Get in !!!!!

The High Court has ruled “The Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the Transparency Policy”

goodlawproject.org

The judgment is in - Good Law Project

The High Court has ruled “The Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the Transparency Policy” and that “there is now no dispute that, in a substantial number of cases, the Secretary of State breached his legal obligation to publish Contract Award Notices within 30 days of...
goodlawproject.org goodlawproject.org
 
GazC_MFC said:
What is the consequence for this then?
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing. Its so ingrained into the way this government and politics in general operates.

the best we can hope for is a bumbling apology from Boris about how expediency was the order of the day to protect the British public from a virus he didn't understand.
 
What have they won? Or proved the government didn't do?

It says they failed in relation to the Transparency policy which should have been shown within 30 days of a contract being awarded, not that there was anything wrong with the contracts award.

Obviously you could argue that they weren't being transparent because of this, but this judgement doesn't indicate there is anything wrong with any Covid related contracts
 
Cooper671 said:
What have they won? Or proved the government didn't do?

It says they failed in relation to the Transparency policy which should have been shown within 30 days of a contract being awarded, not that there was anything wrong with the contracts award.

Obviously you could argue that they weren't being transparent because of this, but this judgement doesn't indicate there is anything wrong with any Covid related contracts
Click to expand...
Relentless support for this government. Shame on you.
 
Cuthbert said:
Isn't Cooper's statement fairly neutral? - It neither supports the government nor condemns it.
Click to expand...

It is neutral - it's not in anyway supportive. It literally states what the judgement is. I thought it was in relation to the Dominic Cummings one which is trying to prove contracts were handed out as favours basically and the OP is suggesting that.

Upon reading it realised it was something completely different. I knew someone would jump straight on with the usual comment though. My comment is in relation to the judgement the OP comment is actually incorrect as the judgement doesn't say the government have done anything wrong in the way contracts were handed out
 
GazC_MFC said:
What is the consequence for this then?
Click to expand...
Nothing. We will all get excited today and then ignore it.
In an ideal world it would lead to investigations and probably prosecutions in other areas where the government appear to have applied cronyism and corruption to handing out contracts. It won’t though and the cult of “Boris” will continue whilst billions of pounds of public money is stolen.
 
Quick scan of the Judgment appears to show that this case is about non compliance with transparency regs and that no individual contracts were considered. GLP tried to argue systematic failure but lost on that point. Embarrassing but OP comment not borne out.
 
I'm surprised that so many people are so casual about friends of the Gov' - who had no expertise in the contracts they were bidding for, - won those contracts without having to go through a tendering process, and that people with the desired expertise, were ignored.
Maybe it's just me.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
I'm surprised that so many people are so casual about friends of the Gov' - who had no expertise in the contracts they were bidding for, - won those contracts without having to go through a tendering process, and that people with the desired expertise, were ignored.
Maybe it's just me.
Click to expand...

Corruption at the highest is acceptable to quite a few these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top