FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Did you hear that!
Did you hear that!
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No! Just silence. Government breaks the rules and hands out £millions of public money to their mates and friends and the High Court passes judgement that it was a clear failure to comply with the rules. Silence from Labour. Silence from the Torys Just silence. There is no accountability anymore they can do what ever they want. " I've no idea what starmer is playing at. The only logical explanation Is that he knows more is coming out,and he is biding his time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No! Just silence. Government breaks the rules and hands out £millions of public money to their mates and friends and the High Court passes judgement that it was a clear failure to comply with the rules. Silence from Labour. Silence from the Torys Just silence. There is no accountability anymore they can do what ever they want. " Use your vote, that's what it's for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"hancocks pub landlord chum is under investigation for making medical supplies in a shonky barn on his dads farmyard and various enviro-crimes" I suspect there is a lot more to come out soon. Not that it will make a difference They have been found in a court of law to have acted unlawfully and they still havent done anything wrong  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No! Just silence. Government breaks the rules and hands out £millions of public money to their mates and friends and the High Court passes judgement that it was a clear failure to comply with the rules. Silence from Labour. Silence from the Torys Just silence. There is no accountability anymore they can do what ever they want. Use your vote, that's what it's for. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No! Just silence. Government breaks the rules and hands out £millions of public money to their mates and friends and the High Court passes judgement that it was a clear failure to comply with the rules. Silence from Labour. Silence from the Torys Just silence. There is no accountability anymore they can do what ever they want. " You must have been asleep when the bit about the national audit office saying there is no wrong doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited)." They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law " Have you read the full judgment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law " Yes. I said that above. Read again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again." You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Have you read the full judgment?" Did they act unlawfully? Yes or no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
"Serious question If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu. Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality? Again it's a simple question. Yes or no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Read this: "Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days" What do you think I said?" Can you answer my question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Read this: "Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days" What do you think I said? Can you answer my question?" I have 3 TIMES NOW !!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?"No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Read this: "Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days" What do you think I said? Can you answer my question? I have 3 TIMES NOW !!! " No you havent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
No"Funny.. the eu threatened to break the law the other week and people were wetting themselves with excitement. Come on. At least be honest. Of this was labour ,they wouod be getting vilified | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?"This question cat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder what it would be like to live in the perfect world that some people on here believe to exist. At a time of an International emergency a minister is found guilty of breaking a law which involves filing of paperwork in a set time limit. What actual lasting harm is done by missing an arbitrary paper filing deadline. This oversight, or slight delay should pale into insignificance when compared with the mammoth ongoing task, at the time, of actually obtaining the supplies, which, miraculously,was achieved. Don't you think that all the various departments and people that were involved in this had more important things on their plate. Come on, what is more important, the technicality of a bit of paper, or actually concentrating on getting something done that actually assisted in fighting the virus. Regardless of political persuasion this should be treated as a point of minor importance as Sir Kier Starmer possibly is." Presumably £11billion of contracts given to their friends is also an oversight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
No
Funny.. the eu threatened to break the law the other week and people were wetting themselves with excitement.
Come on.
At least be honest.
Of this was labour ,they wouod be getting vilified
"We are not in the EU anymore why are you bringing them up? #obsessed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
No
Funny.. the eu threatened to break the law the other week and people were wetting themselves with excitement.
Come on.
At least be honest.
Of this was labour ,they wouod be getting vilified
We are not in the EU anymore why are you bringing them up?
#obsessed"So you cant even be honest enough to admit that? Sound. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
No
Funny.. the eu threatened to break the law the other week and people were wetting themselves with excitement.
Come on.
At least be honest.
Of this was labour ,they wouod be getting vilified
We are not in the EU anymore why are you bringing them up?
#obsessed"nice one  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat"I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.' I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care. Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork. I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
"I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered. On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb."So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished? Yes or No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb."It has been answered, at least mine have. Also I might add - the 'VIP list' is usually called the 'Preferred Supplier Directory' Every Local Authority and every Government department has one. It's part of the Government Act' Suppliers Tender to be on that list, and you cannot be chosen for supply unless you are. I know, I have done 7 of them over the years. Using the Term VIP was just a media bending of the Preferred List title to make it sound more cheesie in news coverage. Again learn how your government works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
It has been answered, at least mine have.
Also I might add - the 'VIP list' is usually called the 'Preferred Supplier Directory'
Every Local Authority and every Government department has one. It's part of the Government Act'
Suppliers Tender to be on that list, and you cannot be chosen for supply unless you are. I know, I have done 7 of them over the years.
Using the Term VIP was just a media bending of the Preferred List title to make it sound more cheesie in news coverage.
Again learn how your government works.
"So this is standard practice? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hancock we should be thanking my team Morgan.you are your team have presided over a woeful handling of this pandemic that's led to us having the worst death rate in Europe.. so I'm sorry I'm not thanking you and your team Bravo " However the UK does not have the worse death rate in Europe so the guys is talking out of his arse! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hancock we should be thanking my team Morgan.you are your team have presided over a woeful handling of this pandemic that's led to us having the worst death rate in Europe.. so I'm sorry I'm not thanking you and your team Bravo " I suppose even Morgan is entitled to his OPINION. Or is he in Opposition? You know lie a serving member of Parliament? No? Oh ya' do surprise me. - Not! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hancock we should be thanking my team Morgan.you are your team have presided over a woeful handling of this pandemic that's led to us having the worst death rate in Europe.. so I'm sorry I'm not thanking you and your team Bravo However the UK does not have the worse death rate in Europe so the guys is talking out of his arse!" Where are we in Europe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hancock we should be thanking my team Morgan.you are your team have presided over a woeful handling of this pandemic that's led to us having the worst death rate in Europe.. so I'm sorry I'm not thanking you and your team Bravo I suppose even Morgan is entitled to his OPINION. Or is he in Opposition? You know lie a serving member of Parliament? No? Oh ya' do surprise me. - Not!" 
You realise Morgan isnt a politician? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hancock we should be thanking my team Morgan.you are your team have presided over a woeful handling of this pandemic that's led to us having the worst death rate in Europe.. so I'm sorry I'm not thanking you and your team Bravo However the UK does not have the worse death rate in Europe so the guys is talking out of his arse! Where are we in Europe?" According to Worldometer 6th. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hancock we should be thanking my team Morgan.you are your team have presided over a woeful handling of this pandemic that's led to us having the worst death rate in Europe.. so I'm sorry I'm not thanking you and your team Bravo However the UK does not have the worse death rate in Europe so the guys is talking out of his arse! Where are we in Europe? According to Worldometer 6th." According to statista on The 14th of feb we were 2nd behind Russia So yes Morgan was completely wrong. Can we get the hunting out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
It has been answered, at least mine have.
Also I might add - the 'VIP list' is usually called the 'Preferred Supplier Directory'
Every Local Authority and every Government department has one. It's part of the Government Act'
Suppliers Tender to be on that list, and you cannot be chosen for supply unless you are. I know, I have done 7 of them over the years.
Using the Term VIP was just a media bending of the Preferred List title to make it sound more cheesie in news coverage.
Again learn how your government works.
So this is standard practice?"You wouldn't belive how many departments in EVERY government get it wrong in a year. The idea behind publishing the contract is twofold. 1. It is illegal to publish it beforehand. As that would allow organizations to further undercut prices and encourage contracts that could not be fulfilled because pricing was far to low to be realistic and the contract would ultimately fail. 2. Tenders can only be taken from the 'Preferred Directory'. 3. Once the Tender documents are logged with the City Solicitor as bona-fide. . . . then and only then can the documents be put into public view - but this MUST HAPPEN with 14 days. Normally. You would be struck off the preferred list if you failed in the first two steps. The Judge said that Handcock (and his Department had failed to act with the legally required framework set by the Governments Act. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
It has been answered, at least mine have.
Also I might add - the 'VIP list' is usually called the 'Preferred Supplier Directory'
Every Local Authority and every Government department has one. It's part of the Government Act'
Suppliers Tender to be on that list, and you cannot be chosen for supply unless you are. I know, I have done 7 of them over the years.
Using the Term VIP was just a media bending of the Preferred List title to make it sound more cheesie in news coverage.
Again learn how your government works.
So this is standard practice?
You wouldn't belive how many departments in EVERY government get it wrong in a year.
The idea behind publishing the contract is twofold.
1. It is illegal to publish it beforehand. As that would allow organizations to further undercut prices and encourage contracts that could not be fulfilled because pricing was far to low to be realistic and the contract would ultimately fail.
2. Tenders can only be taken from the 'Preferred Directory'.
3. Once the Tender documents are logged with the City Solicitor as bona-fide.
. . . then and only then can the documents be put into public view - but this MUST HAPPEN with 14 days.
Normally. You would be struck off the preferred list if you failed in the first two steps.
The Judge said that Handcock (and his Department had failed to act with the legally required framework set by the Governments Act.
"Re the preferred contract list This is standard practice? How long in advance is the preferred list set up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hancock we should be thanking my team Morgan.you are your team have presided over a woeful handling of this pandemic that's led to us having the worst death rate in Europe.. so I'm sorry I'm not thanking you and your team Bravo However the UK does not have the worse death rate in Europe so the guys is talking out of his arse! Where are we in Europe? According to Worldometer 6th. According to statista on The 14th of feb we were 2nd behind Russia So yes Morgan was completely wrong. Can we get the hunting out?" From Statista data of 23rd Feb the UK is 4th. However they have left Gibraltar and San Marino off their data so that would make the UK 6th. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
It has been answered, at least mine have.
Also I might add - the 'VIP list' is usually called the 'Preferred Supplier Directory'
Every Local Authority and every Government department has one. It's part of the Government Act'
Suppliers Tender to be on that list, and you cannot be chosen for supply unless you are. I know, I have done 7 of them over the years.
Using the Term VIP was just a media bending of the Preferred List title to make it sound more cheesie in news coverage.
Again learn how your government works.
"Do you think lessons will be learned in respect of making the procurement process more dynamic - rather than following a "here's a list of approved suppliers, and here's the list of approved items - you can only order within these parameters" I read early on that as the existing procurement process didn't really nurture "skilled buyers" (I am not using this phrase to denigrate or demean the role), the buyers were not suitably equipped to be able to adapt quickly to the situation that faced them, with the entire world seeking out the same commodity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hancock we should be thanking my team Morgan.you are your team have presided over a woeful handling of this pandemic that's led to us having the worst death rate in Europe.. so I'm sorry I'm not thanking you and your team Bravo However the UK does not have the worse death rate in Europe so the guys is talking out of his arse! Where are we in Europe? According to Worldometer 6th. According to statista on The 14th of feb we were 2nd behind Russia So yes Morgan was completely wrong. Can we get the hunting out? From Statista data of 23rd Feb the UK is 4th. However they have left Gibraltar and San Marino off their data so that would make the UK 6th." San Marino and gilbrator...
Outstanding work
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
It has been answered, at least mine have.
Also I might add - the 'VIP list' is usually called the 'Preferred Supplier Directory'
Every Local Authority and every Government department has one. It's part of the Government Act'
Suppliers Tender to be on that list, and you cannot be chosen for supply unless you are. I know, I have done 7 of them over the years.
Using the Term VIP was just a media bending of the Preferred List title to make it sound more cheesie in news coverage.
Again learn how your government works.
So this is standard practice?
You wouldn't belive how many departments in EVERY government get it wrong in a year.
The idea behind publishing the contract is twofold.
1. It is illegal to publish it beforehand. As that would allow organizations to further undercut prices and encourage contracts that could not be fulfilled because pricing was far to low to be realistic and the contract would ultimately fail.
2. Tenders can only be taken from the 'Preferred Directory'.
3. Once the Tender documents are logged with the City Solicitor as bona-fide.
. . . then and only then can the documents be put into public view - but this MUST HAPPEN with 14 days.
Normally. You would be struck off the preferred list if you failed in the first two steps.
The Judge said that Handcock (and his Department had failed to act with the legally required framework set by the Governments Act.
Re the preferred contract list
This is standard practice?
How long in advance is the preferred list set up?"Every supply company worth it's salt would have made an application for entry onto the list as soon as they feel that they are able to supply. It normally take 28 days to complete the entry and be assigned a supply number. The Government CAN NOT take supply from anybody NOT on that list. If you are removed from the list - you are off it for 12 months. You may then re-apply (but the fact that you were removed can be taken into consideration in the decision to put you back or not). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder what it would be like to live in the perfect world that some people on here believe to exist. At a time of an International emergency a minister is found guilty of breaking a law which involves filing of paperwork in a set time limit. What actual lasting harm is done by missing an arbitrary paper filing deadline. This oversight, or slight delay should pale into insignificance when compared with the mammoth ongoing task, at the time, of actually obtaining the supplies, which, miraculously,was achieved. Don't you think that all the various departments and people that were involved in this had more important things on their plate. Come on, what is more important, the technicality of a bit of paper, or actually concentrating on getting something done that actually assisted in fighting the virus. Regardless of political persuasion this should be treated as a point of minor importance as Sir Kier Starmer possibly is. Presumably £11billion of contracts given to their friends is also an oversight." I thought that would be the reply. Anyone that has ever run a business, finds things get done far quicker and smoothly if reliable and trusted business associates are brought into the mix of getting the job done. This is just how things are done when emergency conditions apply. There are 2 types of world that are aspired to. The real world and the Utopian one that just is not achievable. If there is unlimited time and no urgency, great, have long winded tenders going out to numerous suppliers but if you need something life saving immediately, no-one is going to thank you for saying "Sorry this has to go out to tender and come back to me in 6 months time" I agree that if the wrong people are turned to, this can occasionally cause problems but at the end of the day I know where I would rather be. The whole world was desperate and we generally got the results. What outcome do you want? The goods being delivered, or more people dying due to bureaucracy? I am afraid in the world we live in, in times of emergency, ideology has to take second place and practicality and common sense used, which may not always result in the most efficient outcome. However the other options are far worse. I would argue with you that the majority of politicians (whatever persuasion) are not criminals but just want to get the job done to the best of their ability. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
It has been answered, at least mine have.
Also I might add - the 'VIP list' is usually called the 'Preferred Supplier Directory'
Every Local Authority and every Government department has one. It's part of the Government Act'
Suppliers Tender to be on that list, and you cannot be chosen for supply unless you are. I know, I have done 7 of them over the years.
Using the Term VIP was just a media bending of the Preferred List title to make it sound more cheesie in news coverage.
Again learn how your government works.
So this is standard practice?
You wouldn't belive how many departments in EVERY government get it wrong in a year.
The idea behind publishing the contract is twofold.
1. It is illegal to publish it beforehand. As that would allow organizations to further undercut prices and encourage contracts that could not be fulfilled because pricing was far to low to be realistic and the contract would ultimately fail.
2. Tenders can only be taken from the 'Preferred Directory'.
3. Once the Tender documents are logged with the City Solicitor as bona-fide.
. . . then and only then can the documents be put into public view - but this MUST HAPPEN with 14 days.
Normally. You would be struck off the preferred list if you failed in the first two steps.
The Judge said that Handcock (and his Department had failed to act with the legally required framework set by the Governments Act.
Re the preferred contract list
This is standard practice?
How long in advance is the preferred list set up?
Every supply company worth it's salt would have made an application for entry onto the list as soon as they feel that they are able to supply.
It normally take 28 days to complete the entry and be assigned a supply number.
The Government CAN NOT take supply from anybody NOT on that list.
If you are removed from the list - you are off it for 12 months. You may then re-apply (but the fact that you were removed can be taken into consideration in the decision to put you back or not).
"So you can put an application on and be on a preferred list in the space of 28 days? Even if you have no evidence of previous experience in that field? So surely other companies must have applied and not been put on the list? What criteria would have been used? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder what it would be like to live in the perfect world that some people on here believe to exist. At a time of an International emergency a minister is found guilty of breaking a law which involves filing of paperwork in a set time limit. What actual lasting harm is done by missing an arbitrary paper filing deadline. This oversight, or slight delay should pale into insignificance when compared with the mammoth ongoing task, at the time, of actually obtaining the supplies, which, miraculously,was achieved. Don't you think that all the various departments and people that were involved in this had more important things on their plate. Come on, what is more important, the technicality of a bit of paper, or actually concentrating on getting something done that actually assisted in fighting the virus. Regardless of political persuasion this should be treated as a point of minor importance as Sir Kier Starmer possibly is. Presumably £11billion of contracts given to their friends is also an oversight. I thought that would be the reply. Anyone that has ever run a business, finds things get done far quicker and smoothly if reliable and trusted business associates are brought into the mix of getting the job done. This is just how things are done when emergency conditions apply. There are 2 types of world that are aspired to. The real world and the Utopian one that just is not achievable. If there is unlimited time and no urgency, great, have long winded tenders going out to numerous suppliers but if you need something life saving immediately, no-one is going to thank you for saying "Sorry this has to go out to tender and come back to me in 6 months time" I agree that if the wrong people are turned to, this can occasionally cause problems but at the end of the day I know where I would rather be. The whole world was desperate and we generally got the results. What outcome do you want? The goods being delivered, or more people dying due to bureaucracy? I am afraid in the world we live in, in times of emergency, ideology has to take second place and practicality and common sense used, which may not always result in the most efficient outcome. However the other options are far worse. I would argue with you that the majority of politicians (whatever persuasion) are not criminals but just want to get the job done to the best of their ability." When you say reliable and trusted..where not several of these companies only set up months before the pandemic and had no history of producing ppe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"True . . . The 'Preferred Supply Directory' is actually supposed to be the 'Trusted Directory' that all governments local/national use, and it was used in this case." How did they choose which companies to employ? Considering several had no experience in making ppe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder what it would be like to live in the perfect world that some people on here believe to exist. At a time of an International emergency a minister is found guilty of breaking a law which involves filing of paperwork in a set time limit. What actual lasting harm is done by missing an arbitrary paper filing deadline. This oversight, or slight delay should pale into insignificance when compared with the mammoth ongoing task, at the time, of actually obtaining the supplies, which, miraculously,was achieved. Don't you think that all the various departments and people that were involved in this had more important things on their plate. Come on, what is more important, the technicality of a bit of paper, or actually concentrating on getting something done that actually assisted in fighting the virus. Regardless of political persuasion this should be treated as a point of minor importance as Sir Kier Starmer possibly is. Presumably £11billion of contracts given to their friends is also an oversight. I thought that would be the reply. Anyone that has ever run a business, finds things get done far quicker and smoothly if reliable and trusted business associates are brought into the mix of getting the job done. This is just how things are done when emergency conditions apply. There are 2 types of world that are aspired to. The real world and the Utopian one that just is not achievable. If there is unlimited time and no urgency, great, have long winded tenders going out to numerous suppliers but if you need something life saving immediately, no-one is going to thank you for saying "Sorry this has to go out to tender and come back to me in 6 months time" I agree that if the wrong people are turned to, this can occasionally cause problems but at the end of the day I know where I would rather be. The whole world was desperate and we generally got the results. What outcome do you want? The goods being delivered, or more people dying due to bureaucracy? I am afraid in the world we live in, in times of emergency, ideology has to take second place and practicality and common sense used, which may not always result in the most efficient outcome. However the other options are far worse. I would argue with you that the majority of politicians (whatever persuasion) are not criminals but just want to get the job done to the best of their ability. When you say reliable and trusted..where not several of these companies only set up months before the pandemic and had no history of producing ppe?" I know one very small company - 8 people - who formed a company to supply a particular medical widget to the Government in May. They began supply in July 2020 and have done well to keep up. Also, you will recall that the Government put out a call for ALL business's with a 'good' idea to get in touch - if any of those good ideas had been considered to have been 'workable' they still would have been told to then make an application to the Directory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder what it would be like to live in the perfect world that some people on here believe to exist. At a time of an International emergency a minister is found guilty of breaking a law which involves filing of paperwork in a set time limit. What actual lasting harm is done by missing an arbitrary paper filing deadline. This oversight, or slight delay should pale into insignificance when compared with the mammoth ongoing task, at the time, of actually obtaining the supplies, which, miraculously,was achieved. Don't you think that all the various departments and people that were involved in this had more important things on their plate. Come on, what is more important, the technicality of a bit of paper, or actually concentrating on getting something done that actually assisted in fighting the virus. Regardless of political persuasion this should be treated as a point of minor importance as Sir Kier Starmer possibly is. Presumably £11billion of contracts given to their friends is also an oversight. I thought that would be the reply. Anyone that has ever run a business, finds things get done far quicker and smoothly if reliable and trusted business associates are brought into the mix of getting the job done. This is just how things are done when emergency conditions apply. There are 2 types of world that are aspired to. The real world and the Utopian one that just is not achievable. If there is unlimited time and no urgency, great, have long winded tenders going out to numerous suppliers but if you need something life saving immediately, no-one is going to thank you for saying "Sorry this has to go out to tender and come back to me in 6 months time" I agree that if the wrong people are turned to, this can occasionally cause problems but at the end of the day I know where I would rather be. The whole world was desperate and we generally got the results. What outcome do you want? The goods being delivered, or more people dying due to bureaucracy? I am afraid in the world we live in, in times of emergency, ideology has to take second place and practicality and common sense used, which may not always result in the most efficient outcome. However the other options are far worse. I would argue with you that the majority of politicians (whatever persuasion) are not criminals but just want to get the job done to the best of their ability. When you say reliable and trusted..where not several of these companies only set up months before the pandemic and had no history of producing ppe? I know one very small company - 8 people - who formed a company to supply a particular medical widget to the Government in May. They began supply in July 2020 and have done well to keep up. Also, you will recall that the Government put out a call for ALL business's with a 'good' idea to get in touch - if any of those good ideas had been considered to have been 'workable' they still would have been told to then make an application to the Directory. " But I still dont understand what criteria would have been used? You said any company worth its salt would have applied? So presumably some would have been selected and some rejected? On what basis would this decision have been made? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"True . . . The 'Preferred Supply Directory' is actually supposed to be the 'Trusted Directory' that all governments local/national use, and it was used in this case. How did they choose which companies to employ? Considering several had no experience in making ppe?" Dyson had no experience of Ventilators. There were a few others I recall. JCB made ventilators. Two Staffordshire firms made ppe - they used to make hiking gear. A Staffordshire firm made car wash detergents and then changed to sanitizer. NONE where on the Directory when they applied - They are now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"True . . . The 'Preferred Supply Directory' is actually supposed to be the 'Trusted Directory' that all governments local/national use, and it was used in this case. How did they choose which companies to employ? Considering several had no experience in making ppe? Dyson had no experience of Ventilators. There were a few others I recall. JCB made ventilators. Two Staffordshire firms made ppe - they used to make hiking gear. A Staffordshire firm made car wash detergents and then changed to sanitizer. NONE where on the Directory when they applied - They are now." I don't think my question is going to be answered. However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. I guess if they have nothing to hide, the judge will concur. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm absolutely astonished that someone who continuously takes the government to task over lying is using Morgan as a source of quotations "I don't like him. But at least he is asking questions and not letting them weasel out of it. There is not a chance in hell,Johnson will go on there. They just wheel out Hancock every week to be eviscerated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I still dont understand what criteria would have been used? You said any company worth its salt would have applied? So presumably some would have been selected and some rejected? On what basis would this decision have been made?" An example then: From my own Tendering days. The Directory Entry paperwork is about 80 pages long. It ask for all you incorporation details. You have to name two officers that are the ONLY contact points that are allowed to deal with the paperwork. You have to detail - in very high spec - what you wish to supply. You have to set guarantees about the level of supply - this doesn't have to be the total of the requirement because contracts are very often split between more than one supplier this is also good practice just in case a supplier folds. You have to agree to any penalties. You have to agreed a non fraud contract. You have to agree an Anti (banned word by FAB goes here) contract. You have to agree a minimum wage and benefits contract. There is a lot of minutia but essentially that is it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm absolutely astonished that someone who continuously takes the government to task over lying is using Morgan as a source of quotations
I don't like him.
But at least he is asking questions and not letting them weasel out of it.
There is not a chance in hell,Johnson will go on there.
They just wheel out Hancock every week to be eviscerated. "Morgan says things for effect. To cause controversy. It boosts ratings and make him 'more valuable' I wouldn't trust anything he says personally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I still dont understand what criteria would have been used? You said any company worth its salt would have applied? So presumably some would have been selected and some rejected? On what basis would this decision have been made? An example then: From my own Tendering days. The Directory Entry paperwork is about 80 pages long. It ask for all you incorporation details. You have to name two officers that are the ONLY contact points that are allowed to deal with the paperwork. You have to detail - in very high spec - what you wish to supply. You have to set guarantees about the level of supply - this doesn't have to be the total of the requirement because contracts are very often split between more than one supplier this is also good practice just in case a supplier folds. You have to agree to any penalties. You have to agreed a non fraud contract. You have to agree an Anti (banned word by FAB goes here) contract. You have to agree a minimum wage and benefits contract. There is a lot of minutia but essentially that is it." But that still doesnt say why some companies were given access to the list and others not.If presumably they all met the above criteria? They are arguing that they didnt have the time but do you not think its slightly odd that so many had links to the gmnt? Incidentally that vip e mail that was sent out,was sent to members of the conservative party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm absolutely astonished that someone who continuously takes the government to task over lying is using Morgan as a source of quotations
I don't like him.
But at least he is asking questions and not letting them weasel out of it.
There is not a chance in hell,Johnson will go on there.
They just wheel out Hancock every week to be eviscerated.
Morgan says things for effect. To cause controversy. It boosts ratings and make him 'more valuable'
I wouldn't trust anything he says personally."Like I said I dont particularly like him. But he is one of the few journalists who wont put up with a politician waffling and not providing an answer. I think its clear Hancock is going to be the fall guy here and he seems to thick to realise it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. " Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I still dont understand what criteria would have been used? You said any company worth its salt would have applied? So presumably some would have been selected and some rejected? On what basis would this decision have been made? An example then: From my own Tendering days. The Directory Entry paperwork is about 80 pages long. It ask for all you incorporation details. You have to name two officers that are the ONLY contact points that are allowed to deal with the paperwork. You have to detail - in very high spec - what you wish to supply. You have to set guarantees about the level of supply - this doesn't have to be the total of the requirement because contracts are very often split between more than one supplier this is also good practice just in case a supplier folds. You have to agree to any penalties. You have to agreed a non fraud contract. You have to agree an Anti (banned word by FAB goes here) contract. You have to agree a minimum wage and benefits contract. There is a lot of minutia but essentially that is it. But that still doesnt say why some companies were given access to the list and others not.If presumably they all met the above criteria? They are arguing that they didnt have the time but do you not think its slightly odd that so many had links to the gmnt? Incidentally that vip e mail that was sent out,was sent to members of the conservative party." But not all do - Read above^^^ Many are rejected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. " Surely that is open to abuse then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then?" No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm absolutely astonished that someone who continuously takes the government to task over lying is using Morgan as a source of quotations
I don't like him.
But at least he is asking questions and not letting them weasel out of it.
There is not a chance in hell,Johnson will go on there.
They just wheel out Hancock every week to be eviscerated.
Morgan says things for effect. To cause controversy. It boosts ratings and make him 'more valuable'
I wouldn't trust anything he says personally.
Like I said I dont particularly like him.
But he is one of the few journalists who wont put up with a politician waffling and not providing an answer.
I think its clear Hancock is going to be the fall guy here and he seems to thick to realise it."Most normal people would accept that an answer isn't always as simple as they would like. Morgan does just as you're doing here with your questions to Cat re. Why some are/aren't on the list. Let me ask you, how would she know why certain suppliers were chosen? The answer is she wouldn't. That doesn't stop you badgering her for an answer and throwing a strop when you don't get one. Come to think of it, are you related to Morgan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why have some details been released and not others? " A company itself can say they are supplying - also it becomes obvious when you see their vans or products or badges on worker uniforms. But the Government won't show the list. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection." If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse." Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm absolutely astonished that someone who continuously takes the government to task over lying is using Morgan as a source of quotations
I don't like him.
But at least he is asking questions and not letting them weasel out of it.
There is not a chance in hell,Johnson will go on there.
They just wheel out Hancock every week to be eviscerated.
Morgan says things for effect. To cause controversy. It boosts ratings and make him 'more valuable'
I wouldn't trust anything he says personally.
Like I said I dont particularly like him.
But he is one of the few journalists who wont put up with a politician waffling and not providing an answer.
I think its clear Hancock is going to be the fall guy here and he seems to thick to realise it.
Most normal people would accept that an answer isn't always as simple as they would like.
Morgan does just as you're doing here with your questions to Cat re. Why some are/aren't on the list.
Let me ask you, how would she know why certain suppliers were chosen?
The answer is she wouldn't. That doesn't stop you badgering her for an answer and throwing a strop when you don't get one. Come to think of it, are you related to Morgan?"Because she has experience in that field and field and I'm asking for more information. Is that ok with you hun? Well as I've said twice now I dont like him.we are obvs v close. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list." Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm absolutely astonished that someone who continuously takes the government to task over lying is using Morgan as a source of quotations
I don't like him.
But at least he is asking questions and not letting them weasel out of it.
There is not a chance in hell,Johnson will go on there.
They just wheel out Hancock every week to be eviscerated.
Morgan says things for effect. To cause controversy. It boosts ratings and make him 'more valuable'
I wouldn't trust anything he says personally.
Like I said I dont particularly like him.
But he is one of the few journalists who wont put up with a politician waffling and not providing an answer.
I think its clear Hancock is going to be the fall guy here and he seems to thick to realise it.
Most normal people would accept that an answer isn't always as simple as they would like.
Morgan does just as you're doing here with your questions to Cat re. Why some are/aren't on the list.
Let me ask you, how would she know why certain suppliers were chosen?
The answer is she wouldn't. That doesn't stop you badgering her for an answer and throwing a strop when you don't get one. Come to think of it, are you related to Morgan?
Because she has experience in that field and field and I'm asking for more information.
Is that ok with you hun?
Well as I've said twice now I dont like him.we are obvs v close."She may have experience in tendering but that doesn't mean she knows why particular suppliers didn't make the list | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict?" Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm absolutely astonished that someone who continuously takes the government to task over lying is using Morgan as a source of quotations
I don't like him.
But at least he is asking questions and not letting them weasel out of it.
There is not a chance in hell,Johnson will go on there.
They just wheel out Hancock every week to be eviscerated.
Morgan says things for effect. To cause controversy. It boosts ratings and make him 'more valuable'
I wouldn't trust anything he says personally.
Like I said I dont particularly like him.
But he is one of the few journalists who wont put up with a politician waffling and not providing an answer.
I think its clear Hancock is going to be the fall guy here and he seems to thick to realise it.
Most normal people would accept that an answer isn't always as simple as they would like.
Morgan does just as you're doing here with your questions to Cat re. Why some are/aren't on the list.
Let me ask you, how would she know why certain suppliers were chosen?
The answer is she wouldn't. That doesn't stop you badgering her for an answer and throwing a strop when you don't get one. Come to think of it, are you related to Morgan?
Because she has experience in that field and field and I'm asking for more information.
Is that ok with you hun?
Well as I've said twice now I dont like him.we are obvs v close.
She may have experience in tendering but that doesn't mean she knows why particular suppliers didn't make the list "I was asking what criteria would have been used, which i would have thought they would be universal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No"Lionel you have not answered my question.? YES or NO? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand " And that makes them rogue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse." You have heard of the National Audit Office? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. You have heard of the National Audit Office?" Yep | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She may have experience in tendering but that doesn't mean she knows why particular suppliers didn't make the list "The government would never publish why someone was not put on the list. I wouldn't also be able to ask why a 'possibly competing' company failed either as even that would upset the competition. After all I could guess at the state of ability of another company if I knew that. Company Intelligence is also covered by the Law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. You have heard of the National Audit Office? Yep " OK, so that is the independent scrutiny that you mention above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. You have heard of the National Audit Office? Yep OK, so that is the independent scrutiny that you mention above." So what is the point of this court case then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue?" It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder what it would be like to live in the perfect world that some people on here believe to exist. At a time of an International emergency a minister is found guilty of breaking a law which involves filing of paperwork in a set time limit. What actual lasting harm is done by missing an arbitrary paper filing deadline. This oversight, or slight delay should pale into insignificance when compared with the mammoth ongoing task, at the time, of actually obtaining the supplies, which, miraculously,was achieved. Don't you think that all the various departments and people that were involved in this had more important things on their plate. Come on, what is more important, the technicality of a bit of paper, or actually concentrating on getting something done that actually assisted in fighting the virus. Regardless of political persuasion this should be treated as a point of minor importance as Sir Kier Starmer possibly is. Presumably £11billion of contracts given to their friends is also an oversight. I thought that would be the reply. Anyone that has ever run a business, finds things get done far quicker and smoothly if reliable and trusted business associates are brought into the mix of getting the job done. This is just how things are done when emergency conditions apply. There are 2 types of world that are aspired to. The real world and the Utopian one that just is not achievable. If there is unlimited time and no urgency, great, have long winded tenders going out to numerous suppliers but if you need something life saving immediately, no-one is going to thank you for saying "Sorry this has to go out to tender and come back to me in 6 months time" I agree that if the wrong people are turned to, this can occasionally cause problems but at the end of the day I know where I would rather be. The whole world was desperate and we generally got the results. What outcome do you want? The goods being delivered, or more people dying due to bureaucracy? I am afraid in the world we live in, in times of emergency, ideology has to take second place and practicality and common sense used, which may not always result in the most efficient outcome. However the other options are far worse. I would argue with you that the majority of politicians (whatever persuasion) are not criminals but just want to get the job done to the best of their ability. When you say reliable and trusted..where not several of these companies only set up months before the pandemic and had no history of producing ppe?" We were in the middle of an emergency!!!! I can't imagine what everyone involved in this situation went through. Especially the ones making decisions. I cannot understand why there is no compassion and things aren't looked at realistically. We are where we are. Of course some things could have been done better but a great deal of things could have been a lot worse. That is not necessarily a good reason to witch hunt people. What does it achieve? Someone being locked up for doing their best in an emergency! As I said earlier I don't believe that our politicians are criminals. As we live in a democracy we have to make do with the individuals we collectively elect. Very few of them have much experience in the field in which they end up governing. They have to rely on others advising them and then trying to pick out the wheat from the chaff. A totally unenviable job. Even Sage was throwing them many different opinions and options. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" She may have experience in tendering but that doesn't mean she knows why particular suppliers didn't make the list
The government would never publish why someone was not put on the list. I wouldn't also be able to ask why a 'possibly competing' company failed either as even that would upset the competition. After all I could guess at the state of ability of another company if I knew that. Company Intelligence is also covered by the Law."Absolutely, a supplier who fails to make the list can request a debrief as to why they failed in their attempt but not ask as to why another supplier did make the list | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take?" Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. You have heard of the National Audit Office? Yep OK, so that is the independent scrutiny that you mention above. So what is the point of this court case then?" It was a third party that initiated the court case and I doubt whether the NAO will have got around to auditing those contracts yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder what it would be like to live in the perfect world that some people on here believe to exist. At a time of an International emergency a minister is found guilty of breaking a law which involves filing of paperwork in a set time limit. What actual lasting harm is done by missing an arbitrary paper filing deadline. This oversight, or slight delay should pale into insignificance when compared with the mammoth ongoing task, at the time, of actually obtaining the supplies, which, miraculously,was achieved. Don't you think that all the various departments and people that were involved in this had more important things on their plate. Come on, what is more important, the technicality of a bit of paper, or actually concentrating on getting something done that actually assisted in fighting the virus. Regardless of political persuasion this should be treated as a point of minor importance as Sir Kier Starmer possibly is. Presumably £11billion of contracts given to their friends is also an oversight. I thought that would be the reply. Anyone that has ever run a business, finds things get done far quicker and smoothly if reliable and trusted business associates are brought into the mix of getting the job done. This is just how things are done when emergency conditions apply. There are 2 types of world that are aspired to. The real world and the Utopian one that just is not achievable. If there is unlimited time and no urgency, great, have long winded tenders going out to numerous suppliers but if you need something life saving immediately, no-one is going to thank you for saying "Sorry this has to go out to tender and come back to me in 6 months time" I agree that if the wrong people are turned to, this can occasionally cause problems but at the end of the day I know where I would rather be. The whole world was desperate and we generally got the results. What outcome do you want? The goods being delivered, or more people dying due to bureaucracy? I am afraid in the world we live in, in times of emergency, ideology has to take second place and practicality and common sense used, which may not always result in the most efficient outcome. However the other options are far worse. I would argue with you that the majority of politicians (whatever persuasion) are not criminals but just want to get the job done to the best of their ability. When you say reliable and trusted..where not several of these companies only set up months before the pandemic and had no history of producing ppe? We were in the middle of an emergency!!!! I can't imagine what everyone involved in this situation went through. Especially the ones making decisions. I cannot understand why there is no compassion and things aren't looked at realistically. We are where we are. Of course some things could have been done better but a great deal of things could have been a lot worse. That is not necessarily a good reason to witch hunt people. What does it achieve? Someone being locked up for doing their best in an emergency! As I said earlier I don't believe that our politicians are criminals. As we live in a democracy we have to make do with the individuals we collectively elect. Very few of them have much experience in the field in which they end up governing. They have to rely on others advising them and then trying to pick out the wheat from the chaff. A totally unenviable job. Even Sage was throwing them many different opinions and options. " No.one is asking for anyone to be locked up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed." It's not flawed at all - A genuinely good company makes the list. List is made public. A rogue company takes over genuine company. They are now on the list by default. Now would you like to answer my question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. You have heard of the National Audit Office? Yep OK, so that is the independent scrutiny that you mention above. So what is the point of this court case then? It was a third party that initiated the court case and I doubt whether the NAO will have got around to auditing those contracts yet." So presumably the full story will come out in the case..no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed." No, the NAO don’t monitor the situation, they audit Huge difference! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. It's not flawed at all - A genuinely good company makes the list. List is made public. A rogue company takes over genuine company. They are now on the list by default. Now would you like to answer my question?" What question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. No, the NAO don’t monitor the situation, they audit Huge difference!" So they wouldnt be able to identify a rogue company? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. It's not flawed at all - A genuinely good company makes the list. List is made public. A rogue company takes over genuine company. They are now on the list by default. Now would you like to answer my question? What question? " Would you prefer the list to be public and risk rogue companies getting on it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. No, the NAO don’t monitor the situation, they audit Huge difference! So they wouldnt be able to identify a rogue company?" They would but it could be too late by that point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. No, the NAO don’t monitor the situation, they audit Huge difference! So they wouldnt be able to identify a rogue company?" Possibly in retrospect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. No, the NAO don’t monitor the situation, they audit Huge difference! So they wouldnt be able to identify a rogue company? Possibly in retrospect." Thank you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. It's not flawed at all - A genuinely good company makes the list. List is made public. A rogue company takes over genuine company. They are now on the list by default. Now would you like to answer my question? What question? Would you prefer the list to be public and risk rogue companies getting on it?" I think the list should be made public. It should be in the public domain The fact that over 50%of the companies had links to the gmnt suggests to.me a hint of cronyism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. No, the NAO don’t monitor the situation, they audit Huge difference! So they wouldnt be able to identify a rogue company? Possibly in retrospect. Thank you" You know what retrospect means don't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. It's not flawed at all - A genuinely good company makes the list. List is made public. A rogue company takes over genuine company. They are now on the list by default. Now would you like to answer my question? What question? Would you prefer the list to be public and risk rogue companies getting on it? I think the list should be made public. It should be in the public domain The fact that over 50%of the companies had links to the gmnt suggests to.me a hint of cronyism." You'd be happy to take the risks outlined? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?"Lionel Can you answer my question? YES or No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder what it would be like to live in the perfect world that some people on here believe to exist. At a time of an International emergency a minister is found guilty of breaking a law which involves filing of paperwork in a set time limit. What actual lasting harm is done by missing an arbitrary paper filing deadline. This oversight, or slight delay should pale into insignificance when compared with the mammoth ongoing task, at the time, of actually obtaining the supplies, which, miraculously,was achieved. Don't you think that all the various departments and people that were involved in this had more important things on their plate. Come on, what is more important, the technicality of a bit of paper, or actually concentrating on getting something done that actually assisted in fighting the virus. Regardless of political persuasion this should be treated as a point of minor importance as Sir Kier Starmer possibly is. Presumably £11billion of contracts given to their friends is also an oversight. I thought that would be the reply. Anyone that has ever run a business, finds things get done far quicker and smoothly if reliable and trusted business associates are brought into the mix of getting the job done. This is just how things are done when emergency conditions apply. There are 2 types of world that are aspired to. The real world and the Utopian one that just is not achievable. If there is unlimited time and no urgency, great, have long winded tenders going out to numerous suppliers but if you need something life saving immediately, no-one is going to thank you for saying "Sorry this has to go out to tender and come back to me in 6 months time" I agree that if the wrong people are turned to, this can occasionally cause problems but at the end of the day I know where I would rather be. The whole world was desperate and we generally got the results. What outcome do you want? The goods being delivered, or more people dying due to bureaucracy? I am afraid in the world we live in, in times of emergency, ideology has to take second place and practicality and common sense used, which may not always result in the most efficient outcome. However the other options are far worse. I would argue with you that the majority of politicians (whatever persuasion) are not criminals but just want to get the job done to the best of their ability. When you say reliable and trusted..where not several of these companies only set up months before the pandemic and had no history of producing ppe? We were in the middle of an emergency!!!! I can't imagine what everyone involved in this situation went through. Especially the ones making decisions. I cannot understand why there is no compassion and things aren't looked at realistically. We are where we are. Of course some things could have been done better but a great deal of things could have been a lot worse. That is not necessarily a good reason to witch hunt people. What does it achieve? Someone being locked up for doing their best in an emergency! As I said earlier I don't believe that our politicians are criminals. As we live in a democracy we have to make do with the individuals we collectively elect. Very few of them have much experience in the field in which they end up governing. They have to rely on others advising them and then trying to pick out the wheat from the chaff. A totally unenviable job. Even Sage was throwing them many different opinions and options. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the list should be made public. It should be in the public domain The fact that over 50%of the companies had links to the gmnt suggests to.me a hint of cronyism." Also consider this: Most companies are owned by conservative voters - because they believe that the conservatives are a party for business, so that in itself is hardly surprising. Some of the highest paying contracts are given by government - this bit is important ***- ALL GOVERNMENTS -*** past & present. It doesn't make them bad companies to want to be on that list. It makes them savvy to be on that list. And also remember that there many are Labour leaning companies on that list too. Not publishing the list is a safeguard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the list should be made public. It should be in the public domain The fact that over 50%of the companies had links to the gmnt suggests to.me a hint of cronyism. " You can also look at it another way 50% didn't have links - and there is fairplay in action.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. It's not flawed at all - A genuinely good company makes the list. List is made public. A rogue company takes over genuine company. They are now on the list by default. Now would you like to answer my question? What question? Would you prefer the list to be public and risk rogue companies getting on it? I think the list should be made public. It should be in the public domain The fact that over 50%of the companies had links to the gmnt suggests to.me a hint of cronyism." In that case you should take that up with the government. I also suspect that those tenders would have been under EU tendering regulations as Public Procurement EU Exit Regulations didn’t come into effect until November of last year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However as you maintain they have done nothing wrong, it does seem a bit strange they are up before a judge and are still refusing to release the details a year into the pandemic. Well not really because: No Local or National Government will show it's Directory of Proffered suppliers. Because of one simple fact: It would allow companies to buy up companies who are on the list and by default be on the list themselves. This protects us all from non vetted's or hostile takeovers - BIG COMPANIES would die to get on the list after all. But may fail because of Domicile rights or previous director activities etc etc. Surely that is open to abuse then? No -it's quite the reverse. It's a protection. If a gmnt has a list of preferred contacts and will not release these contracts into the public domain,unless they have some independent scrutiny, that is wide open for abuse. Would you prefer the list to be public? And risk hostile takeovers by rogue firms so they can be on said list. Why would they be rogue if according to cat,the criteria were so strict? Because they would buy companies already on the list. It's not difficult to understand And that makes them rogue? It leaves companies open to being bought by rogue companies. Obviously not all of them would be rogue. But is it a risk you'd like to take? Again cat has outlined the strict procedures which are in place Apparently the national audit office also monitor the situation So your argument that "rogue'companoes would get involved is somewhat flawed. It's not flawed at all - A genuinely good company makes the list. List is made public. A rogue company takes over genuine company. They are now on the list by default. Now would you like to answer my question? What question? Would you prefer the list to be public and risk rogue companies getting on it? I think the list should be made public. It should be in the public domain The fact that over 50%of the companies had links to the gmnt suggests to.me a hint of cronyism. In that case you should take that up with the government. I also suspect that those tenders would have been under EU tendering regulations as Public Procurement EU Exit Regulations didn’t come into effect until November of last year." I suspect that is what the good law project is doing right now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the list should be made public. It should be in the public domain The fact that over 50%of the companies had links to the gmnt suggests to.me a hint of cronyism. Also consider this: Most companies are owned by conservative voters - because they believe that the conservatives are a party for business, so that in itself is hardly surprising. Some of the highest paying contracts are given by government - this bit is important ***- ALL GOVERNMENTS -*** past & present. It doesn't make them bad companies to want to be on that list. It makes them savvy to be on that list. And also remember that there many are Labour leaning companies on that list too. Not publishing the list is a safeguard. " I mean people linked to the party. Personally I think if you are an mp of any party ,you shouldn't be allowed to benefit financially from any gmnt contract,as there are clearly opportunities for abuse. But fingers crossed the judge will get to the bottom of it and decide if there was any wrong doing. It's quite strange as there were unproven allegations of corruptions in liverpool city council and certain people were creaming themselves over them butas the fella from Essex says,there are certainly no double standards on here. No way Jose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No"Yes And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money. Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money."So let me just get this right. You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
"Yep. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you think they were too busy saving lives to bother with the admin? Yes or no?" I think there was things that were more important than admin. Do you not agree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
Yep."I think it's clear for all to see that regardless what they do you're never gonna be happy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you think they were too busy saving lives to bother with the admin? Yes or no? I think there was things that were more important than admin. Do you not agree?" Can you actually answer my question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've got to be happy that 70% of PPE is now manufactured in the UK, compared with only 2% at the start of the pandemic. "Which also bodes well for the 100 day (G7 and Proposed by Boris) commitment for vaccine development in the case of another pandemic last week. Getting all our ducks in a row. Indeed, the worlds duck in a row. Lessons learned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We've got to be happy that 70% of PPE is now manufactured in the UK, compared with only 2% at the start of the pandemic.
Which also bodes well for the 100 day (G7 and Proposed by Boris) commitment for vaccine development in the case of another pandemic last week. Getting all our ducks in a row.
Indeed, the worlds duck in a row.
Lessons learned.
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you think they were too busy saving lives to bother with the admin? Yes or no? I think there was things that were more important than admin. Do you not agree? Can you actually answer my question " They weren't themselves saving lives so the question doesn't make sense. So I gave you an alternative answer. There were more important things than admin. That goes for any and all business. If there's a choice, admin goes towards the bottom of the pile | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
Yep.
I think it's clear for all to see that regardless what they do you're never gonna be happy "Of course they were busy doing what they thought was the best and in most cases what was advised by "experts" of one camp, or another, usually diametrically opposed. There is no other answer than they were trying to handle the pandemic in the best way possible, which obviously includes managing and minimizing how many people die. The speed of filing of paperwork has no reasonable expectation to compete with the other tasks in hand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
Yep."Lionel lives in his own little world. At a time when everyone was saying and asking for more PPE Lionel would rather have the people sourcing the PPE doing Admin.! Oh and I only had to ask 3 times to get an answer.!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you think they were too busy saving lives to bother with the admin? Yes or no? I think there was things that were more important than admin. Do you not agree? Can you actually answer my question They weren't themselves saving lives so the question doesn't make sense. So I gave you an alternative answer. There were more important things than admin. That goes for any and all business. If there's a choice, admin goes towards the bottom of the pile" Matt Hancock's defence seems to be they were trying to save lives | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
Yep.
I think it's clear for all to see that regardless what they do you're never gonna be happy
Of course they were busy doing what they thought was the best and in most cases what was advised by "experts" of one camp, or another, usually diametrically opposed. There is no other answer than they were trying to handle the pandemic in the best way possible, which obviously includes managing and minimizing how many people die. The speed of filing of paperwork has no reasonable expectation to compete with the other tasks in hand"Well they didnt handle the minimizing people dying but too well did they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
Yep.
Lionel lives in his own little world.
At a time when everyone was saying and asking for more PPE Lionel would rather have the people sourcing the PPE doing Admin.!
Oh and I only had to ask 3 times to get an answer.!!!"Better than being a total hypocrite If this was labour you would be all over them like a rash and you dont have the courage to admit it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
Yep.
Lionel lives in his own little world.
At a time when everyone was saying and asking for more PPE Lionel would rather have the people sourcing the PPE doing Admin.!
Oh and I only had to ask 3 times to get an answer.!!!"Cant you see the guy is so bias if they done the paperwork and stopped sourcing ppe he would have called them out for that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you think they were too busy saving lives to bother with the admin? Yes or no? I think there was things that were more important than admin. Do you not agree? Can you actually answer my question They weren't themselves saving lives so the question doesn't make sense. So I gave you an alternative answer. There were more important things than admin. That goes for any and all business. If there's a choice, admin goes towards the bottom of the pile Matt Hancock's defence seems to be they were trying to save lives" They were trying to save infections by procuring PPE. Saving infections equals saving lives. My statement says they weren't themselves saving lives ie. not on the frontline | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
Yep.
Lionel lives in his own little world.
At a time when everyone was saying and asking for more PPE Lionel would rather have the people sourcing the PPE doing Admin.!
Oh and I only had to ask 3 times to get an answer.!!!
Better than being a total hypocrite
If this was labour you would be all over them like a rash and you dont have the courage to admit it."Maybe those of us who live in the real world and have an understanding of how such things work would have been prepared to make allowances for such a totally unique situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
Yep.
Lionel lives in his own little world.
At a time when everyone was saying and asking for more PPE Lionel would rather have the people sourcing the PPE doing Admin.!
Oh and I only had to ask 3 times to get an answer.!!!
Better than being a total hypocrite
If this was labour you would be all over them like a rash and you dont have the courage to admit it.
Maybe those of us who live in the real world and have an understanding of how such things work would have been prepared to make allowances for such a totally unique situation.
"I'll ask you the same question. If this was a labour gmnt do you think the response would be the same? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually the Judge said that there was nothing illegal about the contracts themselves - just that the paperwork was not published within 14 days and that is illegal in Law. Most were actually published within 28 days Facts are the truth, not made up stories. (edited). They were found to have acted unlawfully in a court of law Yes. I said that above. Read again.You are wasting your time cat its not hard to understand but some just cant or refuse to.
Serious question
If labour had found t8 be acted unlawdullyforbid the eu.
Do you think people would be bending over backwards to argue it was some sort of technicality?
Again it's a simple question.
Yes or no?
This question cat
I have said half a billion times already that the judge said 'he acted illegally because it is illegal NOT to publish the paperwork within 14 days.'
I used to do Contracts for Tender for Public Health Care.
Everyone knows the 14 day cut-off for the production of paperwork.
I winced when I saw what he and the department had done, but then tempered that with the fact that they were right in the middle of a pandemic. This wasn't done last Tuesday after all.
I'll take it as red that my question isnt going to be answered.
On the bright side Hancock just keeps on digging
Without a doubt he will the sacrificial lamb.
So in your view Lionel in the middle of a world wide pandemic and a world wide shortage of PPE the staff involved in this clerical error should have stopped trying to source PPE for our NHS and concentrate on making sure the paperwork is finished?
Yes or No
Lionel you have not answered my question.?
YES or NO?
Lionel
Can you answer my question?
YES or No
Yes
And like hancock has admitted, if they would have just admitted there had been a mistake,it would have saved 200,000k in tax payers money.
Still you are obviously quite happy they piss away our money.
So let me just get this right.
You have absolutely hammered the government for their handling of the PPE procurement debacle but also say they should have stopped in their tracks to make sure the paperwork was dotted and crossed.
Yep.
Lionel lives in his own little world.
At a time when everyone was saying and asking for more PPE Lionel would rather have the people sourcing the PPE doing Admin.!
Oh and I only had to ask 3 times to get an answer.!!!
Better than being a total hypocrite
If this was labour you would be all over them like a rash and you dont have the courage to admit it.
Maybe those of us who live in the real world and have an understanding of how such things work would have been prepared to make allowances for such a totally unique situation.
I'll ask you the same question.
