Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Good Law Project Limited

Good Law Project Limited

+4
karlypants
wanderlust
Norpig
Sluffy
8 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 7]

1Good Law Project Limited Empty Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 14:45

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Whilst sheltering from Omicron and Storm Barra I thought I would pass the time away at looking at GLP Ltd and what an eye opener it turned out to be.

GLP was incorporated (began its existence) on the 10th January, 2017 - so has just been around for four years.  It is somewhat different to most limited companies in that it is limited by 'guarantee' and not by 'share capital'.

That basically means it is a non profit making business, owned by its members, who don't gain financially from it - not even if it decided to liquidate and have money in excess of debts at the end.

I'm not sure who its 'members' are but I assume they are the Directors of the company?

Maughan was a Director but stood down in July of this year when four new Directors were appointed - all of whom seem to be connected with 'good causes' or social awareness (nothing wrong in that and I'm not saying it other than as a statement of fact).

There are a further two Directors, one being Stuart Wood who was a Special Advisor at number 10 to Gordon Brown (Cummings was a Special Advisor to Boris as a parallel example) who was made a peer to serve in Miliband's Shadow Cabinet.  The other is Rupert Evans who seems to be solely a businessman and Chair of the GLP board.

https://goodlawproject.org/our-people/

There was at one time one other Director, Sam Smethers who resigned in December 2018.

I mention this because in October 2020 his daughter Rachel was appointed as GLP Head of Communications without it appears being interviewed for the job...

Article here entitled The Good Law Project's Own Cronyism

https://order-order.com/2021/04/28/the-good-law-projects-own-cronyism/

Anyway moving on.

GLP started just four years ago with zero in the bank, the latest published accounts filed by them was for the financial year ending 31st January 2021 - or just under a year ago.

In that three year period (and not including any revenue from all of this year from the 1st February onwards remember) it showed on its balance sheet revenue for the year of..,

Wait for it...

A staggering THREE MILLION POUNDS!!!

And resulting in a profit for that year of £1,150,000



Where at the money come from you may ask?

Well mainly by GLP followers donations!

The accounts show case specific donations of £1.3m (20% of which is taken out to fund the running of GLP as it states when seeking case specific contributions) and £1.15m as regular and one off general donations to GLP itself.

To put this into some context at the hight of the BLM donations frenzy, they collected just over £1m.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10556197/filing-history

It makes me wonder what GLP will have received in donations this year, I don't doubt it will easily top the £3m of last year - don't you?

Fair play to Maughan and GLP to start with nothing and have £3m revenue and £1m in the bank just three years later (and no doubt significantly improve on that this year).

Just goes to shows the power of using social media as a means of generating revenue for his 'project' I guess.

2Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 14:52

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Do we really need another thread for you and TROY to argue on? Surely one is enough (i know it is for me)

3Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 14:58

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

You didn't know that?

Their mission statement is to "defend, define and change the law to uphold democracy, protect the environment and ensure no-one is left behind"

Good causes that I think we can all agree with right?

GLP is and always has been people -powered, mostly by individuals donating £2 or £5 a month.

4Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 15:26

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Norpig wrote:Do we really need another thread for you and TROY to argue on? Surely one is enough (i know it is for me)
I agree. I nearly fell into a coma reading it all in the other thread. Very Happy

5Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 15:38

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

karlypants wrote:
I agree. I nearly fell into a coma reading it all in the other thread. Very Happy
Very Happy

6Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 15:45

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:You didn't know that?

Their mission statement is to "defend, define and change the law to uphold democracy, protect the environment and ensure no-one is left behind"

Good causes that I think we can all agree with right?

GLP is and always has been people -powered, mostly by individuals donating £2 or £5 a month.

I was more shocked that they raised almost £3m simply from donations in one year (and that was nearly a year ago - goodness knows what they raised this year!!!).

I've no problem with good causes or holding the government to account - non at all.

I do though believe much of GLP agenda, driven by Maughan is more to do with a political hatred of the government more than anything else.

For instance all these perpetual allegations of sleaze and cronyism over PPE contracts when all boiled down seems to relate to just 47 companies in the VIP lane and even then just 10 Tory Minister/MP/Lord made a referral for one or other of them.

The vast majority of contracts awarded in the VIP lane simply didn't have any connections with the Tory party - although the public perception thanks to Maughan makes them thing most if not all of them were!!!

And if these '10' did really do something dodgy - then where's the proof - he's had nearly two years to find it by now!

