FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Baroness Mone rips off taxpayer £29m
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Cant blame folk for moving to NZ." But you can blame them for continuously voting for these pricks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Let's not forget MedPro is also currently under investigation for fraud irrc. " Yep. Good! There’s more to come and this isn’t the only one. It is yet another reason the Tories want to win the next election. More time to cover tracks and kick this stuff into the long grass. Johnson presided over the largest transfer of state assets (in this case “money”) to private hands in history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Let's not forget MedPro is also currently under investigation for fraud irrc. Yep. Good! There’s more to come and this isn’t the only one. It is yet another reason the Tories want to win the next election. More time to cover tracks and kick this stuff into the long grass. Johnson presided over the largest transfer of state assets (in this case “money”) to private hands in history." Isn’t that just the Tory way! Thatcher selling off social housing and preventing new social housing being built to put us all deeper in debt to the banks and skew value to property rather than manufacturing. These fuckers are stealing from us all but they don’t even have the grace to hide their mendacity these days | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Just remember when Hunt and Sunak bang on about the £50bn black hole in government finances, that up to £9bn of that can be attributed to the write off on substandard or undelivered PPE. Also remember that the government insisted on setting up a VIP procurement channel that enabled Tory Ministers, MPs and Peers to recommend companies they had connections to or knowledge of that also circumvented due diligence normally undertaken by the Civil Service. Also remember that companies coming via the VIP route were ten times more likely to secure a contract. Also remember that many of these companies had no prior expertise or experience in the sourcing, manufacturing or supply of PPE. Don’t forget that many of those companies were actually set up in the weeks prior to the VIP scheme being established and that many of them were registered in tax havens such as the Isle of Man. One such company was MedPro PPE set up by a chap called Doug Barrowman. He has an interesting and chequered history. MedPro PPE secured a £200m PPE contract from which Barrowman made £65m in profit (nice margin hey) all of which was paid offshore in IoM so no tax paid. MedPro PPE secured the contract via the VIP lane after extensive lobbying by Tory Peer Baroness Mone. She and her lawyers claimed she had no connection to MedPro PPE and would not personally benefit from the contract. Except this was not true! Baroness Mone is married to Doug Barrowman and the Trust Fund that she and her kids benefit from (which is registered in the IoM and attracts no tax liabilities) was paid £29m from the profits received from MedPro PPE. Seems like there actually always has been plenty of money, but only when it is being paid to cronies, donors, friends and family! This is the tip of a huge iceberg. The taxpayers of the UK have been fleeced under the smokescreen of Covid and are now having to foot the bill to put the money back. Thieving crooked bastards!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Cant blame folk for moving to NZ. But you can blame them for continuously voting for these pricks." Precisely.. There's no cure for stupid.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now." To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now. To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Hope her and hubby get jailed for a long time,and any others who were in on it" No chance she is a baroness, so part of the privy counse,l untouchable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now. To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ " People will tolerate it and worse, they will attack anyone who dares change the system with any tactic other than whining on the internet….look at the abuse climate change activists get for daring to disrupt. And they will keep choosing people like Bojo to lead them , because he’s posh and clever | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now. To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ " song about the Spanish civil war maybe theres a clue to what's coming/needed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It is indeed the tip of the iceberg. When you work in senior management in any of the public services - heath, education, you see this constantly. But to be fair most companies bidding, even those without connections to politicians see public sector contracts as a cash cow" Every company in the private sector see contracts with public sector as good proffit there is so much red tape its only some company's biding for contracts. Councils need to bring more services back in house Hastings Council is about to try and bring park and gardens back under ownership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now. To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ song about the Spanish civil war maybe theres a clue to what's coming/needed " Nah, the electorate here don't really care. They keep voting for these pricks, and shouting down anyone who thinks we deserve better. We're a million miles away from any kind of direct action. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now. To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ song about the Spanish civil war maybe theres a clue to what's coming/needed Nah, the electorate here don't really care. They keep voting for these pricks, and shouting down anyone who thinks we deserve better. We're a million miles away from any kind of direct action. " Direct action has been in progress since the pandemic well before way before the pandemic, the media are not reporting it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now. To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ song about the Spanish civil war maybe theres a clue to what's coming/needed Nah, the electorate here don't really care. They keep voting for these pricks, and shouting down anyone who thinks we deserve better. We're a million miles away from any kind of direct action. " bread & circusses the classic distraction technique have kept them quiet they are now starting to hit the floating middle earners who kept them in power let's see how a hard winter pans out .think theres a lot more graft & grift to be exposed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now. To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ song about the Spanish civil war maybe theres a clue to what's coming/needed Nah, the electorate here don't really care. They keep voting for these pricks, and shouting down anyone who thinks we deserve better. We're a million miles away from any kind of direct action. bread & circusses the classic distraction technique have kept them quiet they are now starting to hit the floating middle earners who kept them in power let's see how a hard winter pans out .think theres a lot more graft & grift to be exposed " I mean, I'm hoping for better. Experience tells me we're unlikely to see change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now. To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ song about the Spanish civil war maybe theres a clue to what's coming/needed Nah, the electorate here don't really care. They keep voting for these pricks, and shouting down anyone who thinks we deserve better. We're a million miles away from any kind of direct action. Direct action has been in progress since the pandemic well before way before the pandemic, the media are not reporting it." What kind of direct action? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. now in progress is the largest creation of debt which the poor and for the first time a wealth of the middle-class population, will burden. If the population tolerate this, then theirs no hope for our generations to come, they'll just be symbols of control, hhummm the matrix and V for victory doesn't seem so fanciful now. To quote the Manic Street Preachers ‘if we tolerate this then you children will be next ‘ song about the Spanish civil war maybe theres a clue to what's coming/needed Nah, the electorate here don't really care. They keep voting for these pricks, and shouting down anyone who thinks we deserve better. We're a million miles away from any kind of direct action. Direct action has been in progress since the pandemic well before way before the pandemic, the media are not reporting it. What kind of direct action?" the kind of action that is in the process of being banned if they get their bill through. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Just remember when Hunt and Sunak bang on about the £50bn black hole in government finances, that up to £9bn of that can be attributed to the write off on substandard or undelivered PPE. Also remember that the government insisted on setting up a VIP procurement channel that enabled Tory Ministers, MPs and Peers to recommend companies they had connections to or knowledge of that also circumvented due diligence normally undertaken by the Civil Service. Also remember that companies coming via the VIP route were ten times more likely to secure a contract. Also remember that many of these companies had no prior expertise or experience in the sourcing, manufacturing or supply of PPE. Don’t forget that many of those companies were actually set up in the weeks prior to the VIP scheme being established and that many of them were registered in tax havens such as the Isle of Man. One such company was MedPro PPE set up by a chap called Doug Barrowman. He has an interesting and chequered history. MedPro PPE secured a £200m PPE contract from which Barrowman made £65m in profit (nice margin hey) all of which was paid offshore in IoM so no tax paid. MedPro PPE secured the contract via the VIP lane after extensive lobbying by Tory Peer Baroness Mone. She and her lawyers claimed she had no connection to MedPro PPE and would not personally benefit from the contract. Except this was not true! Baroness Mone is married to Doug Barrowman and the Trust Fund that she and her kids benefit from (which is registered in the IoM and attracts no tax liabilities) was paid £29m from the profits received from MedPro PPE. Seems like there actually always has been plenty of money, but only when it is being paid to cronies, donors, friends and family! This is the tip of a huge iceberg. The taxpayers of the UK have been fleeced under the smokescreen of Covid and are now having to foot the bill to put the money back. Thieving crooked bastards!" But on the positive side, she does have great tits and looks good in a ski suit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Just remember when Hunt and Sunak bang on about the £50bn black hole in government finances, that up to £9bn of that can be attributed to the write off on substandard or undelivered PPE. Also remember that the government insisted on setting up a VIP procurement channel that enabled Tory Ministers, MPs and Peers to recommend companies they had connections to or knowledge of that also circumvented due diligence normally undertaken by the Civil Service. Also remember that companies coming via the VIP route were ten times more likely to secure a contract. Also remember that many of these companies had no prior expertise or experience in the sourcing, manufacturing or supply of PPE. Don’t forget that many of those companies were actually set up in the weeks prior to the VIP scheme being established and that many of them were registered in tax havens such as the Isle of Man. One such company was MedPro PPE set up by a chap called Doug Barrowman. He has an interesting and chequered history. MedPro PPE secured a £200m PPE contract from which Barrowman made £65m in profit (nice margin hey) all of which was paid offshore in IoM so no tax paid. MedPro PPE secured the contract via the VIP lane after extensive lobbying by Tory Peer Baroness Mone. She and her lawyers claimed she had no connection to MedPro PPE and would not personally benefit from the contract. Except this was not true! Baroness Mone is married to Doug Barrowman and the Trust Fund that she and her kids benefit from (which is registered in the IoM and attracts no tax liabilities) was paid £29m from the profits received from MedPro PPE. Seems like there actually always has been plenty of money, but only when it is being paid to cronies, donors, friends and family! This is the tip of a huge iceberg. The taxpayers of the UK have been fleeced under the smokescreen of Covid and are now having to foot the bill to put the money back. Thieving crooked bastards! But on the positive side, she does have great tits and looks good in a ski suit " Face like a smacked arse IMO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Just remember when Hunt and Sunak bang on about the £50bn black hole in government finances, that up to £9bn of that can be attributed to the write off on substandard or undelivered PPE. Also remember that the government insisted on setting up a VIP procurement channel that enabled Tory Ministers, MPs and Peers to recommend companies they had connections to or knowledge of that also circumvented due diligence normally undertaken by the Civil Service. Also remember that companies coming via the VIP route were ten times more likely to secure a contract. Also remember that many of these companies had no prior expertise or experience in the sourcing, manufacturing or supply of PPE. Don’t forget that many of those companies were actually set up in the weeks prior to the VIP scheme being established and that many of them were registered in tax havens such as the Isle of Man. One such company was MedPro PPE set up by a chap called Doug Barrowman. He has an interesting and chequered history. MedPro PPE secured a £200m PPE contract from which Barrowman made £65m in profit (nice margin hey) all of which was paid offshore in IoM so no tax paid. MedPro PPE secured the contract via the VIP lane after extensive lobbying by Tory Peer Baroness Mone. She and her lawyers claimed she had no connection to MedPro PPE and would not personally benefit from the contract. Except this was not true! Baroness Mone is married to Doug Barrowman and the Trust Fund that she and her kids benefit from (which is registered in the IoM and attracts no tax liabilities) was paid £29m from the profits received from MedPro PPE. Seems like there actually always has been plenty of money, but only when it is being paid to cronies, donors, friends and family! This is the tip of a huge iceberg. The taxpayers of the UK have been fleeced under the smokescreen of Covid and are now having to foot the bill to put the money back. Thieving crooked bastards! But on the positive side, she does have great tits and looks good in a ski suit " Probably both paid for with money ripped off from us all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way." Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end " No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Note they say " lied to media " short hand for we lied to the public Nothing much will come of it like before "not in the public interest " " Well it is in the public interest, it is just not in hers or theirs because they got caught out, but alas you are right nothing will come of this except profit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. " you will notice I'm not disputing the fact she used her position of influence to line her pockets or she is liar. It is the narrative you added to support your own agenda that I was calling out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. you will notice I'm not disputing the fact she used her position of influence to line her pockets or she is liar. It is the narrative you added to support your own agenda that I was calling out." My agenda is not to pay tax directly into some M.P pocket or baroness. I would rather see my part of the 9 billion goto the needy or pay a few thousand utilities bills something to ease peoples burden, that is my agenda. I do not care what yours is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. you will notice I'm not disputing the fact she used her position of influence to line her pockets or she is liar. It is the narrative you added to support your own agenda that I was calling out. My agenda is not to pay tax directly into some M.P pocket or baroness. I would rather see my part of the 9 billion goto the needy or pay a few thousand utilities bills something to ease peoples burden, that is my agenda. I do not care what yours is." I'm still not disputing that... It is still the parts that contain your opinion that I'm calling out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. you will notice I'm not disputing the fact she used her position of influence to line her pockets or she is liar. It is the narrative you added to support your own agenda that I was calling out. My agenda is not to pay tax directly into some M.P pocket or baroness. I would rather see my part of the 9 billion goto the needy or pay a few thousand utilities bills something to ease peoples burden, that is my agenda. I do not care what yours is. I'm still not disputing that... It is still the parts that contain your opinion that I'm calling out" You see the issue is for me is that I do not care, and you must care because as you say you want to call me out, but you see I do not care. This will be my theme on your call out, I do not care so when you or if you reply just think he doesn't care he is not bothered on my opinion he just doesn't care he is not invested in me he doesn't care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. you will notice I'm not disputing the fact she used her position of influence to line her pockets or she is liar. It is the narrative you added to support your own agenda that I was calling out. My agenda is not to pay tax directly into some M.P pocket or baroness. I would rather see my part of the 9 billion goto the needy or pay a few thousand utilities bills something to ease peoples burden, that is my agenda. I do not care what yours is. I'm still not disputing that... It is still the parts that contain your opinion that I'm calling out You see the issue is for me is that I do not care, and you must care because as you say you want to call me out, but you see I do not care. This will be my theme on your call out, I do not care so when you or if you reply just think he doesn't care he is not bothered on my opinion he just doesn't care he is not invested in me he doesn't care." Don’t care you say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Meanwhile, People still fall for the 'It's the people in boats fault' bollocks." Or Labour, or "Remoaners". In fairness, we should keep voting Tory relentlessly if we want things to change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. " The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. " Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop deflecting. " Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts." Hello ? Corruption ? Fraud ? Or don't we care about those trivial things anymore ? Best tell the judges to remove these from the Legislature. Not that Baroness Mone seemed to care much about them anyway (until she was caught ofc !). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Why do people put up with this bullshit? Ironically , I don’t live in a democracy, but the delivery of services by government and lack of corruption in UAE shames the UK. Plus it’s not our money they are using as there’s not tax. You guys freely pass half your earnings to those pigs " Its what makes Britain great. Its our history and culture. You see our monarchs are chosen by God. No other country does pomp and ceremony like we do. Go to our courts and you will see our judges with their wigs and robes, carrying on tradition centuries old. Part of that history is the house of Lords, from the days when serfs paid their Lords and tugged their forelocks to them. Its our history and we are proud of it. You can keep your low taxes and great government services. We will continue to keep paying our great Lords whatever it requires to keep them in the traditional lifestyle they are use to... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop deflecting. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. Hello ? Corruption ? Fraud ? Or don't we care about those trivial things anymore ? Best tell the judges to remove these from the Legislature. Not that Baroness Mone seemed to care much about them anyway (until she was caught ofc !)." Rubbish. What am I deflecting from exactly? If you are looking at it from a partisan perspective, which you clearly are, then I am actually amplifying the point you are making. The waste isn’t limited to £29 million, it stretches to £500 billion. I appreciate that then we have to assess why it isn’t just a Tory issue but a wider issue for all political parties who supported lockdown and the tragic group think of the administrative state. Rather than just focusing on “Tory sleaze”. Anyone who thinks the fiscal failures of lockdown would have been different under Labour is kidding themselves. If Labour were the government we’d still be wearing masks and schools and hospitals would still be closed to appease their union paymasters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop deflecting. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. Hello ? Corruption ? Fraud ? Or don't we care about those trivial things anymore ? Best tell the judges to remove these from the Legislature. Not that Baroness Mone seemed to care much about them anyway (until she was caught ofc !). Rubbish. What am I deflecting from exactly? If you are looking at it from a partisan perspective, which you clearly are, then I am actually amplifying the point you are making. The waste isn’t limited to £29 million, it stretches to £500 billion. I appreciate that then we have to assess why it isn’t just a Tory issue but a wider issue for all political parties who supported lockdown and the tragic group think of the administrative state. Rather than just focusing on “Tory sleaze”. Anyone who thinks the fiscal failures of lockdown would have been different under Labour is kidding themselves. If Labour were the government we’d still be wearing masks and schools and hospitals would still be closed to appease their union paymasters." 100% We need to stop wasting time thinking about what actually happened in real life when a Tory fleeced the tax payers. We have to speculate wildly about what could have happened if some other political party would have been in power at the time. Even though they weren't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop deflecting. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. Hello ? Corruption ? Fraud ? Or don't we care about those trivial things anymore ? Best tell the judges to remove these from the Legislature. Not that Baroness Mone seemed to care much about them anyway (until she was caught ofc !). Rubbish. What am I deflecting from exactly? If you are looking at it from a partisan perspective, which you clearly are, then I am actually amplifying the point you are making. The waste isn’t limited to £29 million, it stretches to £500 billion. I appreciate that then we have to assess why it isn’t just a Tory issue but a wider issue for all political parties who supported lockdown and the tragic group think of the administrative state. Rather than just focusing on “Tory sleaze”. Anyone who thinks the fiscal failures of lockdown would have been different under Labour is kidding themselves. If Labour were the government we’d still be wearing masks and schools and hospitals would still be closed to appease their union paymasters. 100% We need to stop wasting time thinking about what actually happened in real life when a Tory fleeced the tax payers. We have to speculate wildly about what could have happened if some other political party would have been in power at the time. Even though they weren't. " Always a moot point when someone states it would have been worse under Labour. Speculation is a pathetic past time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Meanwhile, People still fall for the 'It's the people in boats fault' bollocks." Classic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop deflecting. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. Hello ? Corruption ? Fraud ? Or don't we care about those trivial things anymore ? Best tell the judges to remove these from the Legislature. Not that Baroness Mone seemed to care much about them anyway (until she was caught ofc !). Rubbish. What am I deflecting from exactly? If you are looking at it from a partisan perspective, which you clearly are, then I am actually amplifying the point you are making. The waste isn’t limited to £29 million, it stretches to £500 billion. I appreciate that then we have to assess why it isn’t just a Tory issue but a wider issue for all political parties who supported lockdown and the tragic group think of the administrative state. Rather than just focusing on “Tory sleaze”. Anyone who thinks the fiscal failures of lockdown would have been different under Labour is kidding themselves. If Labour were the government we’d still be wearing masks and schools and hospitals would still be closed to appease their union paymasters. 100% We need to stop wasting time thinking about what actually happened in real life when a Tory fleeced the tax payers. We have to speculate wildly about what could have happened if some other political party would have been in power at the time. Even though they weren't. Always a moot point when someone states it would have been worse under Labour. Speculation is a pathetic past time." That's socialist loony left nonsense talk. Don't waste any time thinking about or discussing what happened in real life. We need to focus on speculation regarding what might have happened in a fictional parallel universe. What would have happened to the lockdown policies if an alien invasion occurred mid May in 2020? | |||
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) |
