T.R.O.Y. wrote: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.
Who gives a fuck???
You admitted yourself you are poorly educated in what is the core of the issue 'contracts' ffs -
T.R.O.Y. wrote:You say I've got a complete ignorance on contract law, no argument from me...
...and you've taken innuendo at face value until I challenged you about it and spelt it out to you!
If that's caused you to get your knickers in a twist then tough titty!
The entire point of the thread in your eyes seems to be wanting the innuendo to be true until it can be proved otherwise - Christ I even had to change the thread tittle from 'Corruption' for God's sake - whereas I view the start point as innocent until proven guilty.
If there is corruption lock them up and get every penny back, I don't have a problem with that but they've been painted as guilty already and clearly loads believe that to be the case - that's lynch mob mentality, string them up they're a tory!!!
I thought you had a bit more about you than dancing to someone else's tune without a thought.
Clearly I was wrong.
And what's this supposed to mean???
"If you don’t it’s worth looking into then that’s your prerogative and you’re free to think what you want".
I'm the one who was telling you back as far as March that the order things will be done is to deal with the pandemic first and undertake an inquiry into what's gone on and why further down the line when we are more on top of the virus.
I've never said I didn't believe things shouldn't be looked into - I've no idea where you've got that impression of me from - the whole basis of my professional career was to ensure everything's been done right in accordance with the law.
I'd be amongst the first to want to know if there's been any sort of corruption but I certainly wouldn't start off by believing it had without any proof other than conjecture and innuendo.
If Maugham or anyone else has got hard proof then take it to the police, give it to the PAC inquiry, let than prove what they imply - actions have always spoken louder than words!