To my mind he does this deliberately to stir the shit in respect of a government he clearly hates and secondly (and possibly never purposely intended?) what a fantastic way of raising £3m in a year funded by folk who seem to buy into his rhetoric!

Everything seems to be all above board though, he's free to claim what he likes and people are similarly free to believe him and donate their money but for me at least he seems to be telling them a tale they want to hear - and pay via donations - to hear more of!

I'd have a great deal more respect for him and GLC if they actually physical proved something - you'd think with £3m in their pocket they would by now have had the resources to do so wouldn't you?

Well I would.

It all seems more like an empty vessels to me with the naive donating to listen to them.

7Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 15:55

Guest


Guest

Official inquiry hasn’t happened, crucial evidence still missing from investigations (see hidden WhatsApp messages and official meetings with no minutes). But Slough’s finest has made his decision - nothing to see here and everyone who thinks otherwise is naive Laughing

Let’s wait and see what comes out over the next few years Sluffy.

8Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 15:55

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Norpig wrote:Do we really need another thread for you and TROY to argue on? Surely one is enough (i know it is for me)

???

It's a completely different topic than the other thread/s.

It's like, if you will, why we have one thread about FV and their financing of the club and a different thread/s for what we do on the pitch.

GLP has certainly out performed FV over the last three years - and it hasn't cost them a single penny - they've raised nearly £3m just from crowd funding last year - God knows what they will raise this year!

Sorry if you and others find stuff like this boring, please feel free to start a thread or two on stuff you'd like to talk about instead.

9Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 16:02

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:

Sorry if you and others find stuff like this boring, please feel free to start a thread or two on stuff you'd like to talk about instead.
Now, let me think.............

10Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 16:07

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Official inquiry hasn’t happened, crucial evidence still missing from investigations (see hidden WhatsApp messages and official meetings with no minutes). But Slough’s finest has made his decision - nothing to see here and everyone who thinks otherwise is naive Laughing

Let’s wait and see what comes out over the next few years Sluffy.

You don't have to wait for any official inquiry if you are serious about finding proof.

You yet again refer to official meetings with no minutes, what exactly are you talking about?

And fwiw I would absolutely love Maughan to back up his claims with hard evidence - wouldn't you?

I'm all for sending the bad guys to prison.

But the longer this goes on without any hard evidence the more and more it starts to remind me of the story about the Emperors New Clothes, where everyone was taken in with the hype and not the actual hard facts.

11Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 16:18

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

boltonbonce wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Sorry if you and others find stuff like this boring, please feel free to start a thread or two on stuff you'd like to talk about instead.
Now, let me think.............
50-A509-B1-8577-4172-B89-D-66-C378-A2926-B

12Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 16:25

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Very Happy
You know me too well.

13Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 16:25

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Not one to blow my own trumpet (i've tried and it threw my back out) but i start a lot of threads on here.

You two have been arguing about Maughan on another thread so it could have just been added to there surely?

14Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 16:26

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

boltonbonce wrote:Very Happy
You know me too well.
Very Happy

15Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 16:44

Guest


Guest

Norpig wrote:Not one to blow my own trumpet (i've tried and it threw my back out) but i start a lot of threads on here.

You two have been arguing about Maughan on another thread so it could have just been added to there surely?

Agreed, we have Nepotism/Cronyism and How is the gov doing - can one of the mods merge this thread into nepotism please?

Thanks.

16Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 17:04

Guest


Guest

Sluffy wrote:

You don't have to wait for any official inquiry if you are serious about finding proof.

You yet again refer to official meetings with no minutes, what exactly are you talking about?

And fwiw I would absolutely love Maughan to back up his claims with hard evidence - wouldn't you?

I'm all for sending the bad guys to prison.

But the longer this goes on without any hard evidence the more and more it starts to remind me of the story about the Emperors New Clothes, where everyone was taken in with the hype and not the actual hard facts.


Bad guys in prison lol, not sure what you think this is.

What evidence are you expecting to see out of interest?



Last edited by T.R.O.Y. on Tue Dec 07 2021, 17:05; edited 1 time in total

17Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 17:05

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

In the world of legal fees £3million doesn't go that far if there are multiple high profile cases although the government has been ordered to repay a good chunk of GLP's legal fees after losing cases e.g. they got 75% back after Gove was found guilty of unlawfully handing out contracts at Public First. But...
a) you have to be able to front the fees in the first place and
b) the government have been using a dirty tricks campaign to try to bankrupt them.
In a recent case the government's lawyers and GLP agreed a fee cap of £37k (which is common practice amongst lawyers so they can set their budgets but not legally binding) - the lawyers have to front the money to cover the other side's costs in case they lose the case.