If this was a labour gmnt do you think the response would be the same?"See above answer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've been on here for about 9 months now. I'm being accused of being biased by someone by who in all that time has bot cricitzed the gmnt on 1...1 solitary occasion. In 9 months. Considering we have the most inept pm in history, have left the eu and have presided over 1 of the worst death rates on europe that is some going. Even when we was making gags about operation last gasp..not the mildest rebuke. Absolutely fucking priceless I am critical.. the difference is I'll critize labour aswell. Cos I'm not a hypocrite. " Yes I’ve seen your criticism of the likes of Corbyn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another swerve" I don’t see any swerve but that’s rich coming from the King of Swerves! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've been on here for about 9 months now. I'm being accused of being biased by someone by who in all that time has bot cricitzed the gmnt on 1...1 solitary occasion. In 9 months. Considering we have the most inept pm in history, have left the eu and have presided over 1 of the worst death rates on europe that is some going. Even when we was making gags about operation last gasp..not the mildest rebuke. Absolutely fucking priceless I am critical.. the difference is I'll critize labour aswell. Cos I'm not a hypocrite. Yes I’ve seen your criticism of the likes of Corbyn "I'll defend him when he is compared to hitler I'll happily say he wasn't the greatest leader in the world and was maybe too weak Viva la difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another swerve I don’t see any swerve but that’s rich coming from the King of Swerves!" I'll try once more then I'm out If labour were in power would they be defended the way they are on here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another swerve I don’t see any swerve but that’s rich coming from the King of Swerves! I'll try once more then I'm out If labour were in power would they be defended the way they are on here?" frustrating isn’t it Lionel asking a simple question and not getting a straight answer lmao | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another swerve I don’t see any swerve but that’s rich coming from the King of Swerves! I'll try once more then I'm out If labour were in power would they be defended the way they are on here?" Why do you think repeating the question repeatedly is going to make me change my answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it has been Corbyn's name instead of Handcock's name in the contracts thing above . . . I would say exactly the same as I have already said. If I have an opinion I usually say - this is just my opinion. I'm very likely just to point out the error in a stated fact/rather than an opinion however - I'm a bit OCD that way. lol." Considering he got eviscerated for wearing a small poppy , If Corbyn was in power now he would be getting hung drawn and quartered. That is a 100% fact. But no one has the decency to admit it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another swerve I don’t see any swerve but that’s rich coming from the King of Swerves! I'll try once more then I'm out If labour were in power would they be defended the way they are on here? Why do you think repeating the question repeatedly is going to make me change my answer?" And ignore Cheers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it has been Corbyn's name instead of Handcock's name in the contracts thing above . . . I would say exactly the same as I have already said. If I have an opinion I usually say - this is just my opinion. I'm very likely just to point out the error in a stated fact/rather than an opinion however - I'm a bit OCD that way. lol. Considering he got eviscerated for wearing a small poppy , If Corbyn was in power now he would be getting hung drawn and quartered. That is a 100% fact. But no one has the decency to admit it. " He’s not in power so the question is totally irrelevant but maybe there are others who are willing to cut people some slack in extraordinary times. Don’t judge everyone by your mentality Lionel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it has been Corbyn's name instead of Handcock's name in the contracts thing above . . . I would say exactly the same as I have already said. If I have an opinion I usually say - this is just my opinion. I'm very likely just to point out the error in a stated fact/rather than an opinion however - I'm a bit OCD that way. lol. Considering he got eviscerated for wearing a small poppy , If Corbyn was in power now he would be getting hung drawn and quartered. That is a 100% fact. But no one has the decency to admit it. " I don't recall saying that. But I do recall saying what I just said above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another swerve I don’t see any swerve but that’s rich coming from the King of Swerves! I'll try once more then I'm out If labour were in power would they be defended the way they are on here? Why do you think repeating the question repeatedly is going to make me change my answer? And ignore Cheers "I’ve answered your question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it has been Corbyn's name instead of Handcock's name in the contracts thing above . . . I would say exactly the same as I have already said. If I have an opinion I usually say - this is just my opinion. I'm very likely just to point out the error in a stated fact/rather than an opinion however - I'm a bit OCD that way. lol. Considering he got eviscerated for wearing a small poppy , If Corbyn was in power now he would be getting hung drawn and quartered. That is a 100% fact. But no one has the decency to admit it. I don't recall saying that. But I do recall saying what I just said above. " I never said you did. But it's a fact. If Corbyn was in power he would be getting destroyed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it has been Corbyn's name instead of Handcock's name in the contracts thing above . . . I would say exactly the same as I have already said. If I have an opinion I usually say - this is just my opinion. I'm very likely just to point out the error in a stated fact/rather than an opinion however - I'm a bit OCD that way. lol. Considering he got eviscerated for wearing a small poppy , If Corbyn was in power now he would be getting hung drawn and quartered. That is a 100% fact. But no one has the decency to admit it. I don't recall saying that. But I do recall saying what I just said above. I never said you did. But it's a fact. If Corbyn was in power he would be getting destroyed. " Lol - No - It's NOT a FACT - But it is you Opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it has been Corbyn's name instead of Handcock's name in the contracts thing above . . . I would say exactly the same as I have already said. If I have an opinion I usually say - this is just my opinion. I'm very likely just to point out the error in a stated fact/rather than an opinion however - I'm a bit OCD that way. lol. Considering he got eviscerated for wearing a small poppy , If Corbyn was in power now he would be getting hung drawn and quartered. That is a 100% fact. But no one has the decency to admit it. I don't recall saying that. But I do recall saying what I just said above. I never said you did. But it's a fact. If Corbyn was in power he would be getting destroyed. Lol - No - It's NOT a FACT - But it is you Opinion. "Course it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it has been Corbyn's name instead of Handcock's name in the contracts thing above . . . I would say exactly the same as I have already said. If I have an opinion I usually say - this is just my opinion. I'm very likely just to point out the error in a stated fact/rather than an opinion however - I'm a bit OCD that way. lol. Considering he got eviscerated for wearing a small poppy , If Corbyn was in power now he would be getting hung drawn and quartered. That is a 100% fact. But no one has the decency to admit it. I don't recall saying that. But I do recall saying what I just said above. I never said you did. But it's a fact. If Corbyn was in power he would be getting destroyed. Lol - No - It's NOT a FACT - But it is you Opinion.
Course it is
"Phew! Finally, sorted that one out. Grab a beer n chill lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or that Hancock lied over ppe?" Did he? Where can I find that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a question. If you are asked a question in parliament..do you have to answer?" No they don't Like all MP's they obfuscate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or that Hancock lied over ppe? Did he? Where can I find that?" He said we had enough ppe and was corrected 24 hrs later bu the vaccine minister who said we hadn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or that Hancock lied over ppe? Did he? Where can I find that? He said we had enough ppe and was corrected 24 hrs later bu the vaccine minister who said we hadn't." But he lied? Or was updated with how much was available? Your clue is in the word 'corrected'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hancock we should be thanking my team Morgan.you are your team have presided over a woeful handling of this pandemic that's led to us having the worst death rate in Europe.. so I'm sorry I'm not thanking you and your team Bravo However the UK does not have the worse death rate in Europe so the guys is talking out of his arse! Where are we in Europe? According to Worldometer 6th. According to statista on The 14th of feb we were 2nd behind Russia So yes Morgan was completely wrong. Can we get the hunting out?" And France stopped submitting excess death figures to Euromomo back in May. Germany still only measures covid deaths only when there was no other underlying condition, ie if somone has a positive test result and dies of Organ failure then it is not death by Covid. So until all the figures obtained use the same yardstick, comparing is worth diddly squat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also add - I don't have a clue as to what 'emergency powers' a government might use in an 'emergency'. Obviously this wasn't done in the Handcock case." It didn't as it did not ask for any, if it had then this thread would not exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or that Hancock lied over ppe? Did he? Where can I find that? He said we had enough ppe and was corrected 24 hrs later bu the vaccine minister who said we hadn't. But he lied? Or was updated with how much was available? Your clue is in the word 'corrected'. "
He wasnt asked how many do we have?
Do we have enough ?
Yes
Er actually we dont
Tbf he is only the health secretary
Why should he bother himself with such triviliarites? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Because that's why he has department staff - do you really think he goes of to the warehouse and counts them?
And if you said something, and then I corrected you, does that make you a 'lier ' or just someone who now knows what the proper fact is?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
