Get in !!!!!

Centralscrutinizer said:
And that there is one of the main reasons why we're where we are as a dumbed down country (n)
Click to expand...
yeah, and sadly the spin on that is against the person that is relinquishing his involvement in a long standing corrupt elitist body, yet he is being condemned and the average citizen is wilfully helping....mental
 
Hancock really is our Ted Cruz. A gaffe prone whopper who will do and say anything to maintain his sinecure, including debasing himself. Remember his criticism of Neil Ferguson then support for Cummings?
 
BoroMart said:
He's a Tory plant. Boris could shoot a homeless 14 year old girl on Carnaby Street and that cultist would find a reason to justify it
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish. Simply stated that the ruling doesnt state anything about the awarding of contracts which is a fact. Think you’ll find that I haven’t justified anything nor would I support murdering innocent girls in the street you absolute whopper
 
LaPennaBianca said:
Hancock really is our Ted Cruz. A gaffe prone whopper who will do and say anything to maintain his sinecure, including debasing himself. Remember his criticism of Neil Ferguson then support for Cummings?
Click to expand...
he just needs the mullet and a cultist leader to nail his flag to
 
BoroMart said:
But that is coopers MO. If there are allegations against the government refute it, if the allegations are proven, show neutrality, diversion and smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

The allegation of awarding dodgy contracts hasn’t been proven as the judgement is nothing to do with that and it wasn’t asked. So I have neither refuted or as stated neutrality against proven as they haven’t been. Don’t know what your harping on about. Just another poster who wants to play the man not the content of the post. Sad really
 
JackG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah I totally agree. I never said they were asked but posters are not reading the article and talking about contracts or just being disingenuous with the judgement. If a judgement is passed stating they passed contracts favourably to benefit friends or donors then that would be wrong but as yet it hasn’t and what I have said is nothing more than fact
 
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...
If decisions by government can't be scrutinised, that's the end of democratic governance.
Screenshot_20210219-135627.jpg
 
Cooper671 said:
I have said nowhere that they can’t be and they should be. All I have said it doesn’t say anything about awarding of contracts which is true
Click to expand...
It doesn't say that because the case wasn't about that.....this ruling doesn't condone those contracts either, if anything it throws doubt into them by saying there was a lack of transparency and due process required to stop corruption. That is pretty damning.
 
JackG said:
S

See bear's post 50 above. If that 'doesn’t say anything about awarding of contracts' I don't know what does.
Click to expand...
Jack I read the whole judgement. It said nothing about who those contracts were awarded to because that was not the litigation. The judgement was for failing to publish contracts in a timely manner. the Secretary of State breached, on multiple occassions, 2 legal requirements when awarding contracts. neither of the breaches were to do with the recipients of the contracts.

It's step 1 in GLP's crusade against the government.

There is further judicial action in the pipeline.
 
Laughing said:
Jack I read the whole judgement. It said nothing about who those contracts were awarded to because that was not the litigation. The judgement was for failing to publish contracts in a timely manner. the Secretary of State breached, on multiple occassions, 2 legal requirements when awarding contracts. neither of the breaches were to do with the recipients of the contracts.

It's step 1 in GLP's crusade against the government.

There is further judicial action in the pipeline.
Click to expand...
Can't wait. Bring on Gina Miller.
 
Laughing said:
Jack I read the whole judgement. It said nothing about who those contracts were awarded to because that was not the litigation. The judgement was for failing to publish contracts in a timely manner. the Secretary of State breached, on multiple occassions, 2 legal requirements when awarding contracts. neither of the breaches were to do with the recipients of the contracts.

It's step 1 in GLP's crusade against the government.

There is further judicial action in the pipeline.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that the judge wasn't commenting on the legality of the awarding of contracts. He did, however, comment extensively on the need for transparency in the awarding of contracts. My point was that Cooper seemed to argue that he has nothing to say on the matter of the awarding of contracts. He had nothing to say on the legality of the contracts, as this was not the matter before him. He was not asked to judge if the contracts were legally awarded. He was asked to judge if the absence of transparency in the process was unlawful and he found that it was.
 
Good Law Project.
The consultancy gravy train shows no sign of stopping. The Department of Health awarded the multi-national professional services firm, Deloitte, a COVID-19 contract that could be worth almost £1 million a day without the contract ever going to tender. The deal, worth up to £145 million, was handed to Deloitte to ‘support testing for Covid 19’ for just five months. Deloitte has been given at least 25 public sector COVID-19-contracts since the outbreak of the pandemic, of which contracts totalling £170 million were awarded without any competition. Not only did Government fail to advertise or put this huge contract out to tender, they didn’t come clean about the enormous sum of public money handed to Deloitte until around the time the contract had ended. The contract started in September 2020 and was only made public by the Government in January 2021. It's almost impossible to scrutinise contracts when Government routinely fails to publish the details within the legal timeframe. We do not believe the award of this contract worth up to £145 million was lawful. We are left with no option but to pursue transparency through the courts. We have taken the first step in legal proceedings. Government’s approach to procurement throughout this pandemic has been characterized by a repeated failure to follow its own rules. For the sake of the public purse, we will continue to push for proper governance.
Thank you,
Jolyon Maugham QC
Director of Good Law Project
 
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...
So why did they waste £200000 of our money to defend it then?
 
JackG said:
I agree with you that the judge wasn't commenting on the legality of the awarding of contracts. He did, however, comment extensively on the need for transparency in the awarding of contracts. My point was that Cooper seemed to argue that he has nothing to say on the matter of the awarding of contracts. He had nothing to say on the legality of the contracts, as this was not the matter before him. He was not asked to judge if the contracts were legally awarded. He was asked to judge if the absence of transparency in the process was unlawful and he found that it was.
Click to expand...
He did Jack but wholly because transparency was one of the legal breaches but only insofar as the contract values, if over 10,000, and their details had to be published within 30 days of the contract being offered. Unfortunately the emergency covid legislation allows the government to offer contracts without tender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top