How bored are you at the moment that you want to dig up that topic? I’ve explained my position to you, we’ve established you don’t have a position.
Unless you have something to add (on the relevant thread) then why not just drop it?
You were once a decent poster but now this character you play is either a complete idiot or a wind up merchant.
I didn't have a position???
Ok if that's what you want to believe.
The position I apparently didn't have was that MP's don't award contracts, it is civil servants that do - so if there was any 'cronyism' on the award of contracts, then it could only happen with a civil servants involvement and I don't believe you get that high up in the civil service if you are so corrupt as to be able to risk your career and civil service pension by doing something so stupid.
I said at the outset I stood to be proven wrong - and so far I haven't been - in fact if you actually read the judge's written judgement on the Judicial review to date - and I have, he has been quite complimentary to the key civil servant who was responsible for the decissions taken - the one if you will who had their head on the chopping block. In fact Good Law Projects own Counsel didn't challenge him at all and took ever word he said to be honest and truthful - as did the judge too.
Quite a compliment in my eyes to the public servants honesty and integrity and a credit to his profession. It certainly impressed me fwiw.
There was no criticism of the civil service, they did their jobs honestly and without bias - but the test to which the case had to be measured against were was the statutory publishing targets met? - which everyone knew before the judicial review was sought by Maugham that they hadn't, and accordingly that was the point the government lost on - which was always going to be the end result.
You asked some days back why the government contested the review - I believe Hancock reply was to refer the question back to Maguham for brining the review in the first place - knowing what the outcome was always going to be.
It was defended 'in the public interest' funnily enough - it was done so that the process could be laid bare in court - nothing hidden so to speak.
Everything could be inspected to show there was no corruption having taken place, no dodgy dealings and no secret handshakes, or whatever.
It cost the country money in losing the case but rather that and to be seen to be 'honest' in their workings than to have the constant slur of corruption and cronyism hanging over it as Maugham had seemingly got most people (including you!) believing it was (and many still believing it still is).
I still await anyone finding that smoking gun that cronyism did occur, you would have thought somebody would have found something by now wouldn't you?
I know I would after nearly a year of people looking around for something definitive to skewer the government on other than inuendo all the time
As for being a decent poster or not, frankly I don't care.
What is important to me is being honest - and I have always been that.
View me as a troll, idiot or whatever you care to believe, don't believe a word I write if you don't want to - non of it will change the fact that what I post is truthful.
If you or anyone else think I post bollocks then fine, it's only the internet.
Enjoy the rest of your evening.