Get in !!!!!

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...
Must have missed that can you refer me to it in the Judgment please.
 
To be fair matt hancock is absoloitely slautered in that judgement, not quite, but almost to the extent he was accused of lying to the court. He was certainly accused of misleading the court. The use of the word technical, when referring to breaches of the transparency clause were categorized as misleading. He was told he could have been forthcoming and avoided the case, which cost the taxpayer 207,000.

He was found guilty of routinely breaching his legal obligations and refusing to admit the breaches and put them into context, how many and how often.

The one small victory for the state was the removal of the word systematically from the ruling when referring to the breaches. the GLP failed to prove that a system was put in place by the secretary of state to cicumvent the legal obligations.

Finally the Judge did not grant mandatory relief but did grant statutory relief. Given that the GLP are the primary claimants the government will be ordered to pay costs, out of our pockets, it has to be said.
 
Laughing said:
To be fair matt hancock is absoloitely slautered in that judgement, not quite, but almost to the extent he was accused of lying to the court. He was certainly accused of misleading the court. The use of the word technical, when referring to breaches of the transparency clause were categorized as misleading. He was told he could have been forthcoming and avoided the case, which cost the taxpayer 207,000.

He was found guilty of routinely breaching his legal obligations and refusing to admit the breaches and put them into context, how many and how often.

The one small victory for the state was the removal of the word systematically from the ruling when referring to the breaches. the GLP failed to prove that a system was put in place by the secretary of state to cicumvent the legal obligations.

Finally the Judge did not grant mandatory relief but did grant statutory relief. Given that the GLP are the primary claimants the government will be ordered to pay costs, out of our pockets, it has to be said.
Click to expand...
Nobody is found "guilty" in JR proceedings.
 
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...
Could you imagine the outcry if a local Labour council did that.

You couldn't trust any of this lot.
 
Hicktonpen10 said:
Nobody is found "guilty" in JR proceedings.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is, being a pedant I suppose. He was found to have routinely breached his legal responsabilities. Semantically it is perfectly accurate to say he was found guilty of routinely breaching his legal responsabilities.
 
Muttley said:
This isn't supporting your team. This is a government found to have misused OUR money, your money too and yet your apparent fondness for that lovable fornicator Dad-Of-The-Year nominee Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is unequivocal, like the echoes of Breixteers telling us "you lost get over it".

Dear me.
Click to expand...

The judgement doesn't state anything of the sort. Not that it means they didn't but they haven't been found to misused any money in that judgement
 
Cooper671 said:
The judgement doesn't state anything of the sort. Not that it means they didn't but they haven't been found to misused any money in that judgement
Click to expand...
Typical case of people applying their narrative to the facts. If you don’t comply with Regulations then you have acted unlawfully. That is what High Court found. I am certainly not defending that but to suggest corruption is at the heart of this Judgment is completely untrue.
 
bear66 said:
It couldn't make that judgement due to the lack of transparency.
Click to expand...

That's beside the point. The judgement in this case does not indicate any form of wrong doing by the government in awarding the contracts and to suggest otherwise is simply false. You can believe it and it may be true but suggesting this judgement indicates that is way off the mark
 
Cooper671 said:
That's beside the point. The judgement in this case does not indicate any form of wrong doing by the government in awarding the contracts and to suggest otherwise is simply false. You can believe it and it may be true but suggesting this judgement indicates that is way off the mark
Click to expand...
The court wasn't asked to consider wrongdoing in the awarding of contracts. It was asked to consider whether the government had acted unlawfully in its failure to publish the contracts within the required timeframe. The judge considered that the government had, repeatedly, acted unlawfully. It had failed to carry out its legal obligations. The judge underlined his judgement in his comments, which are very strongly worded. Of equal importance is the judgement that the Good Law Project has locus in this case, which will almost certainly be followed by others. This is like the initial incision by the surgeon's scalpel. Let's hope it ultimately leads to the removal of the diseased organs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top