"I think many may have missed a golden nugget, she claimed other Lords and baroness's were also doing the same thing. Surely worthy of some stinging comments and even a call for, anarchy in the UK?" I suspect it less missed, more assumed to be the case already. The whole scheme looked smelly. However this one went a step futher and supplied dodgy PPE. If memory serves people were defending it, or downpaying the profiteering nature. But hey, that's what you do when you are in a privileged position of making money. You do it, and deny it, and try and slap people down who dare say that you are doing this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Cant blame folk for moving to NZ. But you can blame them for continuously voting for these pricks." But people voted for those pricks, to get brexit done. They never voted on their integrity, their policies, etc. The last man to enter the houses of parliment with honest intentions, was Guy Fawkes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The Good Law project has some interesting facts about the level of profiteering in a Global/ National health emergency.." Has the “Good Law Project” and man of the people “Jolyon” won a case yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think many may have missed a golden nugget, she claimed other Lords and baroness's were also doing the same thing. Surely worthy of some stinging comments and even a call for, anarchy in the UK?" I seem to recall that it was only Tory peers and MPs that had success through the VIP channel. That suppliers coming via that VIP route had a 1 in 10 chance of contract award vs a 1 in 100 chance via the normal procurement route. So yes most certainly worthy of criticism. If at a time of national emergency these “referrals” had been purely altruistic, then they may have deserved praise, but this was blatant profiteering and I would say at very least morally indefensible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts." On that basis it makes you wonder why so many people lose their shit over Benefit Fraud? I mean that is only about £1.6bn a year so who cares right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. On that basis it makes you wonder why so many people lose their shit over Benefit Fraud? I mean that is only about £1.6bn a year so who cares right?" Do people care? I suspect most people simply accept that government services are rife with waste and corruption and that the situation is going to get worse in the future. In my view we are living through the slow collapse of the administrative state. Are you expecting a Labour government to take stern and swift action on benefit fraud or the wasted cost of housing illegal immigrants? I’m doubtful. As a Birmingham resident it’s pretty clear where living in a Labour one party state ends up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. On that basis it makes you wonder why so many people lose their shit over Benefit Fraud? I mean that is only about £1.6bn a year so who cares right? Do people care? I suspect most people simply accept that government services are rife with waste and corruption and that the situation is going to get worse in the future. In my view we are living through the slow collapse of the administrative state. Are you expecting a Labour government to take stern and swift action on benefit fraud or the wasted cost of housing illegal immigrants? I’m doubtful. As a Birmingham resident it’s pretty clear where living in a Labour one party state ends up." No idea! I’d hope any Govt would take it seriously regardless of their tie colour. I care because I pay an enormous amount of tax and I would like to think that isn’t being wasted on fraudsters of any kind be that benefits or corrupt profiteering from the public purse. “Sharon” deliberately claiming benefits she isn’t entitled to should be punished. “Baroness Mone” deliberately profiteering from the public purse during a time of national emergency should be punished. Perhaps the punishments should be proportional too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. On that basis it makes you wonder why so many people lose their shit over Benefit Fraud? I mean that is only about £1.6bn a year so who cares right? Do people care? I suspect most people simply accept that government services are rife with waste and corruption and that the situation is going to get worse in the future. In my view we are living through the slow collapse of the administrative state. Are you expecting a Labour government to take stern and swift action on benefit fraud or the wasted cost of housing illegal immigrants? I’m doubtful. As a Birmingham resident it’s pretty clear where living in a Labour one party state ends up. No idea! I’d hope any Govt would take it seriously regardless of their tie colour. I care because I pay an enormous amount of tax and I would like to think that isn’t being wasted on fraudsters of any kind be that benefits or corrupt profiteering from the public purse. “Sharon” deliberately claiming benefits she isn’t entitled to should be punished. “Baroness Mone” deliberately profiteering from the public purse during a time of national emergency should be punished. Perhaps the punishments should be proportional too?" What about Labour though? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. On that basis it makes you wonder why so many people lose their shit over Benefit Fraud? I mean that is only about £1.6bn a year so who cares right? Do people care? I suspect most people simply accept that government services are rife with waste and corruption and that the situation is going to get worse in the future. In my view we are living through the slow collapse of the administrative state. Are you expecting a Labour government to take stern and swift action on benefit fraud or the wasted cost of housing illegal immigrants? I’m doubtful. As a Birmingham resident it’s pretty clear where living in a Labour one party state ends up. No idea! I’d hope any Govt would take it seriously regardless of their tie colour. I care because I pay an enormous amount of tax and I would like to think that isn’t being wasted on fraudsters of any kind be that benefits or corrupt profiteering from the public purse. “Sharon” deliberately claiming benefits she isn’t entitled to should be punished. “Baroness Mone” deliberately profiteering from the public purse during a time of national emergency should be punished. Perhaps the punishments should be proportional too? What about Labour though? " I know, I know, things are really shit under the Tories but it will be even more shit under Labour, for sure, definitely, without doubt, because...err well just because! So accept the shit and think yourself lucky as it could (possibly as we don’t actually know) be worse! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. On that basis it makes you wonder why so many people lose their shit over Benefit Fraud? I mean that is only about £1.6bn a year so who cares right? Do people care? I suspect most people simply accept that government services are rife with waste and corruption and that the situation is going to get worse in the future. In my view we are living through the slow collapse of the administrative state. Are you expecting a Labour government to take stern and swift action on benefit fraud or the wasted cost of housing illegal immigrants? I’m doubtful. As a Birmingham resident it’s pretty clear where living in a Labour one party state ends up. No idea! I’d hope any Govt would take it seriously regardless of their tie colour. I care because I pay an enormous amount of tax and I would like to think that isn’t being wasted on fraudsters of any kind be that benefits or corrupt profiteering from the public purse. “Sharon” deliberately claiming benefits she isn’t entitled to should be punished. “Baroness Mone” deliberately profiteering from the public purse during a time of national emergency should be punished. Perhaps the punishments should be proportional too? What about Labour though? I know, I know, things are really shit under the Tories but it will be even more shit under Labour, for sure, definitely, without doubt, because...err well just because! So accept the shit and think yourself lucky as it could (possibly as we don’t actually know) be worse!" Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life." You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation?" Yes that's not good enough. You need to join us in considering the only important point to come out of this debacle: "what about Labour?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation?" Wasn't your Baroness speculating when she said she didn't do what she is now saying she did ??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation?" Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play." I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life." "You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation?" "Wasn't your Baroness ..." She's not my baroness. Just because I'm not busy condemning her doesn't mean I support her. "Wasn't your Baroness speculating when she said she didn't do what she is now saying she did ???" As far as I can see, she hasn't admitted that she's done anything involved with the fraud. It seems to be her husband that did everything. She has lied about how much she knew, but that's doing something to avoid going to jail, not contributing to the fraud. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least" Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This is what really pees me off is the fact that people take so long to catch up, and again use newspeak to explain their grievances. Every government rips off the public in some way, what this tells me is that this government didn't have any boundaries. Yes this is the biggest transfer of cash from the tax payer to the tax takers in history, and yes the lower middle class are taking the brunt of this transfer for the first time. The poor have nothing left to take so someone needs to pay. Because people are so far behind the curve, they won't be told by the news programmes that they will lose their homes until people start losing their home, by then labour will be in blaming the tories, the tories don't care as we will be paying them for the next couple of decades. The only reason they achieved this is people were locked behind there doors afraid, and agreed to anything the government suggested, even stuck up for the government as they fleeced the public. Next year people will start to lose their homes just like in the 80,s my friends will be buying up properties on the cheap and rent them out to the same people who lost their homes the tories will be nowhere to be seen and labour will blame them whilst stiffing the public as the tories got away with it, so they will continue until the public take action. I have said before if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Stop voting it is the only way. Conspiracies wrapped up in a thread of truth always seem far more believable. She lied, she is greedy and she is not unique. The government were caught out being useless. the end No they have lost 9 billion plus of tax payers money that is not a theory but truth, we are now learning how and were this money has gone, it is called corruption and people let them get away with it by making excuses for them. The government spent £500 billion on lockdowns that were totally unnecessary. Not sure why people are getting so worked up about £9 billion of it. It’s peanuts. On that basis it makes you wonder why so many people lose their shit over Benefit Fraud? I mean that is only about £1.6bn a year so who cares right? Do people care? I suspect most people simply accept that government services are rife with waste and corruption and that the situation is going to get worse in the future. In my view we are living through the slow collapse of the administrative state. Are you expecting a Labour government to take stern and swift action on benefit fraud or the wasted cost of housing illegal immigrants? I’m doubtful. As a Birmingham resident it’s pretty clear where living in a Labour one party state ends up. No idea! I’d hope any Govt would take it seriously regardless of their tie colour. I care because I pay an enormous amount of tax and I would like to think that isn’t being wasted on fraudsters of any kind be that benefits or corrupt profiteering from the public purse. “Sharon” deliberately claiming benefits she isn’t entitled to should be punished. “Baroness Mone” deliberately profiteering from the public purse during a time of national emergency should be punished. Perhaps the punishments should be proportional too?" An hour of community service for every £100 gained through deception/fraudulent activity. Has Michelle or Mr Michelle got enough hours left in their life? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha!" Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place?" and what direction were the procurement teams given ? Someone seemed to have made the decision that submissions via the VIP lane were more credible etc. Where did that direction come from ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place?" "and what direction were the procurement teams given ? Someone seemed to have made the decision that submissions via the VIP lane were more credible etc. Where did that direction come from ? " And why have none of the dozens of civil servants that were involved spoken up to explain / condemn what happened? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"everybody moans about it,but everybody does nothing about it" That's not true. They keep loyal and vote Tory relentlessly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"everybody moans about it,but everybody does nothing about it" They do every 4 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Fair play OP you called it over a year ago " Agreed, good call out by our Brighton correspondent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? and what direction were the procurement teams given ? Someone seemed to have made the decision that submissions via the VIP lane were more credible etc. Where did that direction come from ? And why have none of the dozens of civil servants that were involved spoken up to explain / condemn what happened?" are they allowed to ? It wouldn't suprise me if the CS did play a part, however it seems a bit too coincidental that those in positions of power benefited from a scheme they set up only because the CS dropped the ball. It appeared they were a lot more diligent/cutting on non VIP cases... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? and what direction were the procurement teams given ? Someone seemed to have made the decision that submissions via the VIP lane were more credible etc. Where did that direction come from ? And why have none of the dozens of civil servants that were involved spoken up to explain / condemn what happened?are they allowed to ? It wouldn't suprise me if the CS did play a part, however it seems a bit too coincidental that those in positions of power benefited from a scheme they set up only because the CS dropped the ball. It appeared they were a lot more diligent/cutting on non VIP cases... " There is a clear need for a deep dive on this, I don't think it will ever be forthcoming as it will expose more cracks than we care to admit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Just remember when Hunt and Sunak bang on about the £50bn black hole in government finances, that up to £9bn of that can be attributed to the write off on substandard or undelivered PPE. Also remember that the government insisted on setting up a VIP procurement channel that enabled Tory Ministers, MPs and Peers to recommend companies they had connections to or knowledge of that also circumvented due diligence normally undertaken by the Civil Service. Also remember that companies coming via the VIP route were ten times more likely to secure a contract. Also remember that many of these companies had no prior expertise or experience in the sourcing, manufacturing or supply of PPE. Don’t forget that many of those companies were actually set up in the weeks prior to the VIP scheme being established and that many of them were registered in tax havens such as the Isle of Man. One such company was MedPro PPE set up by a chap called Doug Barrowman. He has an interesting and chequered history. MedPro PPE secured a £200m PPE contract from which Barrowman made £65m in profit (nice margin hey) all of which was paid offshore in IoM so no tax paid. MedPro PPE secured the contract via the VIP lane after extensive lobbying by Tory Peer Baroness Mone. She and her lawyers claimed she had no connection to MedPro PPE and would not personally benefit from the contract. Except this was not true! Baroness Mone is married to Doug Barrowman and the Trust Fund that she and her kids benefit from (which is registered in the IoM and attracts no tax liabilities) was paid £29m from the profits received from MedPro PPE. Seems like there actually always has been plenty of money, but only when it is being paid to cronies, donors, friends and family! This is the tip of a huge iceberg. The taxpayers of the UK have been fleeced under the smokescreen of Covid and are now having to foot the bill to put the money back. Thieving crooked bastards!" Lots of thisnis completely wrong _irldn. I suggest you go back and re look | |||
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) |
"Oh this is getting even better... Baroness Mone put forward this company to the VIP lane to supply PPE equipment……FIVE DAYS BEFORE THAT COMPANY BECAME INCORPORATED!!!!" This really isn't anything. You can put forward a JV etc.before it's incorporated. Again. This is how the business world works. When you go to a shope the shop has about 4 companies linked to it. Usually 2 holding companies. One for the building, one for the capital. One for the trading. And another ad hoc. Cresting s company for a completely ew venture with kosher business partners is par for the course. Why if you had your investment company as Douglas's barrowman did? Would you make that company liable for any new contracts and business tender? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Let's start with the easy 1 "Just remember when Hunt and Sunak bang on about the £50bn black hole in government finances, that up to £9bn of that can be attributed to the write off on substandard or undelivered PPE." Substandard ppe. This was all dealt with by dhsc and phe. Nothing to do with the government. You need to blame those organisations. 9bn written off as substandard or undelivered. No. We wrote down the value of the the stock holding of £4.7bn we laid the going rate for that poe at the time. That leaves you with about 4bn to.find. 1.2bn of ppe that we had signed for that wasn't yet delivered but we were waiting on in future There are currently ongoing cases e.g the Michelle mone one. Again. They claim they delieverEd the PPE to June 2020 specifications. In September 2020. Those specifications changed. Thus wasn't the tory government. It was dhsc phe. " Are you saying the DHSC is not part of government? It is a ministerial department! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place?" It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Oh this is getting even better... Baroness Mone put forward this company to the VIP lane to supply PPE equipment……FIVE DAYS BEFORE THAT COMPANY BECAME INCORPORATED!!!! This really isn't anything. You can put forward a JV etc.before it's incorporated. Again. This is how the business world works. When you go to a shope the shop has about 4 companies linked to it. Usually 2 holding companies. One for the building, one for the capital. One for the trading. And another ad hoc. Cresting s company for a completely ew venture with kosher business partners is par for the course. Why if you had your investment company as Douglas's barrowman did? Would you make that company liable for any new contracts and business tender? " Again you make it all sound so reasonable except Barrowman hid his involvement in PPE Medpro by having his accountant (I think, certainly another associate) listed as Director and not Barrowman himself. Hiding the real ownership of a company is not lovely and innocent. It is quite clear this was also intended to hide any connection to Mone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. " I think you may be over reacting to the question a tad, simply speaking, who made the decisions on the contracts.. Who signed them off. It is also worth noting that even if something is JFDI, there are certain things that are still not carried out and everyone involved still has a job to call out any wrong doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Oh this is getting even better... Baroness Mone put forward this company to the VIP lane to supply PPE equipment……FIVE DAYS BEFORE THAT COMPANY BECAME INCORPORATED!!!! This really isn't anything. You can put forward a JV etc.before it's incorporated. Again. This is how the business world works. When you go to a shope the shop has about 4 companies linked to it. Usually 2 holding companies. One for the building, one for the capital. One for the trading. And another ad hoc. Cresting s company for a completely ew venture with kosher business partners is par for the course. Why if you had your investment company as Douglas's barrowman did? Would you make that company liable for any new contracts and business tender? Again you make it all sound so reasonable except Barrowman hid his involvement in PPE Medpro by having his accountant (I think, certainly another associate) listed as Director and not Barrowman himself. Hiding the real ownership of a company is not lovely and innocent. It is quite clear this was also intended to hide any connection to Mone." Have you reported all this to the police? You do seem unduly concerned about “Baroness Mone” whoever she is. I’m sure there was lots of profiteering and waste during the pandemic. Frankly that was just the fault of the unnecessary environment that a partisan media and weak government created. Lots of people raked it in. Big pharma, NHS doctors and pharmacists rolling out the vaccines, IT and management consultants selling snake oil to a desperate government. I have no sympathy with the government. They had an 80 seat majority but were too weak to stand up to the CCP/WHO. How much did the NHS waste on goods ordered and never used, staff sitting around on their arses doing nothing but making Tik tok videos? Fake companies running off with furlough money. Mone is just the witch who needs to be burned to feed the partisan narrative. The rest of it will just be conveniently ignored. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. I think you may be over reacting to the question a tad, simply speaking, who made the decisions on the contracts.. Who signed them off. It is also worth noting that even if something is JFDI, there are certain things that are still not carried out and everyone involved still has a job to call out any wrong doing. " No just being clear. Depends which voice is in your head as you read/write. Contracts will be signed off by Director of Commercial who will be SCS. That SCS will be “influenced” by Ministers (otherwise the VIP lane would not have happened in the first place). There is also the uncomfortable truth that only Tory “VIPs” achieved contract awards when the argument for the VIP lane was speed of response in a national emergency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Oh this is getting even better... Baroness Mone put forward this company to the VIP lane to supply PPE equipment……FIVE DAYS BEFORE THAT COMPANY BECAME INCORPORATED!!!! This really isn't anything. You can put forward a JV etc.before it's incorporated. Again. This is how the business world works. When you go to a shope the shop has about 4 companies linked to it. Usually 2 holding companies. One for the building, one for the capital. One for the trading. And another ad hoc. Cresting s company for a completely ew venture with kosher business partners is par for the course. Why if you had your investment company as Douglas's barrowman did? Would you make that company liable for any new contracts and business tender? Again you make it all sound so reasonable except Barrowman hid his involvement in PPE Medpro by having his accountant (I think, certainly another associate) listed as Director and not Barrowman himself. Hiding the real ownership of a company is not lovely and innocent. It is quite clear this was also intended to hide any connection to Mone. Have you reported all this to the police? You do seem unduly concerned about “Baroness Mone” whoever she is. I’m sure there was lots of profiteering and waste during the pandemic. Frankly that was just the fault of the unnecessary environment that a partisan media and weak government created. Lots of people raked it in. Big pharma, NHS doctors and pharmacists rolling out the vaccines, IT and management consultants selling snake oil to a desperate government. I have no sympathy with the government. They had an 80 seat majority but were too weak to stand up to the CCP/WHO. How much did the NHS waste on goods ordered and never used, staff sitting around on their arses doing nothing but making Tik tok videos? Fake companies running off with furlough money. Mone is just the witch who needs to be burned to feed the partisan narrative. The rest of it will just be conveniently ignored." Apart from your first line I think I agree with all you said There are already investigations. That is why Mone and Barrowman are attempting some damage limitation PR. Anyone who is interested should look into Barrowman. A deeply shady character. One of his routes to making a fortune was setting up dodgy umbrella companies that paid contractors via loans to reduce their tax liabilities. I think it was the AMC Group (and various subsidiaries but may have name wrong). HMRC has gone after the contractors hard resulting in seven suicides to date due to huge six figure tax bills and no time to pay. However, Barrowman and his companies have got off scott free. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. " Actually thianis completely wrong.cthere is no oversight by gov ministers on this. Many contracts were rejected. The civil service doesnits own duty of which the mps have no say. There is nothing in ANY court case that has shown otherwise so far. If you feel you have proof of an mp forcing the civil service to take up a contract. Please provide it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley you have a weird world view. PHE are an arms length body. DHSC are a central govt dept with a cabinet minister and junior ministers. Saying they aren’t the govt is plain wrong. You are also conflating two issues. 1. Sub standard PPE = can be argued that the contract specifications were at fault and certainly what Barrowman’s team are arguing. 2. Introductions to the VIP lane and undeclared interests. Your point on due diligence all sounds nice and tidy but the reality was different. There has been a lot of arse covering but many of the contract awards were verbal JFDI and due diligence was lighter weight on VIP channel contracts." When I say government I am talking mps. Those el3cted to govern. They have no say in the above. Glad we got that clear. Yes it's certainly what barrowmans team is arguing. I've no diea why you've written point 2. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Oh this is getting even better... Baroness Mone put forward this company to the VIP lane to supply PPE equipment……FIVE DAYS BEFORE THAT COMPANY BECAME INCORPORATED!!!! This really isn't anything. You can put forward a JV etc.before it's incorporated. Again. This is how the business world works. When you go to a shope the shop has about 4 companies linked to it. Usually 2 holding companies. One for the building, one for the capital. One for the trading. And another ad hoc. Cresting s company for a completely ew venture with kosher business partners is par for the course. Why if you had your investment company as Douglas's barrowman did? Would you make that company liable for any new contracts and business tender? Again you make it all sound so reasonable except Barrowman hid his involvement in PPE Medpro by having his accountant (I think, certainly another associate) listed as Director and not Barrowman himself. Hiding the real ownership of a company is not lovely and innocent. It is quite clear this was also intended to hide any connection to Mone." What you are saying here has nothing to do with the redirection of funds to his IoM account. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. I think you may be over reacting to the question a tad, simply speaking, who made the decisions on the contracts.. Who signed them off. It is also worth noting that even if something is JFDI, there are certain things that are still not carried out and everyone involved still has a job to call out any wrong doing. No just being clear. Depends which voice is in your head as you read/write. Contracts will be signed off by Director of Commercial who will be SCS. That SCS will be “influenced” by Ministers (otherwise the VIP lane would not have happened in the first place). There is also the uncomfortable truth that only Tory “VIPs” achieved contract awards when the argument for the VIP lane was speed of response in a national emergency." Can you point tk a court case where this happened please. It should be well documented as there have been many court cases regarding ppe. Thanks in advance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. Actually thianis completely wrong.cthere is no oversight by gov ministers on this. Many contracts were rejected. The civil service doesnits own duty of which the mps have no say. There is nothing in ANY court case that has shown otherwise so far. If you feel you have proof of an mp forcing the civil service to take up a contract. Please provide it." You know as well as I do that you cannot provide that sort of evidence in a public forum. Also what part of verbal instruction did you miss? It is called plausible deniability. I note you say MP. You need to note I said Ministers. Big difference. I’m afraid you really do not know what goes on “behind closed doors” if you think there is no Ministerial oversight on procurements such as this. You can believe what you want Morley but you are being incredibly naive for someone so bright if you think there was nothing wrong here. Oh and I am not saying the Civil Service are innocent. There will be senior folks who were complicit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. Actually thianis completely wrong.cthere is no oversight by gov ministers on this. Many contracts were rejected. The civil service doesnits own duty of which the mps have no say. There is nothing in ANY court case that has shown otherwise so far. If you feel you have proof of an mp forcing the civil service to take up a contract. Please provide it. You know as well as I do that you cannot provide that sort of evidence in a public forum. Also what part of verbal instruction did you miss? It is called plausible deniability. I note you say MP. You need to note I said Ministers. Big difference. I’m afraid you really do not know what goes on “behind closed doors” if you think there is no Ministerial oversight on procurements such as this. You can believe what you want Morley but you are being incredibly naive for someone so bright if you think there was nothing wrong here. Oh and I am not saying the Civil Service are innocent. There will be senior folks who were complicit. " Neither of us know. But sk far nothing has been shown to any court that highlights mps Lord, ladies etc. Giving any instruction. So please provide some sort of.proof to your claim | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley you have a weird world view. PHE are an arms length body. DHSC are a central govt dept with a cabinet minister and junior ministers. Saying they aren’t the govt is plain wrong. You are also conflating two issues. 1. Sub standard PPE = can be argued that the contract specifications were at fault and certainly what Barrowman’s team are arguing. 2. Introductions to the VIP lane and undeclared interests. Your point on due diligence all sounds nice and tidy but the reality was different. There has been a lot of arse covering but many of the contract awards were verbal JFDI and due diligence was lighter weight on VIP channel contracts. When I say government I am talking mps. Those el3cted to govern. They have no say in the above. Glad we got that clear. Yes it's certainly what barrowmans team is arguing. I've no diea why you've written point 2." Sorry but you are wrong on this. No.1 it is the executive (ie Cabinet Office which is made up of both elected MPs and appointed Peers) that is the Govt. Not MPs per se. They are part of the legislature that is supposed to temper the executive and hold them to account. Supposedly. 2. See my post before. Officially Minister’s are not involved in procurement decisions. The reality is different. 3. This old thread (well over a year old) was resurrected by someone due to Baroness Mone and Barrowman being back in the spotlight (after being in hiding for over a year). The topic being discussed is not sub standard PPE but Mone’s involvement and personal enrichment from the public purse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley you have a weird world view. PHE are an arms length body. DHSC are a central govt dept with a cabinet minister and junior ministers. Saying they aren’t the govt is plain wrong. You are also conflating two issues. 1. Sub standard PPE = can be argued that the contract specifications were at fault and certainly what Barrowman’s team are arguing. 2. Introductions to the VIP lane and undeclared interests. Your point on due diligence all sounds nice and tidy but the reality was different. There has been a lot of arse covering but many of the contract awards were verbal JFDI and due diligence was lighter weight on VIP channel contracts. When I say government I am talking mps. Those el3cted to govern. They have no say in the above. Glad we got that clear. Yes it's certainly what barrowmans team is arguing. I've no diea why you've written point 2. Sorry but you are wrong on this. No.1 it is the executive (ie Cabinet Office which is made up of both elected MPs and appointed Peers) that is the Govt. Not MPs per se. They are part of the legislature that is supposed to temper the executive and hold them to account. Supposedly. 2. See my post before. Officially Minister’s are not involved in procurement decisions. The reality is different. 3. This old thread (well over a year old) was resurrected by someone due to Baroness Mone and Barrowman being back in the spotlight (after being in hiding for over a year). The topic being discussed is not sub standard PPE but Mone’s involvement and personal enrichment from the public purse. " Sorry but no. I am right. No mp had any involvement in the civil service accepting contract there's no proof of coercion or forced obedience. You meed to start proving this. I am using government in the case of the uk elected government. 2. Please post some evidence of tbe reality. We await. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. I think you may be over reacting to the question a tad, simply speaking, who made the decisions on the contracts.. Who signed them off. It is also worth noting that even if something is JFDI, there are certain things that are still not carried out and everyone involved still has a job to call out any wrong doing. No just being clear. Depends which voice is in your head as you read/write. Contracts will be signed off by Director of Commercial who will be SCS. That SCS will be “influenced” by Ministers (otherwise the VIP lane would not have happened in the first place). There is also the uncomfortable truth that only Tory “VIPs” achieved contract awards when the argument for the VIP lane was speed of response in a national emergency. Can you point tk a court case where this happened please. It should be well documented as there have been many court cases regarding ppe. Thanks in advance." *sigh* the old “we haven’t seen this in court so it can’t be happening” argument. See earlier posts on verbal briefing and plausible deniability. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley you have a weird world view. PHE are an arms length body. DHSC are a central govt dept with a cabinet minister and junior ministers. Saying they aren’t the govt is plain wrong. You are also conflating two issues. 1. Sub standard PPE = can be argued that the contract specifications were at fault and certainly what Barrowman’s team are arguing. 2. Introductions to the VIP lane and undeclared interests. Your point on due diligence all sounds nice and tidy but the reality was different. There has been a lot of arse covering but many of the contract awards were verbal JFDI and due diligence was lighter weight on VIP channel contracts. When I say government I am talking mps. Those el3cted to govern. They have no say in the above. Glad we got that clear. Yes it's certainly what barrowmans team is arguing. I've no diea why you've written point 2. Sorry but you are wrong on this. No.1 it is the executive (ie Cabinet Office which is made up of both elected MPs and appointed Peers) that is the Govt. Not MPs per se. They are part of the legislature that is supposed to temper the executive and hold them to account. Supposedly. 2. See my post before. Officially Minister’s are not involved in procurement decisions. The reality is different. 3. This old thread (well over a year old) was resurrected by someone due to Baroness Mone and Barrowman being back in the spotlight (after being in hiding for over a year). The topic being discussed is not sub standard PPE but Mone’s involvement and personal enrichment from the public purse. " 3. It's not aboutnaubatandard.ppe. Good. Glad we agree mone didn't supply substandard ppe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. Actually thianis completely wrong.cthere is no oversight by gov ministers on this. Many contracts were rejected. The civil service doesnits own duty of which the mps have no say. There is nothing in ANY court case that has shown otherwise so far. If you feel you have proof of an mp forcing the civil service to take up a contract. Please provide it. You know as well as I do that you cannot provide that sort of evidence in a public forum. Also what part of verbal instruction did you miss? It is called plausible deniability. I note you say MP. You need to note I said Ministers. Big difference. I’m afraid you really do not know what goes on “behind closed doors” if you think there is no Ministerial oversight on procurements such as this. You can believe what you want Morley but you are being incredibly naive for someone so bright if you think there was nothing wrong here. Oh and I am not saying the Civil Service are innocent. There will be senior folks who were complicit. Neither of us know. But sk far nothing has been shown to any court that highlights mps Lord, ladies etc. Giving any instruction. So please provide some sort of.proof to your claim" I don’t need to because I do not care if you believe or not. It’s all a totally moot point because that would be privileged information and this isn’t the place. If you honestly believe Ministers do not in any way interfere or influence procurement discussions, then I am happy for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley you have a weird world view. PHE are an arms length body. DHSC are a central govt dept with a cabinet minister and junior ministers. Saying they aren’t the govt is plain wrong. You are also conflating two issues. 1. Sub standard PPE = can be argued that the contract specifications were at fault and certainly what Barrowman’s team are arguing. 2. Introductions to the VIP lane and undeclared interests. Your point on due diligence all sounds nice and tidy but the reality was different. There has been a lot of arse covering but many of the contract awards were verbal JFDI and due diligence was lighter weight on VIP channel contracts. When I say government I am talking mps. Those el3cted to govern. They have no say in the above. Glad we got that clear. Yes it's certainly what barrowmans team is arguing. I've no diea why you've written point 2. Sorry but you are wrong on this. No.1 it is the executive (ie Cabinet Office which is made up of both elected MPs and appointed Peers) that is the Govt. Not MPs per se. They are part of the legislature that is supposed to temper the executive and hold them to account. Supposedly. 2. See my post before. Officially Minister’s are not involved in procurement decisions. The reality is different. 3. This old thread (well over a year old) was resurrected by someone due to Baroness Mone and Barrowman being back in the spotlight (after being in hiding for over a year). The topic being discussed is not sub standard PPE but Mone’s involvement and personal enrichment from the public purse. 3. It's not aboutnaubatandard.ppe. Good. Glad we agree mone didn't supply substandard ppe." Wait I thought Mone had no involvement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. Actually thianis completely wrong.cthere is no oversight by gov ministers on this. Many contracts were rejected. The civil service doesnits own duty of which the mps have no say. There is nothing in ANY court case that has shown otherwise so far. If you feel you have proof of an mp forcing the civil service to take up a contract. Please provide it. You know as well as I do that you cannot provide that sort of evidence in a public forum. Also what part of verbal instruction did you miss? It is called plausible deniability. I note you say MP. You need to note I said Ministers. Big difference. I’m afraid you really do not know what goes on “behind closed doors” if you think there is no Ministerial oversight on procurements such as this. You can believe what you want Morley but you are being incredibly naive for someone so bright if you think there was nothing wrong here. Oh and I am not saying the Civil Service are innocent. There will be senior folks who were complicit. Neither of us know. But sk far nothing has been shown to any court that highlights mps Lord, ladies etc. Giving any instruction. So please provide some sort of.proof to your claim I don’t need to because I do not care if you believe or not. It’s all a totally moot point because that would be privileged information and this isn’t the place. If you honestly believe Ministers do not in any way interfere or influence procurement discussions, then I am happy for you." So then agreed. You jave no proof of claims. This is just you making stuff up in your head. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley you have a weird world view. PHE are an arms length body. DHSC are a central govt dept with a cabinet minister and junior ministers. Saying they aren’t the govt is plain wrong. You are also conflating two issues. 1. Sub standard PPE = can be argued that the contract specifications were at fault and certainly what Barrowman’s team are arguing. 2. Introductions to the VIP lane and undeclared interests. Your point on due diligence all sounds nice and tidy but the reality was different. There has been a lot of arse covering but many of the contract awards were verbal JFDI and due diligence was lighter weight on VIP channel contracts. When I say government I am talking mps. Those el3cted to govern. They have no say in the above. Glad we got that clear. Yes it's certainly what barrowmans team is arguing. I've no diea why you've written point 2. Sorry but you are wrong on this. No.1 it is the executive (ie Cabinet Office which is made up of both elected MPs and appointed Peers) that is the Govt. Not MPs per se. They are part of the legislature that is supposed to temper the executive and hold them to account. Supposedly. 2. See my post before. Officially Minister’s are not involved in procurement decisions. The reality is different. 3. This old thread (well over a year old) was resurrected by someone due to Baroness Mone and Barrowman being back in the spotlight (after being in hiding for over a year). The topic being discussed is not sub standard PPE but Mone’s involvement and personal enrichment from the public purse. 3. It's not aboutnaubatandard.ppe. Good. Glad we agree mone didn't supply substandard ppe. Wait I thought Mone had no involvement " If she didn't supply ppe she had bo involvement in supplying substandard ppe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Exactly right. We should spend our time speculating like this instead of considering what has actually happened in real life. You mean, like everyone in this thread is speculating about what Baroness Mone did and didn't do, using random bits of information gathered from unidentified sources and then massaged into press copy, without bothering to wait for the results of the investigation? Here’s what we know: 1. Mone lobbied those running the VIP lane. 2. The company she was lobbying for was incorporated AFTER she started making representations for them. 3. She did not declare that her husband was the actual owner of the company. 4. She did not declare that she and her kids would benefit from a share in the profits that her husband was paying into an offshore trust that they were the sole beneficiaries of. 5. The company had a profit margin of c.30% which is obscene, particularly in light that it was profiting from a national emergency. 6. The company is registered offshore and therefore not liable for UK taxes so all this taxpayer money flowed out of the UK. Now she can say she was badly advised yadda yadda but even a layperson can see this was foul play. I've a bad feeling though she and the others will get away with it. There was some talk about her being kicked out the house of lords but needs to be criminal investigation at the very least Thing is I am not sure where the criminality comes in. Completely morally reprehensible and not in keeping with a peer of the realm, certainly, but has she broken any laws? Regardless of whether it makes me (or others) feel sick, the Govt of the day facilitated an approach that allowed people in privileged positions (as long as they wore blue) to circumvent usual Civil Service procurement due diligence. The Govt of the day enabled tax avoiding off shored companies and individuals to secure extremely lucrative govt contracts (our money) regardless of whether they were a suitable business with relevant track record and specialist experience. What’s more these companies secured contracts over and above legitimate experienced UK (tax paying) businesses who lacked the right contacts to enter the VIP lane. The Govt permitted these inexperienced bogus offshore companies with no trading history to have huge profit margins. There can only be one conclusion. Enrichment of friends, family, donors, and self from the public purse. Was this illegal? I suspect not. Should it be? You betcha! Was it Ministers / MP's or the civil service that procured the deals? What levels of governance were in place? It was very VERY clearly a JFDI. Anyone who thinks the Civil Service would act independently if Ministerial direction has, I’m afraid, zero understanding of how govt in this country actually works and likely believes in the bollocks about “the blob”. The Civil Service enacts the will of the govt of the day. They are there to advise (via impact and risk assessments) but will ultimately do what they are told. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted on a VIP lane. It wasn’t the Civil Service that insisted usual due diligence on companies coming via the VIP lane could be drastically reduced under the smokescreen of time pressures. If Civil Servants had misgivings or concerns, they were overruled by Ministers in a feeding frenzy of profiteering and cronyism. Actually thianis completely wrong.cthere is no oversight by gov ministers on this. Many contracts were rejected. The civil service doesnits own duty of which the mps have no say. There is nothing in ANY court case that has shown otherwise so far. If you feel you have proof of an mp forcing the civil service to take up a contract. Please provide it. You know as well as I do that you cannot provide that sort of evidence in a public forum. Also what part of verbal instruction did you miss? It is called plausible deniability. I note you say MP. You need to note I said Ministers. Big difference. I’m afraid you really do not know what goes on “behind closed doors” if you think there is no Ministerial oversight on procurements such as this. You can believe what you want Morley but you are being incredibly naive for someone so bright if you think there was nothing wrong here. Oh and I am not saying the Civil Service are innocent. There will be senior folks who were complicit. Neither of us know. But sk far nothing has been shown to any court that highlights mps Lord, ladies etc. Giving any instruction. So please provide some sort of.proof to your claim I don’t need to because I do not care if you believe or not. It’s all a totally moot point because that would be privileged information and this isn’t the place. If you honestly believe Ministers do not in any way interfere or influence procurement discussions, then I am happy for you. So then agreed. You jave no proof of claims. This is just you making stuff up in your head. " As I said believe what you want and be comforted by your naivety. In this particular instance Mone and Barrowman are subject to an ongoing investigation. It will be interesting if they actually get into trouble for it as they are a useful distraction and scapegoat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Birldn have you ever seen the leaked documents?" As if I would answer that? If I had but refuse to share you will call me a liar. If I had but do not claim either way, you won’t believe me. The very fact you used the word “leaked” means you cannot countenance some people may know stuff for...reasons! Anyway, I asked some questions above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness " Yeah let's blame misappropriation of funds on the NHS itself. Quite a tiresome viewpoint. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness Yeah let's blame misappropriation of funds on the NHS itself. Quite a tiresome viewpoint. " I don’t think so. The NHS no doubt has a very significant procurement department responsible for the purchasing of whatever equipment it needs. And another very significant department to deal with emergency planning. But it apparently seems to have been the odious Matt Hancock’s job to buy face masks. Whenever anything good happens at the NHS, “Our NHS” is wonderful. If anything bad happens (more usual) it’s all the Government’s fault. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness Yeah let's blame misappropriation of funds on the NHS itself. Quite a tiresome viewpoint. I don’t think so. The NHS no doubt has a very significant procurement department responsible for the purchasing of whatever equipment it needs. And another very significant department to deal with emergency planning. But it apparently seems to have been the odious Matt Hancock’s job to buy face masks. Whenever anything good happens at the NHS, “Our NHS” is wonderful. If anything bad happens (more usual) it’s all the Government’s fault." is it's the NHS job to plan for pandemics ? I don't know. I'd have expected it to be part of wider planning. I don't know why the government was signing contracts not the NHS. But it's odd to me the priority list wasnt extended to medical experts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness Yeah let's blame misappropriation of funds on the NHS itself. Quite a tiresome viewpoint. I don’t think so. The NHS no doubt has a very significant procurement department responsible for the purchasing of whatever equipment it needs. And another very significant department to deal with emergency planning. But it apparently seems to have been the odious Matt Hancock’s job to buy face masks. Whenever anything good happens at the NHS, “Our NHS” is wonderful. If anything bad happens (more usual) it’s all the Government’s fault." Pandemic prep, I believe, was the remit of the govt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness " Well if we are going to play “what if” then Operation Cygnus in 2016 uncovered woeful pandemic preparedness in the UK. The Govt of the day (either Cameron or May) chose to ignore the recommendations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness Yeah let's blame misappropriation of funds on the NHS itself. Quite a tiresome viewpoint. I don’t think so. The NHS no doubt has a very significant procurement department responsible for the purchasing of whatever equipment it needs. And another very significant department to deal with emergency planning. But it apparently seems to have been the odious Matt Hancock’s job to buy face masks. Whenever anything good happens at the NHS, “Our NHS” is wonderful. If anything bad happens (more usual) it’s all the Government’s fault." It would be better if everything was centralised for procurement but in fact it is the opposite with complete fragmentation and purchasing responsibility falling to individual Trusts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness Yeah let's blame misappropriation of funds on the NHS itself. Quite a tiresome viewpoint. I don’t think so. The NHS no doubt has a very significant procurement department responsible for the purchasing of whatever equipment it needs. And another very significant department to deal with emergency planning. But it apparently seems to have been the odious Matt Hancock’s job to buy face masks. Whenever anything good happens at the NHS, “Our NHS” is wonderful. If anything bad happens (more usual) it’s all the Government’s fault.is it's the NHS job to plan for pandemics ? I don't know. I'd have expected it to be part of wider planning. I don't know why the government was signing contracts not the NHS. But it's odd to me the priority list wasnt extended to medical experts. " Govt policy is set by central govt depts, in this case DHSC. The NHS is a delivery body (actually it is made up of multiple organisations so not a single entity) not a policy setting body. Preparedness for pandemics is the responsibility of the Govt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency?" Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Birldn have you ever seen the leaked documents? As if I would answer that? If I had but refuse to share you will call me a liar. If I had but do not claim either way, you won’t believe me. The very fact you used the word “leaked” means you cannot countenance some people may know stuff for...reasons! Anyway, I asked some questions above." so then. No you haven't seen anything of proof of what the guardian makes claim on. That's all this is. The guardian saying they have leaked documents. And putting it in tbenpress. Remember yours and every one else's disaster of a take on nigel farrage. You'd do well to remember that hilarious time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Birldn have you ever seen the leaked documents? As if I would answer that? If I had but refuse to share you will call me a liar. If I had but do not claim either way, you won’t believe me. The very fact you used the word “leaked” means you cannot countenance some people may know stuff for...reasons! Anyway, I asked some questions above. so then. No you haven't seen anything of proof of what the guardian makes claim on. That's all this is. The guardian saying they have leaked documents. And putting it in tbenpress." As if I would answer this! "Remember yours and every one else's disaster of a take on nigel farrage. You'd do well to remember that hilarious time " I do not recall me saying much about Farage. Can you enlighten me what *I* said? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro?" What's his ownership? I take it from that question you didn't watch Sunday with LK wherein LK interviewed the couple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro?" Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Birldn have you ever seen the leaked documents? As if I would answer that? If I had but refuse to share you will call me a liar. If I had but do not claim either way, you won’t believe me. The very fact you used the word “leaked” means you cannot countenance some people may know stuff for...reasons! Anyway, I asked some questions above. so then. No you haven't seen anything of proof of what the guardian makes claim on. That's all this is. The guardian saying they have leaked documents. And putting it in tbenpress. As if I would answer this! Remember yours and every one else's disaster of a take on nigel farrage. You'd do well to remember that hilarious time I do not recall me saying much about Farage. Can you enlighten me what *I* said? " Do you want to start answering some questions first on your proof of a single claim made in this thread. That would be a handy start | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. " So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m" I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Birldn have you ever seen the leaked documents? As if I would answer that? If I had but refuse to share you will call me a liar. If I had but do not claim either way, you won’t believe me. The very fact you used the word “leaked” means you cannot countenance some people may know stuff for...reasons! Anyway, I asked some questions above. so then. No you haven't seen anything of proof of what the guardian makes claim on. That's all this is. The guardian saying they have leaked documents. And putting it in tbenpress. As if I would answer this! Remember yours and every one else's disaster of a take on nigel farrage. You'd do well to remember that hilarious time I do not recall me saying much about Farage. Can you enlighten me what *I* said? Do you want to start answering some questions first on your proof of a single claim made in this thread. That would be a handy start" I don’t have to. Most, if not all, of what has been said is in the public domain. I am not here to do backflips just to convince you. If, as I have already clearly said more than once, you do not believe me, then I really do not care. That is your prerogative. I doubt either us will lose any sleep over it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed." Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Birldn have you ever seen the leaked documents? As if I would answer that? If I had but refuse to share you will call me a liar. If I had but do not claim either way, you won’t believe me. The very fact you used the word “leaked” means you cannot countenance some people may know stuff for...reasons! Anyway, I asked some questions above. so then. No you haven't seen anything of proof of what the guardian makes claim on. That's all this is. The guardian saying they have leaked documents. And putting it in tbenpress. As if I would answer this! Remember yours and every one else's disaster of a take on nigel farrage. You'd do well to remember that hilarious time I do not recall me saying much about Farage. Can you enlighten me what *I* said? Do you want to start answering some questions first on your proof of a single claim made in this thread. That would be a handy start I don’t have to. Most, if not all, of what has been said is in the public domain. I am not here to do backflips just to convince you. If, as I have already clearly said more than once, you do not believe me, then I really do not care. That is your prerogative. I doubt either us will lose any sleep over it." Most has been said in tbebpublic domain...has it. 1 guardian article... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now?" The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC." We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Has anyone any thoughts on the Lord Bethell revelation?" Yes amazing. He has screenshot available from 2020. But simultaneously lost all ability to access those emessages in a covid enquiry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Has anyone any thoughts on the Lord Bethell revelation?" It looks like Mone is pretty pissed off about it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends?" It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops!" But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses." Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules." You say he relqced page with Lancaster. Have you got the email of the sacking or the board minutes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness Yeah let's blame misappropriation of funds on the NHS itself. Quite a tiresome viewpoint. I don’t think so. The NHS no doubt has a very significant procurement department responsible for the purchasing of whatever equipment it needs. And another very significant department to deal with emergency planning. But it apparently seems to have been the odious Matt Hancock’s job to buy face masks. Whenever anything good happens at the NHS, “Our NHS” is wonderful. If anything bad happens (more usual) it’s all the Government’s fault. It would be better if everything was centralised for procurement but in fact it is the opposite with complete fragmentation and purchasing responsibility falling to individual Trusts. " And that is exactly why I said this might not have been such a problem if the mismanaged NHS had its house in order regarding PPE. Absolute farce that individual NHS trusts had no idea the number of any PPE items they held, and that they named each item differently. For people to say it is all the governments fault, and deflection blaming the NHS what a load of BS... The country went into lockdown to protect the NHS, not people, and the length of time it has taken for the NHS to turn around post Covid is pathetic. The government are pursuing Mone and if found to have broken any laws she will, along with her husband face a trial, unlike the managers of the NHS who let billions slip down the drain every year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules. You say he relqced page with Lancaster. Have you got the email of the sacking or the board minutes?" Seriously! Even if I did would I share on a swinger website! That’s it. I have provided plenty of info. I note you avoided my questions to you. Unless you answer them then we are done here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness Yeah let's blame misappropriation of funds on the NHS itself. Quite a tiresome viewpoint. I don’t think so. The NHS no doubt has a very significant procurement department responsible for the purchasing of whatever equipment it needs. And another very significant department to deal with emergency planning. But it apparently seems to have been the odious Matt Hancock’s job to buy face masks. Whenever anything good happens at the NHS, “Our NHS” is wonderful. If anything bad happens (more usual) it’s all the Government’s fault. It would be better if everything was centralised for procurement but in fact it is the opposite with complete fragmentation and purchasing responsibility falling to individual Trusts. And that is exactly why I said this might not have been such a problem if the mismanaged NHS had its house in order regarding PPE. Absolute farce that individual NHS trusts had no idea the number of any PPE items they held, and that they named each item differently. For people to say it is all the governments fault, and deflection blaming the NHS what a load of BS... The country went into lockdown to protect the NHS, not people, and the length of time it has taken for the NHS to turn around post Covid is pathetic. The government are pursuing Mone and if found to have broken any laws she will, along with her husband face a trial, unlike the managers of the NHS who let billions slip down the drain every year. " Agree but it was still the Govt who were responsible for pandemic preparedness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This subject may have been nipped in the bud and not even a thing, if the NHS had a grip on their PPE to begin with. The lack of structure and management inside the NHS cost and still costs billions through ineptness Yeah let's blame misappropriation of funds on the NHS itself. Quite a tiresome viewpoint. I don’t think so. The NHS no doubt has a very significant procurement department responsible for the purchasing of whatever equipment it needs. And another very significant department to deal with emergency planning. But it apparently seems to have been the odious Matt Hancock’s job to buy face masks. Whenever anything good happens at the NHS, “Our NHS” is wonderful. If anything bad happens (more usual) it’s all the Government’s fault. It would be better if everything was centralised for procurement but in fact it is the opposite with complete fragmentation and purchasing responsibility falling to individual Trusts. And that is exactly why I said this might not have been such a problem if the mismanaged NHS had its house in order regarding PPE. Absolute farce that individual NHS trusts had no idea the number of any PPE items they held, and that they named each item differently. For people to say it is all the governments fault, and deflection blaming the NHS what a load of BS... The country went into lockdown to protect the NHS, not people, and the length of time it has taken for the NHS to turn around post Covid is pathetic. The government are pursuing Mone and if found to have broken any laws she will, along with her husband face a trial, unlike the managers of the NHS who let billions slip down the drain every year. Agree but it was still the Govt who were responsible for pandemic preparedness. " Being prepared on paper and not in the field? Own goal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules. You say he relqced page with Lancaster. Have you got the email of the sacking or the board minutes? Seriously! Even if I did would I share on a swinger website! That’s it. I have provided plenty of info. I note you avoided my questions to you. Unless you answer them then we are done here." .I think we are done here as you never answered any of mine. All you did was quote Dan Niedle who is a good tax guy but hasn't seen any documentation himself there than companies and admits this. So are you done quoting and his assumptions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"So again. Whatbis it barrowman has done that's broken the law as you claim. Wheres the proof of the 65m profit from jsut a 200m contract for.the nhs. We still wait." "WE", speak for yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules. You say he relqced page with Lancaster. Have you got the email of the sacking or the board minutes? Seriously! Even if I did would I share on a swinger website! That’s it. I have provided plenty of info. I note you avoided my questions to you. Unless you answer them then we are done here. .I think we are done here as you never answered any of mine. All you did was quote Dan Niedle who is a good tax guy but hasn't seen any documentation himself there than companies and admits this. So are you done quoting and his assumptions?" We are certainly done. You are an Accountant right? Chartered? Then if so you should know the rules around declaring a PSC. And regardless...£60m from a £203m contract! From the public purse! At a time of national emergency! Yeah you go ahead and defend it, feel free | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules. You say he relqced page with Lancaster. Have you got the email of the sacking or the board minutes? Seriously! Even if I did would I share on a swinger website! That’s it. I have provided plenty of info. I note you avoided my questions to you. Unless you answer them then we are done here. .I think we are done here as you never answered any of mine. All you did was quote Dan Niedle who is a good tax guy but hasn't seen any documentation himself there than companies and admits this. So are you done quoting and his assumptions? We are certainly done. You are an Accountant right? Chartered? Then if so you should know the rules around declaring a PSC. And regardless...£60m from a £203m contract! From the public purse! At a time of national emergency! Yeah you go ahead and defend it, feel free " We need more concrete evidence, like a photo with a cuddly toy in the background. Something really solid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"And regardless...£60m from a £203m contract! From the public purse! At a time of national emergency! Yeah you go ahead and defend it, feel free " A global emergency not just a national emergency and that pushed the cost of PPE up around the globe, supply and demand. Out of interest where would you say the profit margin would be acceptable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"And regardless...£60m from a £203m contract! From the public purse! At a time of national emergency! Yeah you go ahead and defend it, feel free A global emergency not just a national emergency and that pushed the cost of PPE up around the globe, supply and demand. Out of interest where would you say the profit margin would be acceptable? " The cost of PPE around the globe is irrelevant to the level of reward Barrowman received bit I have no idea what would be reasonable but c.30% for apparently doing nothing and having no involvement in the company that secured the contract (apart from being married to the person with access to the VIP lane that is!) is highly excessive and shouts profiteering. According to some on here he has no involvement in PPE Medpro so what was the £60m for? Why did Barrowman get that? This isn’t me asking. This is the National Crime Agency. Why would they be investigating if all above board? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"And regardless...