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 : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 7]

101Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:56 am

Guest


Guest

I’m well aware the justice and courts bill was triggered by prorogation - I’ve never said otherwise. 

The cases GLP have bought are entirely different and the recommendations made by IRAL have no affect  on the ‘loopholes’ you claim Maugham has been exploiting. Saying Maughams’ sleaze cases have flowed through a loophole exposed by prorogation is an outright lie.

I don’t know why you seek to drag this out. You were asked to justify your claim GLP are abusing the system, you can fluff all you like but it comes back to the same question and you have still made no serious attempt to answer it.

I’ve no interest in carrying on unless you have something to say, but keep insulting me and I’ll keep responding.

102Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Fri Dec 24, 2021 9:06 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’m well aware the justice and courts bill was triggered by prorogation - I’ve never said otherwise. 

The cases GLP have bought are entirely different and the recommendations made by IRAL have no affect  on the ‘loopholes’ you claim Maugham has been exploiting. Saying Maughams’ sleaze cases have flowed through a loophole exposed by prorogation is an outright lie.

I don’t know why you seek to drag this out. You were asked to justify your claim GLP are abusing the system, you can fluff all you like but it comes back to the same question and you have still made no serious attempt to answer it.

I’ve no interest in carrying on unless you have something to say, but keep insulting me and I’ll keep responding.

Hahaha!!!

Once again putting words in my mouth!!!

When did I say GLP took sleaze cases to the JR's.

Did GLP ever even hint they were sleaze cases anywhere in their submission or in court???

No they didn't.

They might smear such allegations over their website to get people to fund them - but they aren't stupid enough to ever breath a word of that in the judicial process.

No they go for the technicality - it appears to a bystander that all isn't what it seems it should - nothing about anything being proven of such, no proof of actual wrongdoing. no smoking guns or anything like that!

Maughan/GLP are very clever in what they do and people donated £2m to them up to this time last year, God knows what they raked in this year.

All the while nothing in all this mountain of sleaze has yet to be proved to be true and the two JR's they won achieved what exactly - just a bit of press for Maughan to use to seek even more donations.

Fair play to him/them, they saw an opportunity and have exploited it perfectly.

I think that is abuse of the JR system myself - it certainly isn't in the realms of righting the wrongs to make things just and fairer for those effected by laws being administered incorrectly - as is the objective of JR's really are, instead Maughan /GLP is using it to embarrass the government and kerching the donations come flooding in!

You really make me laugh!!!

Me drag this out - yeah right

You're the one going round and round in circles, twisting and contriving to drag this on and on and on and on....

I keep asking you what do you get from it all because it's all pretty meaningless to me and I'm your dancer partner in all of this.

I've got bugger all to do with my time mostly, you've got a career, a significant other and a social life to enjoy yet you keep wanting to waltz some more with me.

Why???

'Cos you're the one who NEEDS to drag it on of course - not me!

Who even cares other than you???

And why, whoops you've let it slip haven't you?

You've given us all a BIG clue in your last sentence...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’ve no interest in carrying on unless you have something to say, but keep insulting me and I’ll keep responding.

...it's all about trolling isn't it simply because I've pointed out your ignorance on several things both on this thread and in the past.

It's all personal to you isn't it, simply because someone called you stupid on social media!!!!

That's why you do it.

Hahaha!!!!

:rofl:

103Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:53 pm

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 200.gif?cid=a87a70e68qv52o7ywvq3m480ngk7efnz60duwqa3gop343uo&rid=200

104Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:53 pm

Guest


Guest

Of course it’s you dragging this out. You’ve been asked the same question throughout and have danced around the topic for nearly two weeks. It’s all there in black and white

Obviously you’ll never stop posting on this - so let me save your Christmas for you and make this my last post. 

When you have something new to say or actually want to address the topic I’m here for you.

105Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Sat Dec 25, 2021 12:36 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Of course it’s you dragging this out. You’ve been asked the same question throughout and have danced around the topic for nearly two weeks. It’s all there in black and white

Obviously you’ll never stop posting on this - so let me save your Christmas for you and make this my last post. 

When you have something new to say or actually want to address the topic I’m here for you.

OMG!!!!

Hahahaha!!!!

You're posting on CHRISTMAS EVE carrying this whole thing on just to try and claim that I'M THE ONE dragging it out!!!!

Hahahahaha

That's the best laugh I've had all year!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

106Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:51 am

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Jolyon Maugham on Christmas University Challenge tonight - winning team but the opposition were crap.

107Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Wed Feb 16, 2022 3:24 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Don't know if TROY views but if he does I'll repost the following for his benefit -

Sluffy wrote:The High Court judges ruling hasn't been published yet and Good Law Project has in the past clearly put their own spin on cases they have taken to court - so I wouldn't put too much store in their claims, other than the the headline will be that the appointments were on some point of law wrong.

Yes, seems I was right to state this, very right to do so as it happens!

It all very technical but it simple terms Maugham/GLP in fact took a massive defeat on this - maybe even terminal to them!

2022.02.15 - GLP and Runnymede Trust judgment.pdf - Google Drive

In very simple terms, in order to bring a court case you have to be involved with it in some way so that it directly effected you - this is known as 'standing'.

The judges in this case declared the GLP had NO standing in this case - AND went on to examine 'who' GLP actually are by looking at their Articles of Association (the legal basis on how they can act as a company - in this case a not for profit organisation).

They determined very simply that GLP simply HAVE NOT got the standing to bring any legal cases!!!

Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 FLo1QUGXIAIZzIn?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 FLo1ouEWYAMbdjJ?format=png&name=4096x4096



Make no mistake, this is a huge legal blow against what Maugham/GLP has been doing.

As I say, probably fatal to how they have operated up until today.


I thought I throw in a couple of other pertinent tweets as well -








The bottom line as usual is that on a technicality just one point of law was breeched and this being in the midst of a worldwide pandemic.

The JR judges noted that point and no further action has been granted.

All it has achieved is for Maugham to politically embarrass the government whilst raising many, many thousands of pounds more to his company from public donations!

108Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Wed Feb 16, 2022 3:38 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Has the Good Law Project been dealt an existential blow?
15 February 2022, 3:08pm

There seems to be a degree of confusion that surrounds some court cases these days. Sadly this has proven true of the latest case by the Good Law Project, which has challenged the hiring of Dido Harding as chair of Test and Trace in the courts. This afternoon the High Court released its judgment on the case.

First some were confused that the decision represented a ‘blow’ against the Prime Minister. It did not. The court stated clearly that the PM was wrongly sued. In paragraph 135 it said:

‘We agree and indeed it appears to be common ground that only the Secretary of State is the relevant Defendant for the purpose of any remedy to be granted’ – which means the PM should not have been sued.

Next there was some confusion that the Good Law Project had ‘won’. It had not. Every claim brought by the GLP failed. The court I suspect did not want anyone to be so confused, so it stated that expressly in paragraph 126. There is very little ambiguity in the words ‘the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety.’

Runnymede, a charity but not the GLP, ensured the court found that two appointments were made without compliance with the public sector equality duty.

All well and good people might think? Part of the rough and tumble of politics?

The problem is this masks a fundamental blow to the GLP. This blow raises serious questions over whether or not it can even continue. The problem is contained in what can for some be odd legal language, the word ‘standing’.

Standing is what you need to bring a case. If you haven’t got it – you can’t sue. If you get run over by a tractor, I can’t sue the farmer – because I didn’t get hit, you did. That’s an easy question about standing.

A harder one is raised by organisations or groups. When can they have standing? Well, often by saying they have standing based on the issues that interest them – which is where things get tricky.

Beginning in paragraph 55 the court turned its full attention to what the Good Law Project is, and whether or not it has standing.

We have had hints of this as an issue before. But this is the first time I believe the court has addressed it. The court notes that the GLP tries to draw its objectives very widely, so as to try to have standing against any public body which makes an error of public law. But the court rejected this completely in paragraph 57:


‘No individual, even with a sincere interest in public law issues, would be regarded as having standing in all cases. We do not consider that the position differs simply because there is a limited company which brings the claim. It also cannot be right as a matter of principle that an organisation could in effect confer standing upon itself by drafting its objects clause so widely that just about any conceivable public law error by any public authority falls within its remit.’
The court concludes in paragraph 58:


‘It cannot be supposed that the GLP now has carte blanche to bring any claim for judicial review no matter what the issues and no matter what the circumstances.’

The problem is that this is an existential issue for the GLP. Its whole point is that it can sue anyone it chooses over any error of public law. But that has now been rejected by the court. Crucially it raises money on the basis it can sue over any error. That caused at least one well respected legal academic to ask whether it is time that those who donate are told?*

WRITTEN BY
Steven Barrett
Steven Barrett is a barrister

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-the-good-law-project-been-dealt-a-blow-

109Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Wed Feb 16, 2022 3:45 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

More simplified explanation from David Turner QC (see earlier tweet above) as to what happened today - his point being made is that the judges made it very clear that there was no finding that Harding's appointment was illegal - in fact they declined to do so - there was however a slight breech in the procedure but this did not change the outcome of the decision.  The judges noted this breech - nothing more.  No remedy was awarded. GLP will be liable for their entire legal costs.








This tweet is taking the piss out of Maugham.

The judges threw everything out in respect of Maugham/GLP - and I mean everything - yet you certainly wouldn't know it from what Maugham has made out to be a glorious victory for him/the GLP.

The author of this tweet is non other than David Wolfson, Baron Wolfson of Tredegar QC is a British politician, barrister and life peer who is a minister in the Ministry of Justice

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/david-wolfson-qc



On a different but equally important theme we have this tweet...



This lady who is a barrister herself tweeted further along her thread this from the ruling which para 111 clearly shows that following the correct procedures during a national emergency was clearly ridiculous!!!

Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 FLpmTMvXEAAV54Q?format=jpg&name=large

But ruling on the law in black and white the government was wrong not to do so!

Hence technically a win, with no remedy granted and simply a meaningless win on just a technicality.

110Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Feb 17, 2022 10:41 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Even Hancock ripping Maugham/GLC to shreds now!





111Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:06 am

Biggie

Biggie
Admin

I've never heard of GLP.
How do you all know so much stuff?

Upholding the law and changing it are quite sweeping statements, quite general. They must have an agenda which they have in mind? Or can anyone just suggest something that needs changing?

http://boltonnuts.forumotion.co.uk

112Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Fri Feb 18, 2022 11:07 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Biggie wrote:I've never heard of GLP.
How do you all know so much stuff?

Upholding the law and changing it are quite sweeping statements, quite general. They must have an agenda which they have in mind? Or can anyone just suggest something that needs changing?

In simple terms mate we've crossed over from the world we really live in, into a social media reality world - and the boundary has got extremely fuzzy to most people.

In the real (or perceived to be antiquated by those in the social media bubble) world we are govern by laws, in the social media world it is deemed that we should be ruled by opinion and GLP are the biggest exponents I'm aware of - and they 'tell us' that the Tory government is corrupt.

Huge numbers of their following totally believe that to be the case and follow GLP blindly.

However in the real world of laws, their claims simply don't stack up.

It is easy to say the Tory party is corrupt but in the real world you have to back that up with hard evidence - and GLP (nor anyone else) can actually find any to back up their claims.

The people behind GLP aren't stupid though, they know this.

What they do is tell all their disciples how corrupt the government is, and that they are taking them to court but need donations to fund these cases and the money comes flooding in.