Three weeks later they said "slight miscalculation chaps - it's actually going to cost 10 times that".
Imagine if that was a builder who'd quoted for an extension affraid
 
Highly dishonourable but not illegal - and GLP should have known better than to trust them in the first place, but they've got their measure now.

18Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 17:06

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:
Norpig wrote:Not one to blow my own trumpet (i've tried and it threw my back out) but i start a lot of threads on here.

You two have been arguing about Maughan on another thread so it could have just been added to there surely?

Agreed, we have Nepotism/Cronyism and How is the gov doing - can one of the mods merge this thread into nepotism please?

Thanks.

I disagree.

As I've stated the thread stands on its own two feet in that it is about the financing of a company in just the same way we have a separate thread about FV and its financing separate to all the other BWFC threads.

If you want to argue about GLP financing then do it on here, if you want to argue about any other aspect of GLP then simply do it on the relevant thread.

Just as we already do in respect of FV / BWFC.

19Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 07 2021, 18:05

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:In the world of legal fees £3million doesn't go that far if there are multiple high profile cases although the government has been ordered to repay a good chunk of GLP's legal fees after losing cases e.g. they got 75% back after Gove was found guilty of unlawfully handing out contracts at Public First. But...
a) you have to be able to front the fees in the first place and
b) the government have been using a dirty tricks campaign to try to bankrupt them.
In a recent case the government's lawyers and GLP agreed a fee cap of £37k (which is common practice amongst lawyers so they can set their budgets but not legally binding) - the lawyers have to front the money to cover the other side's costs in case they lose the case.

Three weeks later they said "slight miscalculation chaps - it's actually going to cost 10 times that".


Imagine if that was a builder who'd quoted for an extension affraid
 
Highly dishonourable but not illegal - and GLP should have known better than to trust them in the first place, but they've got their measure now.

Fwiw, the £3m quoted was for revenue.

The 'contingency' fund for potential costs in cases they may they lose would be covered from their end of year balance that amounts to £1.4m.  The accounts refer to just four on going cases at the time in which two were already capped at a total of £370k and a further one seeking a cap from the judge and would withdraw from the case if the judge refused the application.

Seems to me that at the time of the accounts GLP had it all in hand.

As far as I'm aware it is the judge that sets the capping of costs and not an informal agreement between the two parties, although if they both agree in advance to a set sum then I don't see a problem with it.

As for the escalation of costs you mention I believe the total is closer to £600k than the £370k you alluded to.

As always there are two sides to every story and I would like to hear the governments case before making allegations of dirty tricks.

Clearly you don't.

At the end of the day it isn't costing GLP itself a single penny - all its funding is from public donations - and thus are free of any actual jeopardy as such.

The governments costs however are from the public purse funded from our taxes.

I therefore feel there is something not entirely right IF Maughan is using Judicial Reviews to further his agenda against the government by means of frivolous court action intended to simply make the government look bad, whilst it is costing me, you and all other taxpayers in the government having to defend itself against such.

I'd have a darn site more respect if GLP backed their own beliefs with their own money and challenged the government with real evidence in the Crown Court rather than scoring meaningless points against the government by JR's which frankly are just a court ruling on the technicality of whether a law has being administered correctly or not - and where there is no real sanction other than for the court to rule that 'it should be administered correctly in future'.

Hardly going to prove any form of sleaze or cronyism by such means are they???

Makes me question if they really are trying to prove such and more that this is all about simply attempting to make the government look bad - and at no cost to the pocket of Maughan or anyone else associated with GLP!

20Good Law Project Limited Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Wed Dec 08 2021, 12:57

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Even reminding the government that their actions are under scrutiny so they can't ride roughshod over the law is a success in itself.

They have applied for 14 judicial reviews of which 11 were granted at the first time of asking i.e. 78% compared to the average of 10%.

GLP's objective is to ensure the law is upheld. The Government has broken the law on many occasions. GLP are not out to "prove any form of sleaze or cronyism" - sleaze and cronyism are  terms extrapolated from their actions and not defined in law as an offence per se therefore no court would grant a JR if that's what they stated they were attempting to prove - so I don't get the point you are making.

For analogy: Jimmy Savile was a bastard, but being a bastard isn't a crime you can be convicted of as such. Paedophilia is.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 7]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum