Good Law Project Limited

wanderlust wrote: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.

It's not the job of a private company - for that is what GLP is - to scrutinise the government - we have Parliament to do that.

I'd take with a pinch of salt GLP's claims as they put a great deal of spin on what they say.

They may well have had 11 JR's granted but how many have actually ended up in court - just 4 apparently - and even TROY doesn't seem to know what two of them are!

Judicial Reviews, as I have pointed out many times now, are there simply to rule on if a law has been administered correctly and if found not to have been done so, to basically instruct the entity (the government in GLP's JR's cases) to do so in future.

The only two JR's that I'm aware they won was one where the government didn't advertise contract awards within 28 days and the other where they 'looked dodgy' (not that they were proved to be so!).

How is that 'scrutinising' the government?

Hardly proved anything at all really did they in those two 'successful' JR verdicts for them - the first was openly admitted to by the government before being to taken to court - their defence was that dealing with the pandemic took precedence over tidying up the paperwork to meet a timescale that took no account for a worldwide pandemic - and the second was absolutely meaningless in any real sense - and why that judgement has been appealed.

And when anyone has to bring the likes of Jimmy Saville or Adolph Hitler in to backup their internet argument, then you know they don't really have much of a case to present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

You should work with Boris, the truth could be dancing naked in front of you but instead of facing it you’d cover your eyes and run headfirst into the nearest wall.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

You should work with Boris, the truth could be dancing naked in front of you but instead of facing it you’d cover your eyes and run headfirst into the nearest wall.

I could have had a substantial more lucrative career if I had ditched the morals I have but I'm not that sort of person.

Politics is a dirty game with just two rules.

Boris plays the game well - he's plotted his route to becoming PM and despite all his disasters and scandals of his career and personal life he got there, and more to the point is still there - that takes some doing - so he must be good even if everyone else thinks he's an absolute idiot.

He's not ready to go anytime soon yet!

He clearly doesn't have any morals or scruples but clearly that isn't a hindrance in politics these days - look at how many of the Cabinet sold their souls to publicly speak up for Cummings when he broke the Covid rules!

I haven't any time for politics or politicians - I've seen it from the inside - and no party is free from sin - believe me.

I do know how government works though - and clearly most on here including yourself - are ignorant of that.

I know what I'm talking about in this respect and if you choose to think I'm talking out my arse, then that's up to you - it won't change what I've said to be wrong.

You won't see any proof of all this sleaze, cronyism or corruption as constantly alleged and trumpeted by Maughan/GLC because it didn't happen - it would be out in the open and be in court by now if it had.

Would I like to see Johnson go - of course I would but who that isn't already tainted would replace him Sunak perhaps...?

Dominic Cummings has made clear he was motivated by trying to protect his son and he took steps to be safe.

I understand people had serious questions about his actions - indeed many of you have made huge sacrifices - but I do believe today he explained himself.

— Rishi Sunak (@RishiSunak) May 25, 2020

So much for his morals and integrity...

I've got a great deal more time for Starmer in this respect but he (like everyone else in politics) has to sell a little bit of their soul if they want to get to the top of the greasy pole!



It's simple the nature of the beast and why I don't want anything to do with it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:If_you_lie_down_with_dogs,_you_get_up_with_fleas

What evidence are you hoping to see? And why do you know more about government than any of us? As I remember your interest in politics is relatively recent.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:What evidence are you hoping to see? And why do you know more about government than any of us? As I remember your interest in politics is relatively recent.

You remember wrong then.

I've worked in government since I left school and they still want me to do the odd bits of contractual work to help them out (which I invariably do) even though I long ago retired.

If anyone can match that on here then fair play to them.

As for evidence I would hope to see, then that would be actual proof of guilt.

You worked in national government?

On evidence, I really mean what are you hoping to see? The tender process was deregulated to get contracts through faster (correctly) so it doesn’t sound to me like anything criminal will ever be proven. The issue here is to do with wasting public money, MP’s recommending their mates as a favour rather than seriously vouching for their suitability and that’s difficult to prove - especially when comms have been hidden or deleted.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You worked in national government?

On evidence, I really mean what are you hoping to see? The tender process was deregulated to get contracts through faster (correctly) so it doesn’t sound to me like anything criminal will ever be proven. The issue here is to do with wasting public money, MP’s recommending their mates as a favour rather than seriously vouching for their suitability and that’s difficult to prove - especially when comms have been hidden or deleted.

I worked in local government as a qualified Company Secretary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_secretary

Quite simply I would like to see proof of what is being alleged.

The claim is, as you have written, "MP’s recommending their mates as a favour".

Where's the evidence to prove this?

If there is no evidence then all there is, is slurs and inuenndo.

How do you, Maughan or anyone else know that MP's DIDN'T recommended companies on merit irrespective of if it was one of their mates or not?

Seems to me you, Maughan and countless others have already judged them to be guilty and the burden of proof is that the MP's prove themselves innocent.

That's lynch mob mentality and not democracy and the rule of law.


Let me try and put it another way, maybe you can better see what I mean perhaps?

Many, including a certain one on here, fully believe the country was lied to and misled into voting for Brexit - do you agree?

People believed what they were told by the likes of Boris, Cummings and others and disregarded the advice of the experts who warned otherwise.

Why would people believe someone charismatic (Boris) rather than those who were specialists in their fields warning them differently?

Could it be because many people are easily manipulated perhaps?

I see the same scenario here.

Why would people believe what someone charismatic (Maughan) is telling them rather than those who are specialists in their field - Civil Servants, National Audit Office, Parliamentary scrutiny committees, the police and judiciary who all have no proof that anything of what Maugham claims is true!

Why do you believe that Maughan is telling the truth and not simply spinning a tall tale like Boris did for Brexit?

If you think Maughan can substantiate his countless claims then why do you think he's for everlastingly pleading for whistle blowers to come forward???

Seems like as good a time as any to say you can make an anonymous tip-off to Good Law Project here https://t.co/cyLt4YYaFv

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) December 8, 2021

Could it be that he's built his following simply on feeding the masses what they want to hear in just the same way Boris did?

As for the comms there's always a sender and a receiver - I'm sure (despite what Maughan may claim) that there's plenty of others out there with records of these WhatsApp groups - with Cummings being central to most of them.

Don't you think he would have let a few bombs off by now if there really was something to hide?

Not sure you needed the Brexit analogy I’m well aware of what a lie is   .

The government haven’t revealed what criteria had to be met to be entered into the VIP lane. But take a couple of examples Meller Designs or PPE Medpro. Aside from deep ties to the Tory party, what qualified these companies to jump the queue and be reviewed ahead of the others?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Not sure you needed the Brexit analogy I’m well aware of what a lie is   .

The government haven’t revealed what criteria had to be met to be entered into the VIP lane. But take a couple of examples Meller Designs or PPE Medpro. Aside from deep ties to the Tory party, what qualified these companies to jump the queue and be reviewed ahead of the others?

I've answered this before!!!

You just love to go round and round in circles for evermore!!!

There was NO criteria given to them by the Civil Servants who set up the system - the VIP lane was set up simply for leads FROM those specified groups of people because it was believed that those sources were simply deemed to be the most credible.

It's as simple as that.

Sluffy wrote:
The High Priority Lane -

The cross-government PPE team established a high-priority lane to assess and process potential PPE leads referred by government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and Lords, senior NHS staff and other health professionals. The team considered that leads referred by these sources were more credible or needed to be treated with more urgency.

Sluffy wrote:
The NAO concluded that in cases of potential conflicts of interest involving ministers, all had properly declared their interests and it found "no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management"

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t21726p150-nepotism-cronyism-watch#417455

As for you knowing what a lie is!

Millions believed what Boris told them without any proof - and you and some hundreds of thousands of others are believing what Maughan is telling you/them - without any proof...

And you still can't grasp the comparison I'm making...

...or you can but you but it suits your purpose much better to ignore it...!

Boris would love that - a Conservative parliament scrutinising a Conservative government - on legal matters

wanderlust wrote:Boris would love that - a Conservative parliament scrutinising a Conservative government - on legal matters

Jesus Christ you certainly know how to show your total ignorance of things in public!!!

Have you absolutely NO idea of how the constitution of the country actually works???

Clearly you don't!!!

Even from you it made my jaw drop and gave me the best laugh I've had for the whole year!

Sluffy wrote:

Jesus Christ you certainly know how to show your total ignorance of things in public!!!

Have you absolutely NO idea of how the constitution of the country actually works???

Clearly you don't!!!

Even from you it made my jaw drop and gave me the best laugh I've had for the whole year!

Here - let me explain it to you with a picture seeing that you have so much trouble understanding words....

wanderlust wrote:Here - let me explain it to you with a picture seeing that you have so much trouble understanding words....

OMG - Hahahaha!!!!

I KNOW all about the Separation of Powers, I've linked to it several times in the past ffs!!!

Sluffy wrote:I've explained the Separation of Powers in this country before and again provide a link to how it works -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_in_the_United_Kingdom

I've even explained how it works in relationship of the judiciary to the executive as recently as a couple of days ago...

Sluffy wrote:"The proper constitutional relationship of the executive with the courts is that the courts will respect all acts of the executive within its lawful province, and that the executive will respect all decisions of the courts as to what its lawful province is".

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23411p30-how-is-the-tory-government-doing#433386

Yet you in your warped head of yours tried in some unfathomable way to me to try and shoot down what I'd been saying above by posting this total bullshit!!!

wanderlust wrote:Boris would love that - a Conservative parliament scrutinising a Conservative government - on legal matters

Is it any wonder I truly piss my sides laughing at you???

You've got a problem mate and you really need to get some proper help.

Hahaha...

I've just had another good laugh, this time in respect of Maughan and his GLP claim that they 'won' 4 out of 4 court cases this year...

...which many gullible people seemed to believe without checking...

...no names mentioned of course...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Four out of four this year, and yes you shouldn’t blow your own trumpet - you’ve been proven wrong every step of the way you berk   .

Anyway and joking aside it seems others couldn't work out what these four cases were either...?

Our court wins in 2021 https://t.co/1ygwCe2zvW

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) December 11, 2021

The thing is though when you scrutinise Maughan's reply you will find he's only 'won' two after all - the one the government stated before the court case they hadn't had the time to do the publishing of contracts within 28 days due to all hands being at the pumps to deal with the pandemic hitting the country at the time - and the other which is currently being appealed.

So what about these other two wins he claims?

Well the first is one he claims to simply 'supported' - and wasn't seemingly actually involved with at all - and the second he claims he 'funded' - or rather that he started a go fund me sort of public appeal and passed over the money to the appellants.

Or in other words its just like me claiming that Bolton Wanders won because I supported them at a particular game, or because say my brother gave me his money to go and pay for his Season Ticket for him - nothing at all in either case having any meaningful and direct involvement in the court outcome!!!

The claim of 4 out of 4 is simply outrageous!

I've got to laugh at his brazenness though and the jaw dropping naivety of those who truly still believe him to be doing all he does for the right reasons and not because he has his own agenda about all he's been doing.

Oh and speaking of fake news...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So you disagree with the courts decisions on those? It’s a pro Maugham conspiracy or you just know better than the court?

All 4 have been posted on the nepotism thread throughout the year, go find them or go on the GLP website yourself. But all 4 were successful and I’ll go with what the court thinks rather than Sluffy thanks .

I won't bother looking because I KNOW they aren't there...

...and never were!!!

Maughan's only gone and done it again - the man has no shame!

Yesterday BBC Northern Ireland aired an half hour documentary about a local company called Claneboye and the PPE contracts it won.

The basis of the story was that Claneboye is a sweet manufacturer and the PPE it facilitated to the cost of over £100m to the UK taxpayers were found not to be useable for the need they were purchased.

If that's not enough the £100m contract went through the VIP lane too!!!

What a scandal, what corruption and incompetence, heads should roll for this, fuck the Tory government, sleaze, cronyism - I can hear what many must think - Maughan and Rayner who were interviewed and give their thoughts on the programme clearly steer the viewers in those directions in what they say...

...but it really wasn't like that at all.

If you watch the programme, its only on for 30 mins

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0012ljx/spotlight-14122021

...and despite the presenter seemingly leaning that way to me, the programme reported fairly and honestly - and if you don't set off watching it with a prejudicial mind you will see a set of facts without the spin and innuendo that so many are taken in by Maughan et al.

The facts are pretty simple

- Hancock publicly asks manufacturers to help source/produce urgently required PPE.
- Clandeboye as well as being a sweet manufacturer is also a distributer of PPE equipment manufactured in Cambodia.
- Clandeboye contacts local MP.
- Local MP refers them to the government website
- Clandeboye's offer of PPE equipment is picked up by NHS Wales and contract made for £1m of immediate stock.
- Stock delivered, immediately put to use by NHS Wales and NHS Wales official adds Clandeboye to VIP lane
- UK Gov immediately acts on that recommendation from NHS Wales and places £100m contract that is delivered.
- Unlike NHS Wales the PPE delivered is checked before distribution and found not up to required standard
- Stock ultimately sold off months later for a fraction of their cost.

Yes a big mistake was made costing us the taxpayers £100m or more but it was just that - an honest
mistake and done in a rush because of the circumstances and ultra emergency requirements of the time (seems NHS Wales had run out of stock at the time).

If someone in NHS Wales had checked the stuff for compliance before issuing the stock straight from delivery there would not have been the £100m contract or been recommended to the VIP lane.


Let's have a little look what followed this from Maugham at the time.

He somehow got wind that companies like Clandeboye (sweet manufacturer) Pest Fix (pest control firm) and Ayanda (hedge fund company) had won government PPE contracts and inferred that something was wrong in this and started a JR request against the government for having done so.

This resulted in a High Court review of the application for a JR and the JR being allowed within defined limits - the judge's findings to allow the JR to take place -

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/60a205d02c94e04a0f2c9ea2

The BIG thing I want to point out in this is that when GLP presented its case to the High Court judge to allow a JR on it didn't refer to Clandeboye at all - in fact it in effect all but withdrew its case against Clandeboye!

Yet now EIGHT MONTHS on Maughan/GLP have tweeted numerously from yesterday onwards about their impending future JR against Clandeboye!!!

He/GLP is simply stirring the pot deliberately so to play to his crowd - who laps up stuff like this!

He knew well enough about months prior to the pub landlord being a sub contractor for TWO contracts who were awarded PPE contracts (in fact so did we on Nuts because I pointed it out at the time) - yet he whipped up all that shit a week or so ago when Hancock stated he knew nothing about the pub landlord being a subcontractor following on from him referring to the government website.  

Now Maugham is stirring the shit in respect of Clandeboye when he knows full well that he's not (seemingly) intending to further his case against them at the future JR!

All this lacks integrity to my way of thinking and as far as I'm concerned he's just a player with his own agenda and people are just falling for it simply because he's telling them what they want to hear in the first place!

Sluffy wrote:

All the VAR decisions were adhered to, even if no one thought they were right at the time - just like the law.

Because those decisions were felt to be wrong by the consensus of those who made the rules, they were changed - just like the law does.

My analogy, which clearly you choose to scoff at, still stands.

VAR didn't change because I personally thought the rules to what it worked to at the time was wrong, they changed because those in charge reacted to the widespread disapproval of them by both those involved  such as the managers, players as well as the journalists, pundits and the general public too.

It's exactly the same with the law, the law makers proposals (the elected executive) are put to a vote in Parliament to change, repeal or enact new laws for the judiciary to enforce.

The executive achieves this position by the public endorsement of their polices in their manifestos at the time of the elections.

Laws change because they are seen no longer to work, VAR changed because it was seen not to be working as people wanted it to.

It didn't change simply because I thought it to be wrong.

Just moving this to the right thread.

Specifically which law change are you likening to VAR getting updated?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

All the VAR decisions were adhered to, even if no one thought they were right at the time - just like the law.

Because those decisions were felt to be wrong by the consensus of those who made the rules, they were changed - just like the law does.

My analogy, which clearly you choose to scoff at, still stands.

VAR didn't change because I personally thought the rules to what it worked to at the time was wrong, they changed because those in charge reacted to the widespread disapproval of them by both those involved  such as the managers, players as well as the journalists, pundits and the general public too.

It's exactly the same with the law, the law makers proposals (the elected executive) are put to a vote in Parliament to change, repeal or enact new laws for the judiciary to enforce.

The executive achieves this position by the public endorsement of their polices in their manifestos at the time of the elections.

Laws change because they are seen no longer to work, VAR changed because it was seen not to be working as people wanted it to.

It didn't change simply because I thought it to be wrong.

Just moving this to the right thread.

Specifically which law change are you likening to VAR getting updated?

???

Not sure why you think this is the right place to continue this discussion - after all it was you bringing up VAR on the Migrant thread I was responding to after all?

Anyway I'll let the referees chief - Mike Dean answer for me instead - I believe he knows better about these things than either of us - wouldn't you agree?


What's new for 2021/22? VAR, thicker lines, armpits and handball rule changes for new season

Premier League VARs are set to use 'thicker lines' in games next season to determine marginal decisions; we run through the other major rule changes to look out for heading into 2021/22

What is the benefit of 'thicker lines'? Will the Premier League's VAR use be as good as Euro 2020? And what is considered handball?

With the new season around the corner, we look at the major rule changes to look out for heading into 2021/22.

Premier League VARs are set to use 'thicker lines' in games this season to determine marginal decisions.

An agreement to use thicker lines followed a presentation by Professional Game Match Officials Limited [PGMOL] referees' chief Mike Riley to clubs at their annual general meeting in June.

The PGMOL hopes the change will give the benefit back to the attacking team after Premier League clubs gave feedback in a VAR survey last season.

The International Football Association Board [IFAB] - football's lawmakers - does not specify a maximum thickness of lines, under the laws of the game.

This should rule out instances where a player's toe has led to a goal being ruled out, cases which many fans, players and pundits felt were ruining the game.

"Fundamentally, we want the approach to be one that allows players to go out and express themselves and let the game flow," Mike Riley said.

"It means the VAR teams will not intervene for trivial offences and the threshold for referee and VAR intervention will be slightly higher than it was last season.

"We've introduced the benefit of the doubt for the attacking player so where we have a really close offside situation, we will follow the same process as last year but now apply thicker broadcast lines.

"Effectively what we have done is given back 20 goals to the game that were deemed offside last season by using quite forensic scrutiny.

"So it's the toenails, the noses of players that were offside - they won't be offside now."

Furthermore, in the first two years of VAR, viewers not in the stadium were able to see the working out process and it led to screenshots of borderline decisions being shared and creating more negativity for the decision-review system.

As a result, all decisions will be made off-screen from now on.

Armpits and offsides

A brief clarification from FIFA about where offside lines start and stop: they say the bottom of the armpit is now being classed as the part of the body where offsides will be measured from.

Full article here -

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12361221/whats-new-for-2021-22-var-thicker-lines-armpits-and-handball-rule-changes-for-new-season

All very sensible changes in my opinion (and in the opinion of the clubs too!), wouldn't you agree?

Thanks but I know about the VAR changes, I asked you which change in law your analogy is aimed at?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Thanks but I know about the VAR changes, I asked you which change in law your analogy is aimed at?

???

I've already told you!!!

Round and round in circles you just love to go!

The Judicial Review court is designed to rule on the administration of how a law has been administered not to rule on policy making by the executive (the government)

Maughan has been using the JR path to challenge policy making by exploiting the courts remit to look only at the administration of laws and not the wider context behind the JR's which is clearly to challenge the governments policy decisions nearly all of which has stemmed from them invoking emergency provisions to deal with the pandemic.

For instance the technicality of not publishing contract awards within 30 days even though the whole country was plunged into lock down at the time.

The JR simply looked in black and white, were the awards published in 30 days irrespective of what was happening in the world and this country at the time and the answer was they had not.

The decision was correct but absolutely meaningless in what was going on at the time.

The government seems to be moving to close this loophole.

As an analogy I tried to put it in to terms you and others could maybe better understand, namely the use of VAR.

The decisions of VAR initially were again correct - someones toenail or finger was offside.

Nobody could argue that the rules were not applied correctly but in the context of the game a toenail or finger leading to an offside decision was a farce.

For that reason the executive in charge of VAR changed the rules for the following season to mitigate and eliminate those things because VAR was never intended to work the way it had been doing.

The government (the executive) are similarly proposing to do the same thing to JR's to mitigate and eliminate those things that the JR's were never intended to work in the way that Maughan et al have recently been using them.

It's as simple as that.

Listen mate, if you think I'm talking out my arse that's fine and I'm usually willing to answer your questions even though I know that more than just a bit of it is being done to entertain you at my expense but I don't really see any benefit to you, me or the forum to deliberately go round and round and round, on the same points over and over again.

You might well be laughing at me but it's certainly corrosive and damaging to the forum and nobody else wants to read this stuff more than the once.

That's how I see it anyway.

Sluffy, the question I’m asking you is *specifically* what bill is going through to close the loophole/change the law? I am asking out of interest not to have a row with you.