They make all the right noises, rattle their sabres and all that but in reality they actually go through with only a very small number of court cases and even then don't look to prove any corruption but rather seek what is known as Judicial Reviews which very, very simply rule on technicalities in the application of law.

GLP has had some success in winning a few cases (well just one up to now - they had won a second but it was overturned on appeal) but they make out to their followers that they are taking the Tory party to task!

Their following simply swallow it.

The two cases they won were in all honesty on a mere technicality - so minor in fact that no award was given against the government other than to say, don't do this next time (if there even is a next time because the technicality they breached was at the hight of the worldwide pandemic).

The people in the social media world think GLP are the best thing since sliced bread, people like me in the real world simply think they are stupid and being played to give their money to GLP.

They say a fool and their money are easily partied, well it seems to me GLP is proving this to be entirely true.

Their followers donated around £2m to GLP in 2020, I suspect they got double those donations last year and await to see their accounts in due course.

For this potential £6m public funded donations they've received as far as I can see they've actually won just one case in two years and that was that the government should ensure they publish contract awards (in the paper so to speak) within 30 days even though a worldwide pandemic has just started and everyone is trying to get PPE equipment rather than post notices in the paper like they would do normally!

Some people from the real world try and explain this to the GLP groupies but they are just wasting their time as in the social media world they work to a different reality and facts don't seem to be important or even relevant to how they believe the world is run.

Strange times we live in - the new normal it now seems to be though...

God help us if it really is!

113Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:48 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I thought the following article was extremely good.

I would I suppose because it states exactly the very things I've been saying for the last two years - and the penny has begun to drop for many now and most notably the judiciary itself.

The article is written by a journalist who has no time for Maugham and it is printed in the Daily Mail but if you can put to one side any preconceived bias you may have (including hate for the Tory Party) and read this for what it actually states about the factualities of the courts findings, then you might start to see the world in a slightly different way in respect of all the sleaze, cronyism, corruption and ineptitude that has been peddled by Maugham and so readily lapped up by many who want to believe it is true - despite the glaring fact there has never been any actual evidence found to back up any of the mountains of claims made.

DAN HODGES: A fox-killing lawyer, his bombastic claims – and the grotesque indulgence that is clogging our courts

By DAN HODGES FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:02, 19 February 2022 | UPDATED: 13:35, 20 February 2022

The email from the Good Law Project to its supporters was unequivocal. ‘Breaking: We Won,’ it exclaimed. A few moments later the organisation’s director, barrister Jolyon Maugham, took to Twitter. ‘BREAKING: Prime Minister Boris Johnson and former Health Minister Matt Hancock broke the law because they didn’t think about disabled and ethnic minority communities in appointing Dido Harding and Mike Coupe,’ he gleefully revealed.

Yet, as Maugham basked in his moment of glory and his army of progressive supporters fanned across to social media to celebrate, it began to emerge there was just one small problem. What the Good Law Project had said wasn’t true.

The judgment into a case brought against appointing Harding the chairman, and Coupe a director, of the Covid Test and Trace Task Force didn’t mince its words. ‘The claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety,’ Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift ruled. They found part of a claim brought by the Runnymede Trust succeeded only on the basis the appointments implemented at the height of the coronavirus crisis ‘were made without compliance with the public sector equality duty’.

But the most explosive argument – that Harding and Coupe had been selected because Ministers considered ‘only candidates with some relevant personal or political connection’ – was unequivocally rejected.

‘It fails on its facts,’ Singh and Swift stated, while pointedly adding: ‘Mr Maugham asserts that Mr Coupe is a “friend” of Baroness Harding but provides no further detail’.

The judges also addressed the claim that Boris Johnson was guilty of breaking the law. ‘No remedy should be granted as against the first Defendant, the Prime Minister, since it is clear on the facts as found by this Court that he played no part in the two appointments,’ they said.

Jolyon Maugham is best known for his bold announcement on Boxing Day 2019 that he had just bludgeoned a fox to death with a baseball bat while dressed in a satin kimono. But it’s time to address the manner in which he’s leading a similar assault on the British Government, the British legal system and British democracy.

In Maugham’s eyes – and those of his devoted followers – he’s a judicial caped crusader. ‘I really, really don’t like acts of dishonesty by the State,’ he says. ‘I don’t like the Government misleading the public.’ But, as we saw last week, this passion for honesty and transparency in the public sphere doesn’t extend to pronouncements on the cases brought by his own organisation.

And there are a lot of cases. Overturning Brexit. Promoting trans rights. The right of schools to enforce face masks. Partygate. Net Zero. Windrush compensation. The Good Law Project has engaged in litigation on them all.

‘Good Law Project is a not-for-profit campaign organisation that uses the law to protect the interests of the public’ is the portentous claim on the organisation’s website. But it doesn’t. What Good Law actually do is engage in guerrilla warfare via the courts to destabilise the elected government of the day, and promote their own partial, liberal agenda.

To be fair, their MO is brilliantly simple. They select a high-profile issue. They announce they are going to mount a legal challenge over it and appeal for funds to finance their action. Their middle-class supporters dip into their pockets and Good Law duly roll up to court, where they file a number of claims, some on major points of law and governance, others that represent legal technicalities. They then mostly lose, at which point, as we have seen in this case, they claim victory anyway. Or they occasionally win – almost always on a relatively minor technicality – and claim an even bigger triumph. Then round they go again.

Maugham has long claimed Good Law is fulfilling a necessary, indeed vital, function – keeping the British political class honest on behalf of the people. And for a while the conceit held. But now the curtain is finally being drawn back.

Justice is supposedly blind. But all of Good Law’s cases emanate from one narrow part of the political spectrum. And are prosecuted for a single, and transparent, political purpose. ‘We have literally years of Tory sleaze litigation running through the courts. This issue is going to sink the Tories – and so it should,’ Maugham declared a few months ago.

This attempt to remove the ballot box from the polling booth and place it in the dock of the High Court would be bad enough at the best of times. But according to the most recent NAO report, there is a post-Covid logjam of 61,000 crown court cases, including rape and other serious sexual assaults, and over 360,000 magistrates’ court cases. Although Maugham’s actions take place in civil courts, Good Law’s litigious gluttony is still a grotesque indulgence against that backdrop.

And the judiciary appear to be noticing. In last week’s judgment, Justices Singh and Swift said: ‘It cannot be supposed that the Good Law Project now has carte blanche to bring any claim for judicial review no matter what the issues and no matter what the circumstances.’ Which is problematic for Jolyon Maugham and his allies, given that’s precisely the basis on which they’ve been operating for the past five years.

But the biggest problem with the Good Law Project isn’t actually the way they are hijacking the British legal system as part of their campaign against Boris and his Government. It’s how they are using the law to hijack the truth. Over the past two years their campaign has had one main objective. To prove that the award of PPE and other Covid contracts were the result of a politically corrupt relationship between senior Ministers and suppliers.

‘I’m only half-joking when I say if you are a friend of Matt Hancock’s and you haven’t got a huge contract worth tens of millions, you have got to be looking at yourself in the mirror,’ Maugham said last year.

But it isn’t true. And we know it isn’t true because it’s been proven in court time and time again not to be true. Despite all the lucrative crowdsourcing and the self-righteous hyperbole and the increasingly bombastic claims of judicial vindication, not a single case has resulted in a finding of deliberate ministerial bias in the award of Covid contracts. ‘Money for their mates,’ claimed Good Law, after bringing an action against a company with links to Dom Cummings. But the judge stipulated there was no bias in the awarding of the contract. And the whole case was tossed out on appeal.

‘The High Court has ruled that the Government’s operation of a fast-track VIP lane for awarding lucrative PPE contracts to those with political connections was unlawful,’ Good Law boasted last month. Conveniently ignoring the fact the judge had specifically ruled the companies involved were qualified to provide PPE, the contracts would almost certainly have been awarded anyway, and an NAO report had already concluded Ministers had no role in delivering them.

‘It’s time for an end to cronyism,’ Good Law opined as they launched their case against Dido Harding’s appointment. ‘The claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety’ was the judicial system’s response.

But the Good Law Project probably doesn’t care. That’s because for all their liberal moralising, there is something quite Trumpian about their strategy. Make the outrageous claim. Stir up your base. Reap the rewards. Move on.

Last Wednesday, after even his own supporters had begun to question his hubris, Jolyon Maugham offered a grudging mea culpa. ‘I don’t mind being held to a high standard – or even a higher standard. I expect to be,’ he said.

But he doesn’t. He expects people to read Good Law’s press releases and ignore the actual judgments. To devour his tropes about cronies and Tory sleaze and give the evidence a swerve. Most of all, he expects his followers to embrace his man- of-the-people affectation. And not pause to question whether the people would be better served if their legal system was rooting out genuine criminality and corruption, rather than providing a backdrop to the ego of another liberal silk.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10530917/DAN-HODGES-fox-killing-lawyer-bombastic-claims-clogging-courts.html

114Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:45 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Hahahaha!!!!

The judges absolutely slammed Maugham /GLP (and by association too the Runnymede Trust) in respect of the award of costs for the court case discussed immediately above in this thread - more or less implied Maugham/GLP lied in their submission to try to put a cost cap limit on what they might have to pay!

GLP and Runnymede Trust have been ordered to pay 80% of the government costs (which amounts to over £1m I believe) AND for good measure the High Court judge also added that he can't see how GLP could even (be cheeky enough to) seek cost capping as their finances from crowd funding have provided ample monies to fund the full costs themselves and thus would fall outside the criteria for granting a cap in the first place!!!

Looks as though Maugham/GLP are going to have to rethink their strategy for all their potential JR from now on I would imagine!

115Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:32 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Oh dear, seems Maugham/GLP have had another set back!

In simple terms Maugham/GLP take their cases to Judicial Review because the court simply judges as to whether what is done/not done is in accordance with the law/rules and regs.  Maugham/GLP doesn't have to prove any corruption, illegality, cronyism, etc, etc, just looking for a simple yes or no ruling - did they do/not do something as per the letter of the law.

That's why they have been able to get a 'win' or two in the government not publishing contract awards within 30 days - despite a worldwide pandemic and everyone's first priority was to get PPE first and do the paperwork when the crisis had passed, or where the government simply 'looked bad' as opposed to having done anything 'bad' (which was overturned on appeal anyway).

So it is somewhat ironic that they themselves are now bitching that because they missed their 'deadline' to officially 'start' court action, that it is very unfair of the Appeal Judges to uphold the original judges ruling to throw their case out!

Seems in Maugham/GLP's eyes it's wrong for the government to miss deadlines but quite ok for them to miss them though!



...and still not a single smoking gun found of all this huge mountain of corruption that the Tory government had been claimed to have done!!!

Fancy that.

116Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:22 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Seems GLP/Maugham have realised their game is up!

Forget the hyperbole on they write on the tweet below and concentrate on the report that they commissioned, which I will give a brief idiots guide to below...



In very simple terms GLP/Maugham have been hammered by the courts losing virtually all the JR's they brought and having one of their only two wins against the government overturned - all this have led to horrendous financial losses to them - albeit they are funded by public donations (there's one born every minute they say - and most of them still implicitly believe GLP/Maugham are some sort of modern day Robin Hoods fighting the baddy Sherriff of Nottingham (or in this case the Tory Government)).

As I stated to TROY many times previously it was blindingly obvious to me that GLP/Maugham was using the courts to simply attack the government and attempt to create policy outside of Parliament by using the judiciary to hold the executive to account (which is the constitutional job of Parliament to do).

The country has elected a large Conservative majority which forms the executive and holds power in Parliament - so clearly formulates and passes the legislation it sees best - that's how the system works.

Maugham/GLP have attempted to usurp this by making multiple legal challenges via Judicial Reviews - which basically judge on a yes/no basis as to whether a law has been applied correctly or not.

The only two cases which Maugham/GLP cases won were on very minor technical breaches of EU law - and even then one has been overturned on appeal.

Maugham/GLP have proclaimed huge victories from these court cases namely the government is trying to keep secrets about PPE contract awards and the illegality of the VIP lanes (implying strongly that is to hide corruption/cronyism), when in actuality they won on extremely soft technicalities namely contracts were not published in accordance to an obscure EU timescale in the full fury of trying to obtain PPE in the midst of a worldwide pandemic and that again technically the VIP lane had fallen foul of some minor EU directive but even then the judge when awarding the 'win' stated that the contracts awarded via the VIP lane would have been awarded whether the VIP lane was there or not and consequently she refused to award GLP any costs.

More recent cases have completely ruled out any participation from GLP as having 'no standing' in cases - which basically means if you aren't directly involved as either a plaintiff or a defendant then you have no say in the matter.

I flagged that point up previously in this thread as being the beginning of the end for how GLP/Maugham works as clearly this report they've commissioned now unquestionably confirms that.

The report couches it in flowery terms, but basically it is clear (and as stated in point 4 of the report) that courts are looking for 'standing' (GLP/Maugham simply do not have it), that courts are clearly against relying solely on "international 'soft-law'" or in other words obscure EU legislation (the only two cases GLP/Maugham won were totally reliant on this "international 'soft-law'" and even then one got overturned on appeal) and lastly courts are not there "to transgress upon parliamentary sovereignty" (or in other words GLP/Maugham can no longer attempt to formulate policy by using the judiciary (which was basically their one and only strategy)).

The report goes on to make several other general points as to how the courts are changing but in all honesty Judicial Reviews as I've said above basically make yes/no decisions based on the application of a law and the judiciary have clearly seen that GLP/Maugham have been attempting to 'abuse' that by a scatter gun approach, hoping that in their many claims they make one or two might just be fortunate enough to find some small technicality they can claim a win on.

The judiciary have basically put an end to their game by looking more closely at their 'standing' in these cases that they clearly have not got.

Maugham/GLP seem to be making out that the courts are against them (they are not) and that in future they will work to back those who do have such standing.

I've no doubt Maugham/GLP will continue to charm the guidable into continually financing them but their plan to use the judiciary to govern by other means is finally dead and buried from now on it would clearly seem to me.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HIs3Y06o96je3YFNLNMF9ZGZ7bmD2al4/view

117Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:09 pm

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

It's unsurprising they lost. As the government fraud investigators continue to probe what happened I was absolutely gobsmacked by the statement made by the DHSC permanent secretary - who basically claimed that fraud is the norm:


Giving evidence to the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Jonathan Marron, the director general of the office for health improvement and disparities, said they had “concerns” over 176 contracts worth a total of £3.9 billion.

He said that the actual amount of equipment at issue was worth £2.7 billion – with concerns ranging from the quality of the kit provided to performance of the contractor.




The DHSC permanent secretary Chris Wormald said the level of suspected fraud was no higher than with other government contracts:


"It is not unusual to be in dispute on some contracts. Some of them will be resolved entirely amicably, some of them will get to the other end of the spectrum where we believe there has been wrongdoing,” he told the committee.

Fraud in contracting is a fact of life, regardless of the circumstances. It would be astonishing if this was the only large set of government contracts in which there was no fraud at all.

What we haven’t seen is this set of contracts being more susceptible to fraud than the average."


The investigation continues and in all likelihood nothing will come of it, but I do find this blanket admission from the top civil servant in the department deriding his own department's due diligence and contract monitoring processes quite astounding.

118Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Apr 21, 2022 11:26 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

1 - What as this got to do with GLP strategy of abusing the judicial system to attempt to govern by other means???
2 - Fraud in contracting is a fact of life - you even highlight the comment above.  He means in ALL contracting not just limited the government.
3 - You seem to have deliberately taken out of context what was said and why what may have happened did -

During a grilling by MPs on the Public Accounts Committee, Jonathan Marron, a senior civil servant in the department, claimed the sum was 'quite a small proportion' of the overall figure spent on protective equipment during the pandemic.

But Nick Smith, the Labour MP for Blaenau Gwent in south Wales, said it was more than what was spent on the new £350million hospital in his constituency.

Mr Marron, director general of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities at the DoH, replied: ‘That Is correct.’

Mr Marron said: ‘Clearly we bought really significant numbers of PPE and we’ve used huge amounts - 19.8billion items of PPE distributed to health and social care up to the end of last month.

‘So they’re just enormous figures for the volumes that we’ve needed to keep patients safe.'

Mr Marron said the amount would have been considered large 'in normal times' but was not particularly high given the difficulties officials faced in getting PPE at the start of the pandemic.

He said: 'It is 3 per cent of the total we purchased. That’s quite a small proportion.


'In normal times, I would think that is a very high number but if we go back to when we bought the PPE, the market conditions, the real difficulties of buying.'

Ministers spent £14.8billion on securing PPE in the first year of Covid, according to annual Department of Health accounts. But roughly £8.7bn was written off, either because it was unusable or passed the expiry date.

During the same committee hearing, health officials admitted VIP lanes used to offer PPE contracts to preferred companies would not be used again.

Sir Chris Wormald, the chief civil servant in charge of the Department of Health, said No10 would not use similar 'high priority' lanes for procuring health equipment in future.

The High Court in January ruled contracts awarded to two companies using the fast-track lanes were unlawful.  [For the record although the judge did rule this on a technical breech of an EU regulation she rejected GLP request for a 'remedy' as she found that the contracts would have been awarded irrespective of being received via the VIP lane and that the contracts were evaluated in exactly the same way as all other contracts not originating from the VIP lane.  Her rejection of awarding a remedy was that GLP were unable to claim cost and their 'win' was pyrrhic, in name only - nothing at all changed or flowed from her ruling - Sluffy].

Some 193 PPE suppliers were referred to the Department of Health through the so-called 'VIP' lanes, that prioritised companies put forward by MPs and skipped the normal procurement process.

Of those, 51 were awarded 115 contracts worth billions of pounds, leading to accusations of cronyism after it emerged that associates of Tory MPs were beneficiaries of the scheme.

Ex-Health Secretary's Matt Hancock's neighbour was among those who benefitted from the contracts. [That isn't true as such - the landlord was only employed as a sub-contractor to a company that did win a PPE contract - Sluffy]

Sir Chris insisted the checks on companies were the same regardless of which lane companies pitched for contracts in.

But asked if the Department of Health would use similar schemes in future, the civil servant admitted it would abandon the system.

He said: 'Well given that we lost in court on one part of it, no. We would keep the same basic structure.

'So would we have a triage system where out of a large number of offers we attempt to identify the most promising and do them first? Yes, we would. We would keep that triage.


'Would we do it in the same way as we did the high priority lane? No, we would not.'

A Department of Health spokesperson said: 'Our priority throughout the pandemic has been saving lives, and we have delivered over 19.1 billion items of PPE to frontline staff to keep them safe.

'Having too much PPE was preferable to having too little in the face of an unpredictable and dangerous virus, given this was essential to keep our NHS open and protect as many people as possible.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10735887/Covid-PPE-461million-wasted-useless-equipment-paid-brand-new-hospital.html

120Good Law Project Limited - Page 6 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:04 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Eh???

Perhaps you should ask yourself your own question...

wanderlust wrote: Are you on drugs?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 7]

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

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