Stop voting for fucking Tories

[SaintK]

Well, that appointment went well then? "Untenable" in two weeks flat. Probably failed the Princess NutNuts and Dilyn the dog test

The clearout of former Vote Leave staffers in Boris Johnson’s inner circle has continued with the departure of Oliver Lewis, a key aide who was appointed to head the No 10 unit devoted to keeping the union together just over a fortnight ago.

Lewis, who was head of research at the Vote Leave campaign under Dominic Cummings, acted as the de facto deputy to David Frost when he negotiated the UK’s Brexit deal.

Friends said Lewis had decided to resign, as he felt his position inside Downing Street had become untenable – with one suggesting he had been accused of leaking to the press.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk ... 4860.html

[ohno]

Spoiler

Show

News you won't see reported on the BBC tonight.

https://dpglaw.co.uk/high-court-declare ... ocurement/

All well and good, but are there repercussions?

What's the point of a High Court action if nobody is held to account?

Quite
It will all be ignored in the long term

What exactly do you two believe the repercussions should be? Explain the breach and what the the repercussions should be.

[Insane_Homer]

[dpedin]

Well, that appointment went well then? "Untenable" in two weeks flat. Probably failed the Princess NutNuts and Dilyn the dog test

The clearout of former Vote Leave staffers in Boris Johnson’s inner circle has continued with the departure of Oliver Lewis, a key aide who was appointed to head the No 10 unit devoted to keeping the union together just over a fortnight ago.

Lewis, who was head of research at the Vote Leave campaign under Dominic Cummings, acted as the de facto deputy to David Frost when he negotiated the UK’s Brexit deal.

Friends said Lewis had decided to resign, as he felt his position inside Downing Street had become untenable – with one suggesting he had been accused of leaking to the press.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk ... 4860.html

Ha ha ha ha

[Insane_Homer]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/u ... proposals/

UK government cites US anti-LGBT ‘hate group’ in free speech proposals

ADF International, an anti-abortion, ‘dark money’-funded think tank, provided ‘evidence’ for decline in free speech and academic freedom

British government proposals for strengthening free speech at universities cite an American anti-LGBT ‘hate group’ and a British ‘dark money’-funded think tank that has recommended no-platforming Extinction Rebellion.

Controversially, a white paper outlining the government’s proposals cites ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom) International, the global wing of a US Christian right group that opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage equality and had close links to the Trump administration.

ADF International has spent more than £410,000 on lobbying in the UK since 2017. Last year, openDemocracy revealed that its US parent organisation has spent more than $21m of dark money outside of the US since 2008. The group does not disclose who its donors are, and has gone to the US Supreme Court to defend donor secrecy.

ADF International’s UK office has publicly opposed protest-free ‘buffer zones’ around abortion clinics, supported calls for “freedom of conscience” provisions to enable medical staff to independently object to providing legal abortion services and were linked to a supposedly ‘grassroots’ campaign opposing assisted dying.

[Sandstorm]

[SaintK]

All well and good, but are there repercussions?

What's the point of a High Court action if nobody is held to account?

Quite
It will all be ignored in the long term

What exactly do you two believe the repercussions should be? Explain the breach and what the the repercussions should be.

Well, the fact that a high court judge has found against Hancock and stated that his department have unlawfully witheld details of £100's of millions of contracts that have been awarded to "friends" donors and financial supporters of of the Tory Party, the least that should be done immediately is to publish the full details of all the contracts and the rationale in awarding them rather than hide behind a wall of seecrecy.
Longer term when a formal review of the government's handling of the pandemic is held I reckonb that the cronyism and contracts for mates will be way down the list on things that the government will be held to account for. All the mistakes, dithering and delays and wrong decisisons that caused 1000's of unneccesary deaths will of course be at the top of the list in the review.

[SaintK]

Well, that appointment went well then? "Untenable" in two weeks flat. Probably failed the Princess NutNuts and Dilyn the dog test

The clearout of former Vote Leave staffers in Boris Johnson’s inner circle has continued with the departure of Oliver Lewis, a key aide who was appointed to head the No 10 unit devoted to keeping the union together just over a fortnight ago.

Lewis, who was head of research at the Vote Leave campaign under Dominic Cummings, acted as the de facto deputy to David Frost when he negotiated the UK’s Brexit deal.

Friends said Lewis had decided to resign, as he felt his position inside Downing Street had become untenable – with one suggesting he had been accused of leaking to the press.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk ... 4860.html

Ha ha ha ha

Sounds vrery much like internecine war still going on in 10 mDowning St despite the removal of Cummings and Cain. Lots of briefings that "her in the flat upstairs" appears to be heavily influencing key appointments.

[I like neeps]

Quite
It will all be ignored in the long term

What exactly do you two believe the repercussions should be? Explain the breach and what the the repercussions should be.

Well, the fact that a high court judge has found against Hancock and stated that his department have unlawfully witheld details of £100's of millions of contracts that have been awarded to "friends" donors and financial supporters of of the Tory Party, the least that should be done immediately is to publish the full details of all the contracts and the rationale in awarding them rather than hide behind a wall of seecrecy.
Longer term when a formal review of the government's handling of the pandemic is held I reckonb that the cronyism and contracts for mates will be way down the list on things that the government will be held to account for. All the mistakes, dithering and delays and wrong decisisons that caused 1000's of unneccesary deaths will of course be at the top of the list in the review.

The crime of corruption should be met with a prison sentence as it it theft. The only reason it isn't is because the people doing the thieving write the laws. So decide their own punishments.

[ohno]

Quite
It will all be ignored in the long term

What exactly do you two believe the repercussions should be? Explain the breach and what the the repercussions should be.

Well, the fact that a high court judge has found against Hancock and stated that his department have unlawfully witheld details of £100's of millions of contracts that have been awarded to "friends" donors and financial supporters of of the Tory Party, the least that should be done immediately is to publish the full details of all the contracts and the rationale in awarding them rather than hide behind a wall of seecrecy.
Longer term when a formal review of the government's handling of the pandemic is held I reckonb that the cronyism and contracts for mates will be way down the list on things that the government will be held to account for. All the mistakes, dithering and delays and wrong decisisons that caused 1000's of unneccesary deaths will of course be at the top of the list in the review.

The High Court found that was a technical breach in that the contracts were not published within 30 days and Hancock admitted it. The contracts were published published on average 17 days late. No judgement was made on the contracts themselves, corruption or cronyism. That’s why beyond the wailings of deranged such as on this thread it has made no traction in the wider public and won’t.

[ohno]

What exactly do you two believe the repercussions should be? Explain the breach and what the the repercussions should be.

Well, the fact that a high court judge has found against Hancock and stated that his department have unlawfully witheld details of £100's of millions of contracts that have been awarded to "friends" donors and financial supporters of of the Tory Party, the least that should be done immediately is to publish the full details of all the contracts and the rationale in awarding them rather than hide behind a wall of seecrecy.
Longer term when a formal review of the government's handling of the pandemic is held I reckonb that the cronyism and contracts for mates will be way down the list on things that the government will be held to account for. All the mistakes, dithering and delays and wrong decisisons that caused 1000's of unneccesary deaths will of course be at the top of the list in the review.

The crime of corruption should be met with a prison sentence as it it theft. The only reason it isn't is because the people doing the thieving write the laws. So decide their own punishments.

When the court actually finds a crime of corruption l’m sure suitable punishments will follow.

[SaintK]

What exactly do you two believe the repercussions should be? Explain the breach and what the the repercussions should be.

Well, the fact that a high court judge has found against Hancock and stated that his department have unlawfully witheld details of £100's of millions of contracts that have been awarded to "friends" donors and financial supporters of of the Tory Party, the least that should be done immediately is to publish the full details of all the contracts and the rationale in awarding them rather than hide behind a wall of seecrecy.
Longer term when a formal review of the government's handling of the pandemic is held I reckonb that the cronyism and contracts for mates will be way down the list on things that the government will be held to account for. All the mistakes, dithering and delays and wrong decisisons that caused 1000's of unneccesary deaths will of course be at the top of the list in the review.

The High Court found that was a technical breach in that the contracts were not published within 30 days and Hancock admitted it. The contracts were published published on average 17 days late. No judgement was made on the contracts themselves, corruption or cronyism. That’s why beyond the wailings of deranged such as on this thread it has made no traction in the wider public and won’t.

Thank you m'learned friend. So I was right then

[SaintK]

............and in other news. The landlord of Hancock's local pub whoi was given a £30m contract without tendering is under investigation by MHRA

The former publican and neighbour of Matt Hancock who secured lucrative work producing millions of vials for NHS Covid tests is under investigation by the UK’s medical regulator.

Alex Bourne, who used to run the Cock Inn near the health secretary’s old constituency home in Thurlow, won about £30m of work producing the test tubes despite having no prior experience in the medical devices industry.

Prior to the pandemic, his company, Hinpack, made plastic cups and takeaway boxes for the catering industry. Now it supplies tens of millions of vials from its production site on an industrial potato farm complex in Cambridgeshire.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) confirmed it has launched an investigation into Bourne’s company. “We take all reports of non-compliance very seriously,” said Graeme Tunbridge, director of devices at the MHRA. “We are currently investigating allegations about Hinpack and will take appropriate action as necessary. Patient safety is our top priority.”

[FalseBayFC]

What's this? I thought the UK was the best of breed when it came to transparent Westminster Democracy. I've been told repeatedly on this bored that South Africa's many problems are due to our corrupt and incompetent leadership. I guess the UK has a corrupt but competent government.

[dpedin]

Well, the fact that a high court judge has found against Hancock and stated that his department have unlawfully witheld details of £100's of millions of contracts that have been awarded to "friends" donors and financial supporters of of the Tory Party, the least that should be done immediately is to publish the full details of all the contracts and the rationale in awarding them rather than hide behind a wall of seecrecy.
Longer term when a formal review of the government's handling of the pandemic is held I reckonb that the cronyism and contracts for mates will be way down the list on things that the government will be held to account for. All the mistakes, dithering and delays and wrong decisisons that caused 1000's of unneccesary deaths will of course be at the top of the list in the review.

The High Court found that was a technical breach in that the contracts were not published within 30 days and Hancock admitted it. The contracts were published published on average 17 days late. No judgement was made on the contracts themselves, corruption or cronyism. That’s why beyond the wailings of deranged such as on this thread it has made no traction in the wider public and won’t.

Thank you m'learned friend. So I was right then

I think the term 'technical' is redundant here and wasn't used by the judge involved, it is a bit like the intention to break international law in a 'technical and limited' way. The Secretary of State was found to have breached the law full stop! Also the average 17 days late is a bit of a red herring here, some of the 'dodgy' contracts were not published for 6 months. The Good Law Project also uncovered emails which they requested be made available that showed quite clearly the politicians or their SPADs asking the civil servants to delay publication of contracts for what was quite clearly political reasons. Of course this is only step one of the wider legal process being pursued around the whole crooked procurement fiasco.

[Random1]

The High Court found that was a technical breach in that the contracts were not published within 30 days and Hancock admitted it. The contracts were published published on average 17 days late. No judgement was made on the contracts themselves, corruption or cronyism. That’s why beyond the wailings of deranged such as on this thread it has made no traction in the wider public and won’t.

Thank you m'learned friend. So I was right then

I think the term 'technical' is redundant here and wasn't used by the judge involved, it is a bit like the intention to break international law in a 'technical and limited' way. The Secretary of State was found to have breached the law full stop! Also the average 17 days late is a bit of a red herring here, some of the 'dodgy' contracts were not published for 6 months. The Good Law Project also uncovered emails which they requested be made available that showed quite clearly the politicians or their SPADs asking the civil servants to delay publication of contracts for what was quite clearly political reasons. Of course this is only step one of the wider legal process being pursued around the whole crooked procurement fiasco.

Has everyone performed their jobs perfectly during these times?

I’ll readily admit that the company I work for has tried our utmost, but bet we have committed some technical infringements.

This is when politicians get a bit of a pass for me.

They’re trying to save lives. Many reckon they could have done more to save lives. Well, I think this a good example of where they’ve had their priorities correct.

Yes, contract law is important, but in a pandemic situation, I reckon it slips down the priority list a bit for me.

[dpedin]

Thank you m'learned friend. So I was right then

I think the term 'technical' is redundant here and wasn't used by the judge involved, it is a bit like the intention to break international law in a 'technical and limited' way. The Secretary of State was found to have breached the law full stop! Also the average 17 days late is a bit of a red herring here, some of the 'dodgy' contracts were not published for 6 months. The Good Law Project also uncovered emails which they requested be made available that showed quite clearly the politicians or their SPADs asking the civil servants to delay publication of contracts for what was quite clearly political reasons. Of course this is only step one of the wider legal process being pursued around the whole crooked procurement fiasco.

Has everyone performed their jobs perfectly during these times?

I’ll readily admit that the company I work for has tried our utmost, but bet we have committed some technical infringements.

This is when politicians get a bit of a pass for me.

They’re trying to save lives. Many reckon they could have done more to save lives. Well, I think this a good example of where they’ve had their priorities correct.

Yes, contract law is important, but in a pandemic situation, I reckon it slips down the priority list a bit for me.

Whoa! Failure to disclose contracts is really just the tip of the iceberg and he was taken to court because of their refusal to publish these contracts ... I wonder why?

This is from today's Daily Heil, it is hardly a technical issue or a technical breach of contract law! This is small beer when compared to the £250 million given to the Florida jewellery designer who has failed to deliver any of the required PPE to the standards required. This court case is the first of many to hold this Gov accountable for their PPE procurement process and to try and understand why we have 5-10 years worth of PPE sitting in containers, much of which doesn't meet the standards for use and most of which will expire before it will be used.

'Matt Hancock's former neighbour and pub landlord is under investigation by the UK's medical regulator, it has been revealed.

Alex Bourne, who crossed paths with the Health Secretary while running the Cock Inn in Thurlow, West Suffolk, began producing millions of NHS Covid test vials during the pandemic after exchanging a personal WhatsApp message with Mr Hancock.

His company, Hinpack, which was originally a packaging manufacturer, won around £30million in work to supply a distributor contracted by the NHS with two million test tubes a week, as well as around 500,000 plastic funnels for test samples.

However the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has now confirmed it has launched a probe into Mr Bourne's company - which had no previous experience of making medical supplies prior to the pandemic.'

[fishfoodie]

Thank you m'learned friend. So I was right then

I think the term 'technical' is redundant here and wasn't used by the judge involved, it is a bit like the intention to break international law in a 'technical and limited' way. The Secretary of State was found to have breached the law full stop! Also the average 17 days late is a bit of a red herring here, some of the 'dodgy' contracts were not published for 6 months. The Good Law Project also uncovered emails which they requested be made available that showed quite clearly the politicians or their SPADs asking the civil servants to delay publication of contracts for what was quite clearly political reasons. Of course this is only step one of the wider legal process being pursued around the whole crooked procurement fiasco.

Has everyone performed their jobs perfectly during these times?

I’ll readily admit that the company I work for has tried our utmost, but bet we have committed some technical infringements.

This is when politicians get a bit of a pass for me.

They’re trying to save lives. Many reckon they could have done more to save lives. Well, I think this a good example of where they’ve had their priorities correct.

Yes, contract law is important, but in a pandemic situation, I reckon it slips down the priority list a bit for me.

There a few problems with that narrative.

1) It presumes that the Tories were; like your Company; trying their utmost; to do the right thing in trying circumstances.

2) That the corrupt & wasteful spending of taxpayers money, happened because of the need to "do the right thing", in a difficult time, & mistakes were made.

But if everyone was trying to do the right thing; why can't we see the reports ? Wouldn't a proper public disclosure of these reports confirm that were wasn't overt Political interference; just a lot of honest mistakes ?

And if there was no intent to defraud the public purse; why is there a common link between so many of the obviously corrupt deals & the Tory Party ? Surely if the misspending was down to pressure of time; & not being able to vet every contract; & equal number of individuals linked to the Labour Party would now be facing questions ?

[Random1]

I think the term 'technical' is redundant here and wasn't used by the judge involved, it is a bit like the intention to break international law in a 'technical and limited' way. The Secretary of State was found to have breached the law full stop! Also the average 17 days late is a bit of a red herring here, some of the 'dodgy' contracts were not published for 6 months. The Good Law Project also uncovered emails which they requested be made available that showed quite clearly the politicians or their SPADs asking the civil servants to delay publication of contracts for what was quite clearly political reasons. Of course this is only step one of the wider legal process being pursued around the whole crooked procurement fiasco.

Has everyone performed their jobs perfectly during these times?

I’ll readily admit that the company I work for has tried our utmost, but bet we have committed some technical infringements.

This is when politicians get a bit of a pass for me.

They’re trying to save lives. Many reckon they could have done more to save lives. Well, I think this a good example of where they’ve had their priorities correct.

Yes, contract law is important, but in a pandemic situation, I reckon it slips down the priority list a bit for me.

There a few problems with that narrative.

1) It presumes that the Tories were; like your Company; trying their utmost; to do the right thing in trying circumstances.

2) That the corrupt & wasteful spending of taxpayers money, happened because of the need to "do the right thing", in a difficult time, & mistakes were made.

But if everyone was trying to do the right thing; why can't we see the reports ? Wouldn't a proper public disclosure of these reports confirm that were wasn't overt Political interference; just a lot of honest mistakes ?

And if there was no intent to defraud the public purse; why is there a common link between so many of the obviously corrupt deals & the Tory Party ? Surely if the misspending was down to pressure of time; & not being able to vet every contract; & equal number of individuals linked to the Labour Party would now be facing questions ?

On your first point, yup, I agree; perspective is crucial. I am without doubt that many of our staff felt/feel that we were sat in our ivory towers making decisions with less than noble
intent.

They are utterly wrong.

We tried our best. Made the safety of our staff and customers primary in everything. And got things wrong. Thankfully, we got more right.

Certainly we didn’t run everything by a solicitor. We just did our best.

I don’t see why ministers would be different.

Their competence is fair game, but personal motive is always something I feel reticent about pursuing.

On your second point; yep, my natural reaction would be to make reports available. But I think it’s pretty clear from this thread alone, that some people would never give the government any benefit of the doubt. So why would they take the risk of releasing them?

[ohno]

The High Court found that was a technical breach in that the contracts were not published within 30 days and Hancock admitted it. The contracts were published published on average 17 days late. No judgement was made on the contracts themselves, corruption or cronyism. That’s why beyond the wailings of deranged such as on this thread it has made no traction in the wider public and won’t.

Thank you m'learned friend. So I was right then

I think the term 'technical' is redundant here and wasn't used by the judge involved, it is a bit like the intention to break international law in a 'technical and limited' way. The Secretary of State was found to have breached the law full stop! Also the average 17 days late is a bit of a red herring here, some of the 'dodgy' contracts were not published for 6 months. The Good Law Project also uncovered emails which they requested be made available that showed quite clearly the politicians or their SPADs asking the civil servants to delay publication of contracts for what was quite clearly political reasons. Of course this is only step one of the wider legal process being pursued around the whole crooked procurement fiasco.

If descriptions of judgements can only use terms that the actual judge used then every legal textbook is going to have to be binned. As to the rest, the judge specifically rejected (sorry ‘not made out’ if we are going to use the judges actual words) that there was an attempt to deprioritise compliance with transparency obligations.

[Jasonstry]

The High Court found that was a technical breach in that the contracts were not published within 30 days and Hancock admitted it. The contracts were published published on average 17 days late. No judgement was made on the contracts themselves, corruption or cronyism. That’s why beyond the wailings of deranged such as on this thread it has made no traction in the wider public and won’t.

Thank you m'learned friend. So I was right then

I think the term 'technical' is redundant here and wasn't used by the judge involved, it is a bit like the intention to break international law in a 'technical and limited' way. The Secretary of State was found to have breached the law full stop! Also the average 17 days late is a bit of a red herring here, some of the 'dodgy' contracts were not published for 6 months. The Good Law Project also uncovered emails which they requested be made available that showed quite clearly the politicians or their SPADs asking the civil servants to delay publication of contracts for what was quite clearly political reasons. Of course this is only step one of the wider legal process being pursued around the whole crooked procurement fiasco.

I haven't been able to track down the judgement, have you got a link? Did the court really say that some of the contracts were "dodgy"?

[Rinkals]

What's this? I thought the UK was the best of breed when it came to transparent Westminster Democracy. I've been told repeatedly on this bored that South Africa's many problems are due to our corrupt and incompetent leadership. I guess the UK has a corrupt but competent government.

There is a certain strategy in mastering the art of being corrupt which is to institute a mechanism to allow the issue to be removed from the public eye (as far as I am aware, the term 'sub judice' is no longer appropriate since the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, but it is still used as an excuse to allow comment to be avoided) until a suitable passage of time has passed, after which everybody will have forgotten about it.

Ostensibly, the process is supposed to counter corruption, but practically it serves to support it and to allow corruption to thrive.

Our own Zondo Commission into corrupt practices under Zuma may very well not see action taken against the corrupt, but at least the process allows for a certain measure of public introspection as their actions are exposed to scrutiny.

Of course, this just shows how backward and primitive our systems are in that they fail to fully obfuscate the matter.

The British are so much better at this than we.

[ohno]

Thank you m'learned friend. So I was right then

I think the term 'technical' is redundant here and wasn't used by the judge involved, it is a bit like the intention to break international law in a 'technical and limited' way. The Secretary of State was found to have breached the law full stop! Also the average 17 days late is a bit of a red herring here, some of the 'dodgy' contracts were not published for 6 months. The Good Law Project also uncovered emails which they requested be made available that showed quite clearly the politicians or their SPADs asking the civil servants to delay publication of contracts for what was quite clearly political reasons. Of course this is only step one of the wider legal process being pursued around the whole crooked procurement fiasco.

I haven't been able to track down the judgement, have you got a link? Did the court really say that some of the contracts were "dodgy"?

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... 190221.pdf

It doesn’t say anything about any of the contracts being dodgy, it doesn’t say they aren’t dodgy either as the case has nothing to do with that.

[dpedin]

I think the term 'technical' is redundant here and wasn't used by the judge involved, it is a bit like the intention to break international law in a 'technical and limited' way. The Secretary of State was found to have breached the law full stop! Also the average 17 days late is a bit of a red herring here, some of the 'dodgy' contracts were not published for 6 months. The Good Law Project also uncovered emails which they requested be made available that showed quite clearly the politicians or their SPADs asking the civil servants to delay publication of contracts for what was quite clearly political reasons. Of course this is only step one of the wider legal process being pursued around the whole crooked procurement fiasco.

I haven't been able to track down the judgement, have you got a link? Did the court really say that some of the contracts were "dodgy"?

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... 190221.pdf

It doesn’t say anything about any of the contracts being dodgy, it doesn’t say they aren’t dodgy either as the case has nothing to do with that.

Of course the court didnt say some of the contracts were 'dodgy' thats my own description of the contracts. The court was not asked to review the contracts at all, it was asked to consider if the Secretary of State had failed to publish the contracts in line with the law of the land i.e. 30 days, they found he had broken the law based on the evidence presented to them, which included the internal emails which I refer to above. More importantly they also decided that the Good Law Project had standing and could bring the case to the court. There are however a number of court cases pending which will examine the contracts with the likes of the Pestfix, Saiger, Anyanda Capital, etc. These are a selection of the dodgy contracts!

[ohno]

I haven't been able to track down the judgement, have you got a link? Did the court really say that some of the contracts were "dodgy"?

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... 190221.pdf

It doesn’t say anything about any of the contracts being dodgy, it doesn’t say they aren’t dodgy either as the case has nothing to do with that.

Of course the court didnt say some of the contracts were 'dodgy' thats my own description of the contracts. The court was not asked to review the contracts at all, it was asked to consider if the Secretary of State had failed to publish the contracts in line with the law of the land i.e. 30 days, they found he had broken the law based on the evidence presented to them, which included the internal emails which I refer to above. More importantly they also decided that the Good Law Project had standing and could bring the case to the court. There are however a number of court cases pending which will examine the contracts with the likes of the Pestfix, Saiger, Anyanda Capital, etc. These are a selection of the dodgy contracts!

I was going to ask how you believe the judge finding that the Good Law Project having standing to bring the claim was more important than the actual ruling but let’s be honest your answer would be a load of unmitigated bollocks like pretty much everything else you have posted, so I won’t.

[I like neeps]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ckbenchers

UK moves with Europe on soft on China despite what the US are doing is interesting.

[fishfoodie]

I haven't been able to track down the judgement, have you got a link? Did the court really say that some of the contracts were "dodgy"?

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... 190221.pdf

It doesn’t say anything about any of the contracts being dodgy, it doesn’t say they aren’t dodgy either as the case has nothing to do with that.

Of course the court didnt say some of the contracts were 'dodgy' thats my own description of the contracts. The court was not asked to review the contracts at all, it was asked to consider if the Secretary of State had failed to publish the contracts in line with the law of the land i.e. 30 days, they found he had broken the law based on the evidence presented to them, which included the internal emails which I refer to above. More importantly they also decided that the Good Law Project had standing and could bring the case to the court. There are however a number of court cases pending which will examine the contracts with the likes of the Pestfix, Saiger, Anyanda Capital, etc. These are a selection of the dodgy contracts!

I don't know if someone on here can answer, but I'll ask the question anyway. Is it enough, in the UK, for a member of the public to walk into a Police station, & make a complaint; to start a police inquiry into a possible crime, by a Politician ?

I remember a few years ago, there were a series of stories about a toe rag of Politician; & nothing much happened; until a member of the public walked into my local cop shop, (allegedly with a copy of the Sundays newspaper grasped in their hand), & made such a complaint. Needless to say; the politicians started falling all over themselves to appear to be doing something; once the Police got involved; & eventually the TD was censured; dropped by the Party; & I think ended up divorced & bankrupted; which is quite the fall from grace.

[dpedin]

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... 190221.pdf

It doesn’t say anything about any of the contracts being dodgy, it doesn’t say they aren’t dodgy either as the case has nothing to do with that.

Of course the court didnt say some of the contracts were 'dodgy' thats my own description of the contracts. The court was not asked to review the contracts at all, it was asked to consider if the Secretary of State had failed to publish the contracts in line with the law of the land i.e. 30 days, they found he had broken the law based on the evidence presented to them, which included the internal emails which I refer to above. More importantly they also decided that the Good Law Project had standing and could bring the case to the court. There are however a number of court cases pending which will examine the contracts with the likes of the Pestfix, Saiger, Anyanda Capital, etc. These are a selection of the dodgy contracts!

I was going to ask how you believe the judge finding that the Good Law Project having standing to bring the claim was more important than the actual ruling but let’s be honest your answer would be a load of unmitigated bollocks like pretty much everything else you have posted, so I won’t.

The Government sought to dismiss the legal challenge by claiming the Good Law Project needed to be an ‘economic operator’ to have standing. However the courts judgment was that it is unrealistic that economic operators would have challenged Government’s breach of the law in these circumstances. In other words, if the Good Law Project hadn’t taken this case, there are not many others who could have done so. Paras 77 to 108 of the courts judgement provides the detail of the judgement re standing. Sets a useful precedent.

[ohno]

Of course the court didnt say some of the contracts were 'dodgy' thats my own description of the contracts. The court was not asked to review the contracts at all, it was asked to consider if the Secretary of State had failed to publish the contracts in line with the law of the land i.e. 30 days, they found he had broken the law based on the evidence presented to them, which included the internal emails which I refer to above. More importantly they also decided that the Good Law Project had standing and could bring the case to the court. There are however a number of court cases pending which will examine the contracts with the likes of the Pestfix, Saiger, Anyanda Capital, etc. These are a selection of the dodgy contracts!

I was going to ask how you believe the judge finding that the Good Law Project having standing to bring the claim was more important than the actual ruling but let’s be honest your answer would be a load of unmitigated bollocks like pretty much everything else you have posted, so I won’t.

The Government sought to dismiss the legal challenge by claiming the Good Law Project needed to be an ‘economic operator’ to have standing. However the courts judgment was that it is unrealistic that economic operators would have challenged Government’s breach of the law in these circumstances. In other words, if the Good Law Project hadn’t taken this case, there are not many others who could have done so. Paras 77 to 108 of the courts judgement provides the detail of the judgement re standing. Sets a useful precedent.

Progress at least. If the Good Law Project had thought they had set a useful precedent, they would be shouting about and it would be the lead storey, the judge uses existing case law and precedents as he says English law has a ‘liberal approach’ in this regard.

[dpedin]

I was going to ask how you believe the judge finding that the Good Law Project having standing to bring the claim was more important than the actual ruling but let’s be honest your answer would be a load of unmitigated bollocks like pretty much everything else you have posted, so I won’t.

The Government sought to dismiss the legal challenge by claiming the Good Law Project needed to be an ‘economic operator’ to have standing. However the courts judgment was that it is unrealistic that economic operators would have challenged Government’s breach of the law in these circumstances. In other words, if the Good Law Project hadn’t taken this case, there are not many others who could have done so. Paras 77 to 108 of the courts judgement provides the detail of the judgement re standing. Sets a useful precedent.

