,"..... a man probably best ignored so as not to risk having to endure the same inconsequential arguments repeated even more endlessly due to his complete lack of self-awareness.

A kinder response might be to suggest that he ask his GP for an autism/asperger's test, though I seem to remember that he eschewed any suggestion of any need for psychological help. 

 Alternatively, he might be advised to take up a new hobby or interest....perhaps an evening class in English Studies, for example.

(Cue inevitable, predictable resurrection of his false claim that I am a "fake" poster, whatever that is!)

Hahaha...

From the poster who claims to be some sort of a zany health practitioner with of over then years of alternative medicine training in teaching people how to relax, chill and letting things go, yet has spent the last four or five years relentlessly
trolling me on here!!!

Check out his posting history if you don't believe me.

As the saying goes...

Medice, cura te ipsum

Sluffy wrote:

Hahaha...

From the poster who claims to be some sort of a zany health practitioner with of over then years of alternative medicine training in teaching people how to relax,  chill and letting things go, yet has spent the last four or five years relentlessly
trolling me on here!!!

Check out his posting history if you don't believe me.

As the saying goes...

Medice, cura te ipsum

 
Sluffy mate, please believe me, nobody on here is, or ever has been, trying to troll you. Nobody. Honestly. I know I'm certainly not, and never have done. I can't think of any other poster on this site who would even consider doing that to another poster.

Sometimes when you disagree with someone and you can't seem to win them over to your own point of view you can become a tad abusive. For my own part that's where I always get dragged into these things when I'm trying to avoid it. As soon as you start with the "Have you learnt nothing from my previous posts" stuff, along with dishing out insults like you are a muppet, moron, stupid, mug, idiot etc, it winds people up and they respond accordingly.

As others have also suggested, just weigh your replies a bit before you hit the "send" button.