Get in !!!!!

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...

I said the verdict was due to lack of transparency in my first post. There were posts such as the OP which states about contracts which is false. That is fact. Then some like to jump down your throat for simply stating the fact or more so I would support murdering young children which quite frankly is just pathetic
 
The point of this judgement is that the JR was necessary because the Government were acting in such an opaque manner, when it came to handing out contracts.

Why would the government seek to act in such a way - procurement legislation is clear and every penny was public money?

There is a very obvious inference regarding why they declined to provide details of who contracts were awarded too.
 
Laughing said:
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.
Click to expand...
The emergency legislation allows the awarding of contracts without tender, but it doesn't entirely give carte blanche. I look forward to further rounds!
 
They will be more cases to come. Doesn’t matter how far anybody wants to mine into it, inadequately or not, the headline is..
“Hancock acted unlawfully” That perception will stick with the public.
Let’s see what the next one brings.
 
JackG said:
The emergency legislation allows the awarding of contracts without tender, but it doesn't entirely give carte blanche. I look forward to further rounds!
Click to expand...
No it doesn't Jack you are right, and there is 2, possibly 3 judicial reviews in the pipeline. One may be dropped because of spiraling potential costs to GLP as the government are asking for costs should the litigation fail.
 
"There were posts such as the OP which states about contracts which is false. That is fact."

Cooper6711...stop with lies. The only mention of contracts in my op was about these scoundrels giving out contracts to their mates. Now that is not false, is clearly fact and easily proven. How is it that you always, without exception, make a pathetic attempt to defend these criminals?
 
deganya said:
"There were posts such as the OP which states about contracts which is false. That is fact."

Cooper6711...stop with lies. The only mention of contracts in my op was about these scoundrels giving out contracts to their mates. Now that is not false, is clearly fact and easily proven. How is it that you always, without exception, make a pathetic attempt to defend these criminals?
Click to expand...
Fighting a losing battle with this one. Will continue to defend the indefensible; I've even read on the DM that it's the lefties who are at fault as Hancock only did this to get extra vaccines that Europe didn't get. Couldn't make it up- There are literally billions and billions of pounds being stolen of OUR money that could be best spent on schools, NHS and the rest and we're all going to be taxed to kingdom come once Sunak releases his next budget. Turkeys voting for Christmas isn't even close.
 
deganya said:
"There were posts such as the OP which states about contracts which is false. That is fact."

Cooper6711...stop with lies. The only mention of contracts in my op was about these scoundrels giving out contracts to their mates. Now that is not false, is clearly fact and easily proven. How is it that you always, without exception, make a pathetic attempt to defend these criminals?
Click to expand...

It well maybe true but I have not lied in any of my posts have I. I have states quite clearly what the judgement is so not sure why you are so worked. Its quite its not a fact and easily proven unless I have missed the judgement on happy to be corrected though if easily proven. Can you also point where I have defended the government in any of posts? Again happy to be corrected if you can show me, it’s quite clearly not ok to bypass the transparency aspect and I never once said that
 
Unfortunately on one of the cases the government are deliberately racking up costs, now just over 1.5 million where usually 100-200 grand is the going rate. The government are asking the judge for costs should the litigation be thrown out. This is solely and only to price GLP out of the litigation, as they could not afford to pay the government costs in the eventg they loose. It's a tactic using our money to undermine an organization fighting for justice on our behalf. You really couldn't make it up.

I would ask anyone who wants to support, and can afford to, to do so. https://goodlawproject.org/donate/
 
Laughing said:
Unfortunately on one of the cases the government are deliberately racking up costs, now just over 1.5 million where usually 100-200 grand is the going rate. The government are asking the judge for costs should the litigation be thrown out. This is solely and only to price GLP out of the litigation, as they could not afford to pay the government costs in the eventg they loose. It's a tactic using our money to undermine an organization fighting for justice on our behalf. You really couldn't make it up.

I would ask anyone who wants to support, and can afford to, to do so. https://goodlawproject.org/donate/
Click to expand...
done
 
Laughing said:
Unfortunately on one of the cases the government are deliberately racking up costs, now just over 1.5 million where usually 100-200 grand is the going rate. The government are asking the judge for costs should the litigation be thrown out. This is solely and only to price GLP out of the litigation, as they could not afford to pay the government costs in the eventg they loose. It's a tactic using our money to undermine an organization fighting for justice on our behalf. You really couldn't make it up.

I would ask anyone who wants to support, and can afford to, to do so. https://goodlawproject.org/donate/
Click to expand...
Have donated. And signed up to a monthly payment so hopefully they can keep at it
 
zzzzz said:
You really think so? Nah. The 'system' will take care of it in the same way it always looks after these things and their own...... see the Patel case as well.
Click to expand...
There is a humongous backlog of 'cases' at courts up and down the land for obvious reasons.
It's going to take years to catch up. There will be some proper humdingers down the line including private cases brought by families of people who died after contracting covid in care homes for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top