Progress at least. If the Good Law Project had thought they had set a useful precedent, they would be shouting about and it would be the lead storey, the judge uses existing case law and precedents as he says English law has a ‘liberal approach’ in this regard.

Is English your first language?

I agree it is progress, excellent progress. Good to see that the courts have found in favour of the Good Law Project and that they have standing in challenging the Gov procurement processes despite the Government's arguments to the contrary. Without standing the case would not have proceeded. This will be very important in pursuing further cases. It is also good that the court found the Secretary of State to have acted illegally in not publishing the contracts within the required timescales.

The Good Law Project, from what I have seen on their website and twitter feed, have indeed been very happy with the result. However I am not sure what the point of your comments are about they would be 'shouting about it' or it would be 'the lead storey' (sic). The GLP are indeed very happy about the result, including the fact that they have standing in bringing the case, and have said so but it is probably the press who decide who is shouting about what and what the lead 'storey' is. Of course the judge uses existing case law and precedent in making his determination but as we all know case law and precedent is dynamic and constantly evolving so it is good to hear that the Government's argument was denied. Onwards and upwards!

[ohno]

The Government sought to dismiss the legal challenge by claiming the Good Law Project needed to be an ‘economic operator’ to have standing. However the courts judgment was that it is unrealistic that economic operators would have challenged Government’s breach of the law in these circumstances. In other words, if the Good Law Project hadn’t taken this case, there are not many others who could have done so. Paras 77 to 108 of the courts judgement provides the detail of the judgement re standing. Sets a useful precedent.

Progress at least. If the Good Law Project had thought they had set a useful precedent, they would be shouting about and it would be the lead storey, the judge uses existing case law and precedents as he says English law has a ‘liberal approach’ in this regard.

Is English your first language?

I agree it is progress, excellent progress. Good to see that the courts have found in favour of the Good Law Project and that they have standing in challenging the Gov procurement processes despite the Government's arguments to the contrary. Without standing the case would not have proceeded. This will be very important in pursuing further cases. It is also good that the court found the Secretary of State to have acted illegally in not publishing the contracts within the required timescales.

The Good Law Project, from what I have seen on their website and twitter feed, have indeed been very happy with the result. However I am not sure what the point of your comments are about they would be 'shouting about it' or it would be 'the lead storey' (sic). The GLP are indeed very happy about the result, including the fact that they have standing in bringing the case, and have said so but it is probably the press who decide who is shouting about what and what the lead 'storey' is. Of course the judge uses existing case law and precedent in making his determination but as we all know case law and precedent is dynamic and constantly evolving so it is good to hear that the Government's argument was denied. Onwards and upwards!

Yes it is, I also understand what I am talkIng about, you clearly don’t so go for the spelling mistakes because that is all you will ever have. The Good Law Project aren’t happy about setting a precedent on standing or even evolving it. You don’t understand the judgement. You don’t understand what the Good Law Project are saying. You don’t understand the law or how it works and that is being charitable. The other interpretation is you are just a sad little man who can’t admit to being wrong.

[dpedin]

Progress at least. If the Good Law Project had thought they had set a useful precedent, they would be shouting about and it would be the lead storey, the judge uses existing case law and precedents as he says English law has a ‘liberal approach’ in this regard.

Is English your first language?

I agree it is progress, excellent progress. Good to see that the courts have found in favour of the Good Law Project and that they have standing in challenging the Gov procurement processes despite the Government's arguments to the contrary. Without standing the case would not have proceeded. This will be very important in pursuing further cases. It is also good that the court found the Secretary of State to have acted illegally in not publishing the contracts within the required timescales.

The Good Law Project, from what I have seen on their website and twitter feed, have indeed been very happy with the result. However I am not sure what the point of your comments are about they would be 'shouting about it' or it would be 'the lead storey' (sic). The GLP are indeed very happy about the result, including the fact that they have standing in bringing the case, and have said so but it is probably the press who decide who is shouting about what and what the lead 'storey' is. Of course the judge uses existing case law and precedent in making his determination but as we all know case law and precedent is dynamic and constantly evolving so it is good to hear that the Government's argument was denied. Onwards and upwards!

Yes it is, I also understand what I am talkIng about, you clearly don’t so go for the spelling mistakes because that is all you will ever have. The Good Law Project aren’t happy about setting a precedent on standing or even evolving it. You don’t understand the judgement. You don’t understand what the Good Law Project are saying. You don’t understand the law or how it works and that is being charitable. The other interpretation is you are just a sad little man who can’t admit to being wrong.

Ouch! I'm so hurt! Hard to argue against that reasoned and detailed explanation of the facts.

[ohno]

Is English your first language?

I agree it is progress, excellent progress. Good to see that the courts have found in favour of the Good Law Project and that they have standing in challenging the Gov procurement processes despite the Government's arguments to the contrary. Without standing the case would not have proceeded. This will be very important in pursuing further cases. It is also good that the court found the Secretary of State to have acted illegally in not publishing the contracts within the required timescales.

The Good Law Project, from what I have seen on their website and twitter feed, have indeed been very happy with the result. However I am not sure what the point of your comments are about they would be 'shouting about it' or it would be 'the lead storey' (sic). The GLP are indeed very happy about the result, including the fact that they have standing in bringing the case, and have said so but it is probably the press who decide who is shouting about what and what the lead 'storey' is. Of course the judge uses existing case law and precedent in making his determination but as we all know case law and precedent is dynamic and constantly evolving so it is good to hear that the Government's argument was denied. Onwards and upwards!

Yes it is, I also understand what I am talkIng about, you clearly don’t so go for the spelling mistakes because that is all you will ever have. The Good Law Project aren’t happy about setting a precedent on standing or even evolving it. You don’t understand the judgement. You don’t understand what the Good Law Project are saying. You don’t understand the law or how it works and that is being charitable. The other interpretation is you are just a sad little man who can’t admit to being wrong.

Ouch! I'm so hurt! Hard to argue against that reasoned and detailed explanation of the facts.

Why would you start now, you’ve just bullshitted and lied all along so I wouldn’t expect you to change now, so bye.

[FalseBayFC]

What's this? I thought the UK was the best of breed when it came to transparent Westminster Democracy. I've been told repeatedly on this bored that South Africa's many problems are due to our corrupt and incompetent leadership. I guess the UK has a corrupt but competent government.

There is a certain strategy in mastering the art of being corrupt which is to institute a mechanism to allow the issue to be removed from the public eye (as far as I am aware, the term 'sub judice' is no longer appropriate since the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, but it is still used as an excuse to allow comment to be avoided) until a suitable passage of time has passed, after which everybody will have forgotten about it.

Ostensibly, the process is supposed to counter corruption, but practically it serves to support it and to allow corruption to thrive.

Our own Zondo Commission into corrupt practices under Zuma may very well not see action taken against the corrupt, but at least the process allows for a certain measure of public introspection as their actions are exposed to scrutiny.

Of course, this just shows how backward and primitive our systems are in that they fail to fully obfuscate the matter.

The British are so much better at this than we.

I agree. Zuma sitting in his Nkandla pirates nest and entertaining streams of dubious politicians while Ace M covers his ears and sings lalallalala. Our legal system just seems powerless to take them on.

[dpedin]

Yes it is, I also understand what I am talkIng about, you clearly don’t so go for the spelling mistakes because that is all you will ever have. The Good Law Project aren’t happy about setting a precedent on standing or even evolving it. You don’t understand the judgement. You don’t understand what the Good Law Project are saying. You don’t understand the law or how it works and that is being charitable. The other interpretation is you are just a sad little man who can’t admit to being wrong.

Ouch! I'm so hurt! Hard to argue against that reasoned and detailed explanation of the facts.

Why would you start now, you’ve just bullshitted and lied all along so I wouldn’t expect you to change now, so bye.

Going back to where this discussion started about the 'technical' breach, I thought this was quite amusing. Following Brandon Lewis describing the Government’s breach of international law as “specific and limited”, Matt Hancock had tried to explain his own breaches as 'technical'. This line (see para 153.b of the judgement) had not gone down well when Hancock’s brief tried it out with the High Court.'What does “technical” mean, asked the Judge? Nothing, said Philip Moser QC for the Secretary of State. And in his judgment, the Judge said the suggested the use of the phrase “technical” was an “attempt to suggest, contrary to the fact, that the breaches were trivial or that they had occurred in an insubstantial number of cases".'

[sturginho]

Yes it is, I also understand what I am talkIng about, you clearly don’t so go for the spelling mistakes because that is all you will ever have. The Good Law Project aren’t happy about setting a precedent on standing or even evolving it. You don’t understand the judgement. You don’t understand what the Good Law Project are saying. You don’t understand the law or how it works and that is being charitable. The other interpretation is you are just a sad little man who can’t admit to being wrong.

Ouch! I'm so hurt! Hard to argue against that reasoned and detailed explanation of the facts.

Why would you start now, you’ve just bullshitted and lied all along so I wouldn’t expect you to change now, so bye.

Is this bimbo's new login?

[dpedin]

Ouch! I'm so hurt! Hard to argue against that reasoned and detailed explanation of the facts.

Why would you start now, you’ve just bullshitted and lied all along so I wouldn’t expect you to change now, so bye.

Is this bimbo's new login?

There are similarities but Bimbo is actually better informed and on some topics knows his stuff. Rarely does Bimbo do the 'its my ball and I'm taking it away and going in the huff' response. Less fun with ohno!

[Insane_Homer]

[I like neeps]

The Property Development deals they've been giving out are black and white corruption. The Jenrick one was just last year.

The thing is people just don't care about corruption. PPE is waved out as they're doing the best, property development ones just aren't discussed.

[SaintK]

Yes, read that yesterday. It's so fucking blatant!
Another one of the County Hall mob that were there when Johnson was mayor