£60m from a £203m contract! From the public purse! At a time of national emergency! Yeah you go ahead and defend it, feel free A global emergency not just a national emergency and that pushed the cost of PPE up around the globe, supply and demand. Out of interest where would you say the profit margin would be acceptable? The cost of PPE around the globe is irrelevant to the level of reward Barrowman received bit I have no idea what would be reasonable but c.30% for apparently doing nothing and having no involvement in the company that secured the contract (apart from being married to the person with access to the VIP lane that is!) is highly excessive and shouts profiteering. According to some on here he has no involvement in PPE Medpro so what was the £60m for? Why did Barrowman get that? This isn’t me asking. This is the National Crime Agency. Why would they be investigating if all above board? " The lack of PPE supply around the globe will certainly have an influence on the amount of profit being made in any deal, that is how supply and demand works, you see it every day on the fuel pumps. Being morally wrong in making a profit is not a criminal offence. they have been put in the eye of the media by the government and themselves, it wont take long to see the direction this will take. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"And regardless...£60m from a £203m contract! From the public purse! At a time of national emergency! Yeah you go ahead and defend it, feel free A global emergency not just a national emergency and that pushed the cost of PPE up around the globe, supply and demand. Out of interest where would you say the profit margin would be acceptable? The cost of PPE around the globe is irrelevant to the level of reward Barrowman received bit I have no idea what would be reasonable but c.30% for apparently doing nothing and having no involvement in the company that secured the contract (apart from being married to the person with access to the VIP lane that is!) is highly excessive and shouts profiteering. According to some on here he has no involvement in PPE Medpro so what was the £60m for? Why did Barrowman get that? This isn’t me asking. This is the National Crime Agency. Why would they be investigating if all above board? The lack of PPE supply around the globe will certainly have an influence on the amount of profit being made in any deal, that is how supply and demand works, you see it every day on the fuel pumps. Being morally wrong in making a profit is not a criminal offence. they have been put in the eye of the media by the government and themselves, it wont take long to see the direction this will take. " In absolute terms yes. But c.30% pure profit from a company you have no involvement with!? No this was out and out profiteering at the expense of the public purse. Sheer greed and opportunism enabled by Govt policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules. You say he relqced page with Lancaster. Have you got the email of the sacking or the board minutes?" what are the alternatives here? In the absence of a smoking gun either way, what else would explain Page selling his shares around the time of being sacked (and selling to someone else connect with Knox). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"And regardless...£60m from a £203m contract! From the public purse! At a time of national emergency! Yeah you go ahead and defend it, feel free A global emergency not just a national emergency and that pushed the cost of PPE up around the globe, supply and demand. Out of interest where would you say the profit margin would be acceptable? The cost of PPE around the globe is irrelevant to the level of reward Barrowman received bit I have no idea what would be reasonable but c.30% for apparently doing nothing and having no involvement in the company that secured the contract (apart from being married to the person with access to the VIP lane that is!) is highly excessive and shouts profiteering. According to some on here he has no involvement in PPE Medpro so what was the £60m for? Why did Barrowman get that? This isn’t me asking. This is the National Crime Agency. Why would they be investigating if all above board? The lack of PPE supply around the globe will certainly have an influence on the amount of profit being made in any deal, that is how supply and demand works, you see it every day on the fuel pumps. Being morally wrong in making a profit is not a criminal offence. they have been put in the eye of the media by the government and themselves, it wont take long to see the direction this will take. In absolute terms yes. But c.30% pure profit from a company you have no involvement with!? No this was out and out profiteering at the expense of the public purse. Sheer greed and opportunism enabled by Govt policy." Lack of governance, policy exists | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"And regardless...£60m from a £203m contract! From the public purse! At a time of national emergency! Yeah you go ahead and defend it, feel free A global emergency not just a national emergency and that pushed the cost of PPE up around the globe, supply and demand. Out of interest where would you say the profit margin would be acceptable? The cost of PPE around the globe is irrelevant to the level of reward Barrowman received bit I have no idea what would be reasonable but c.30% for apparently doing nothing and having no involvement in the company that secured the contract (apart from being married to the person with access to the VIP lane that is!) is highly excessive and shouts profiteering. According to some on here he has no involvement in PPE Medpro so what was the £60m for? Why did Barrowman get that? This isn’t me asking. This is the National Crime Agency. Why would they be investigating if all above board? The lack of PPE supply around the globe will certainly have an influence on the amount of profit being made in any deal, that is how supply and demand works, you see it every day on the fuel pumps. Being morally wrong in making a profit is not a criminal offence. they have been put in the eye of the media by the government and themselves, it wont take long to see the direction this will take. In absolute terms yes. But c.30% pure profit from a company you have no involvement with!? No this was out and out profiteering at the expense of the public purse. Sheer greed and opportunism enabled by Govt policy. Lack of governance, policy exists" One of the areas the Govt is apparently suing Barrowman on is “unjust enrichment”. No idea of details but just read that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules. You say he relqced page with Lancaster. Have you got the email of the sacking or the board minutes?what are the alternatives here? In the absence of a smoking gun either way, what else would explain Page selling his shares around the time of being sacked (and selling to someone else connect with Knox). " I believe (I don’t know for certain) that a better phrase would be “transferred his shares” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"And regardless...£60m from a £203m contract! From the public purse! At a time of national emergency! Yeah you go ahead and defend it, feel free A global emergency not just a national emergency and that pushed the cost of PPE up around the globe, supply and demand. Out of interest where would you say the profit margin would be acceptable? The cost of PPE around the globe is irrelevant to the level of reward Barrowman received bit I have no idea what would be reasonable but c.30% for apparently doing nothing and having no involvement in the company that secured the contract (apart from being married to the person with access to the VIP lane that is!) is highly excessive and shouts profiteering. According to some on here he has no involvement in PPE Medpro so what was the £60m for? Why did Barrowman get that? This isn’t me asking. This is the National Crime Agency. Why would they be investigating if all above board? The lack of PPE supply around the globe will certainly have an influence on the amount of profit being made in any deal, that is how supply and demand works, you see it every day on the fuel pumps. Being morally wrong in making a profit is not a criminal offence. they have been put in the eye of the media by the government and themselves, it wont take long to see the direction this will take. In absolute terms yes. But c.30% pure profit from a company you have no involvement with!? No this was out and out profiteering at the expense of the public purse. Sheer greed and opportunism enabled by Govt policy. Lack of governance, policy exists One of the areas the Govt is apparently suing Barrowman on is “unjust enrichment”. No idea of details but just read that." I’ve heard that and I’m really curious as to the definition and case to answer, assuming it the 30% margin. The government might want to tread lightly considering how much tax they demand, the oil and gas companies make and let’s not mention the mark up on high end restaurants…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules. You say he relqced page with Lancaster. Have you got the email of the sacking or the board minutes?what are the alternatives here? In the absence of a smoking gun either way, what else would explain Page selling his shares around the time of being sacked (and selling to someone else connect with Knox). I believe (I don’t know for certain) that a better phrase would be “transferred his shares”" what's the difference ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Morley let’s assume for a minute that everything was above board. That Mone not declaring an interest in PPE Medpro was fine. That Barrowman hiding his involvement in the company by not appearing on register of Directors was fine. That Mone using her privileged access as a Tory peer to influence the inclusion of a company with no trading history or specialist experience that was registered off shore and five days after the lobbying started is fine. Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Barrowman received a £60m “consultants/finders fee” on a £200m contract paid for by public money at a time of national crisis? Q. Do you think it is acceptable and morally right that Baroness Mone received £29m for doing the lobbying and using her position to access the VIP lane, during a time of national emergency? Barrowman hiding his invovlement? How did he hide it sorry? If he's not a company director. What's his involvement. Can you just out down the tinfoil hat for 2 2nds and start to answer some questions. How do you think HE hid his involvement? What is your evidence here? Why does he need to be on a board of directors for medpro? What's is his ownership of medpro? Do some research Morley... At the time, PPE Medpro’s shares were owned by an Isle of Man resident, Anthony Page. Sometimes the true owner of a company – the “person with significant control” (PSC) – can be different from the shareholder. For example, if one person owns shares in a company, but there is a formal or informal understanding that they always act on the instructions of another person, then both people should be listed as PSCs. But the Companies House register showed Mr Page as the sole PSC. So you can't answer a simple question. Why would he be on tbe board of directors for a firm he doesn't own? What's hisninterest in medpro? What was his financial involvement that allowed him to receive the money. I would expect some one shouting from the rooftops about corruptions and getting 65m for a 200m contract to have this knowledge at hand. Come on _irldn. What's the corruption? Why did he get paid the 65m I suggest you learn about the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This put rules in place requiring companies to identify their “people with significant control”. It has become clear that Barrowman was a PSC and should have been listed. Again what's his significant control _irldn sorry? Can you delve into how he has contro of medpro. We await.. 5th time of asking now? The Knox Group had the power to remove Mr Page as shareholder/director of PPE Medpro and replace him with Mr Lancaster, therefore the Knox Group (and Douglas Barrowman, as the person who controls the Knox Group) had “significant influence or control” over PPE Medpro. Mr Barrowman should therefore have been listed as the PSC. If the Knox Group was acting for some other unknown party then they should also have been listed as a PSC. We are getting somewhere now. So then. Barrowman was a director and owner of knox group? And Anthony Page was a managing director. So you have a problem with parent companies being paid dividends? And the owners of that company receiving dividends? It isn’t me that has the problem in THIS case it is the law. If Mr Page and Mr Lancaster were responsible for PPE Medpro delivering statements to Companies House which listed them as the PSCs, when they knew they were acting at the direction of one or more other people, then they potentially committed offences. Mr Barrowman may be a “shadow director” of PPE Medpro – i.e. a person who is not formally a director but who in practice calls the shots. In which case specific criminal offences will potentially apply to him, in the same way as the registered directors. The offence is very serious indeed: i.e. if Mr Barrowman was the true owner of PPE Medpro, and that fact was hidden to enable his wife to recommend the company to the Department of Health and Social Care then...oops! But wheres the proof of acting under the direction of another You know businesses can be part of 1 entity but be completely autonomous right? But that business still passes on its profits to the parent company. Again I agree on mone not declaring her side. I am yet to see what barrowman has done wrong form your claims other than being a director of a parent company whose director led the subsidiary. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary for a LOT of businesses. Barrowman was able to replace Page with Lancaster. That means he has control over PPE Medpro. He should therefore have been declared as a PSC. He was hiding his involvement and the only plausible reason is to enable his wife to put them forward to VIP lane. He is therefore potentially in breach of various Section 790 rules. You say he relqced page with Lancaster. