Nepotism/Cronyism Watch

Since you are on here perhaps you could reply to the question I posted on a different thread earlier today:

Have things returned to normal yet?

I still can't pm anyone and I thought this ban was meant to be temporary.

I would have sent you a pm rather than raising it here but obviously that is impossible.

xmiles wrote:Since you are on here perhaps you could reply to the question I posted on a different thread earlier today:

Have things returned to normal yet?

I still can't pm anyone and I thought this ban was meant to be temporary.

I would have sent you a pm rather than raising it here but obviously that is impossible.

I'm sure there's nothing you'd like to say to anyone that can't be said on the open forum.

I'm also sure that people have decided if you were posting from other accounts than just this one and don't need you to be persuading them otherwise - they already believe you or they don't.

We've already lost Glos because of the games that have been played so probably best we continue with the message ban for now.

Have a nice day.

Sluffy wrote:

I'm sure there's nothing you'd like to say to anyone that can't be said on the open forum.

I'm also sure that people have decided if you were posting from other accounts than just this one and don't need you to be persuading them otherwise - they already believe you or they don't.

We've already lost Glos because of the games that have been played so probably best we continue with the message ban for now.

Have a nice day.

In other words you are going to carry on bullying and trolling me.

For your information (and everybody else) glos left because of your behaviour not mine and I know this from email exchanges with him - which you can't read (unlike pm's?).

TROY has tried pointing this out to you but you just won't listen will you.

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

I'm sure there's nothing you'd like to say to anyone that can't be said on the open forum.

I'm also sure that people have decided if you were posting from other accounts than just this one and don't need you to be persuading them otherwise - they already believe you or they don't.

We've already lost Glos because of the games that have been played so probably best we continue with the message ban for now.

Have a nice day.

In other words you are going to carry on bullying and trolling me.

For your information (and everybody else) glos left because of your behaviour not mine and I know this from email exchanges with him - which you can't read (unlike pm's?).

TROY has tried pointing this out to you but you just won't listen will you.

Well if you've got people's email address you don't need to use the pm system then do you.

It's up to Glos to believe what he chooses to and to stay or go from the forum as he pleases

I've not bullied anyone and you're the one trolling me all the time, not the other way around!

Nobody cares if you are a real account or post under a number of aliases, it's never been a problem until you made it out to be an issue and wouldn't let it drop, I'm guessing you're going to do the same now over the pm function too!

If you want to post on here then do so, if you don't want to then don't but I'm not going to be your target to aim at all of the time because you refuse to move on and I'm not prepared for you to stir people up behind the scenes by pm's as you clearly seemed to have done - and to be fair to myself I made the removal of your pm facility the one and only stipulation for rescinding your ban allowing you back here in the first place!

Seems I was right to do so too!

The lady protests too much, methinks - a line from Shakespeare in response to  to the insincere overacting of a character...

Remind you of anyone?

It certainly does me.

[size=32]The lady doth protest too much, methinks.[/size]

Xmiles, will you just give it a rest. It's clear sluffy still thinks I'm behind your posts, and you will not convince him otherwise.

I don't want to end up banned for something you write, so please stop posting on this issue.

(Obviously I will now be accused of messaging myself)

Xmiles wrote:Xmiles, will you just give it a rest. It's clear sluffy still thinks I'm behind your posts, and you will not convince him otherwise.

I don't want to end up banned for something you write, so please stop posting on this issue.

(Obviously I will now be accused of messaging myself)

You forgot to logout

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you 

All great material for my novel with themes like paranoia, self-importance, conceit, childishness, self-delusion, power and powerlessness, misanthropy....tinged with irony, hypocrisy, rage, lack of reason... but redeemed at times by lovely humour, kindness, tolerance and insight.

It just needs a murder, a string of possible suspects, a few sex scenes and it'll be a best seller. 

I expect all Nuts members to read it....if only to spot yourselves between the covers! If the cap fits.....

Natasha Whittam wrote:Xmiles, will you just give it a rest. It's clear sluffy still thinks I'm behind your posts, and you will not convince him otherwise.

I don't want to end up banned for something you write, so please stop posting on this issue.

(Obviously I will now be accused of messaging myself)

Duly noted.

But of course if he does ban your account you will still be able to post as me.

xmiles wrote:But of course if he does ban your account you will still be able to post as me.

And Norpig.

I think he knows about TROY as well but I am pretty sure he doesn't suspect bonce.

Sluffy wrote:

You state yourself you are ignorant of contract law and you clearly believe the narrative from Maugham on social media without fact checking it - so how is that by me simply mirroring that back to you to reflect upon somehow an insult???

Clearly it isn't.

What have I posted that isn’t true?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

You state yourself you are ignorant of contract law and you clearly believe the narrative from Maugham on social media without fact checking it - so how is that by me simply mirroring that back to you to reflect upon somehow an insult???

Clearly it isn't.

What have I posted that isn’t true?

Not sure what you are actually asking?

If you believe me to have crossed the line/insulted you/need for me to grow up - then nothing.

If it is relation to Maugham's allegations then I would suggest you have taken innuendo to be fact rather than what it is - a narrative where people leap to the conclusion that something very bad has happened when in fact if you deconstruct the story he's wove, nothing actually has - there isn't actually a story there at all but a series of true statements (but not necessarily connected to each other) purported to make it look like one!

As for the crossed the line/insult/need for me to grow up - as far as I'm concerned I've simply used your own words and returned them back to you - so how have I crossed the line/insulted you etc?

You openly admit to being ignorant on contract law (almost seemingly proud of the fact too?) - so isn't that being poorly educated in relation to a subject about contracts?

I'd say it was.

You also have clearly not gone beyond the picture painted by Maugham and seemingly accepted what he's 'implied' to be the truth - it isn't, it is innuendo, it's deliberately designed to lead you (and plenty others) to some conclusion that may very well be false - isn't that somewhat gullible of you to seemingly blindly accept it to be the case without question?

Again I would say it was.

I therefore see you in respect of this matter as as poorly educated and gullible.

I don't see that therefore as crossing the line/abuse/childish or whatever but merely a statement of fact.

I'm sorry if it's upset you, that wasn't my aim I simply was trying to give you a different perspective on the matter by feeding your own words back to you for you to hopefully perceive how how flawed your position on this matter actually was.

It really means nothing what I think anyway, I'm just some random old bloke on the internet.  

As it happens I've got a great deal of time for you fwiw and don't doubt you have the best of intentions and I wouldn't really want to dampen them.

Someone has got to make the world a better place and clearly my generation hasn't succeeded very well in that so hopefully yours will do better but don't believe all you read on the internet even if it's written by people you do admire.

I forgot to thank you for your kind words on your earlier post about feeling somewhat sorry for me with the abuse I took, I appreciate you saying that.

I'm pretty thick skinned and insensitive to most shit thrown at me but I did appreciate the thought.

Onwards and upwards until the next time eh!

I haven’t quoted Maugham, the story I read was in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/04/tory-linked-firm-involved-in-testing-failure-awarded-new-347m-covid-contract

Which of that story or what I’ve posted on it is not true?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I haven’t quoted Maugham, the story I read was in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/04/tory-linked-firm-involved-in-testing-failure-awarded-new-347m-covid-contract

Which of that story or what I’ve posted on it is not true?

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Note the date and time of Maugham's tweet and the date and time of the Guardian story was filed!

Randox has been given a further £346.5m contract from Department for Health for Covid testing, a programme headed by Dido Harding.

And Aintree Racecourse, owned by the Jockey Club which Dido Harding sits on the Board of, has also received sponsorship money from Randox.

— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) November 4, 2020

Contract award notice here https://t.co/RBmhQ0FZgR.

— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) November 4, 2020

I'll ask a rhetorical question what exactly is the story - company awarded contracts legally full stop - everything else is simply innuendo is it not?

If personal relationships are swinging contracts and personnel appointments then that is damaging to our response, decisions have to be impartial and based on capability.

How are you still banging on about legality? That’s not what this is about.

So either tell me where I’ve been gullible or poorly educated in what I’ve said or you can take it back.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:If personal relationships are swinging contracts and personnel appointments then that is damaging to our response, decisions have to be impartial and based on capability.

How are you still banging on about legality? That’s not what this is about.

So either tell me where I’ve been gullible or poorly educated in what I’ve said or you can take it back.

I refer you to the first word of your post - IF

Up to now absolutely no one has proved they have 'swung' a single contract.

I await the facts and findings of the PAC in December and don't swallow the innuendo from Maugham (the Guardian story flowed from his tweet) like you clearly have without one shred of actual hard evidence.

Swallowed it? As in, feel it should be looked into to confirm whether there’s anything in it? Yes - hence the if - can’t believe you’ve taken to now to understand the point.

If you don’t it’s worth looking into then that’s your prerogative and you’re free to think what you want.

But I won’t be told I’m poorly educated and gullible when you’ve missed the entire point of the thread and offer nothing to substantiate labelling me as such.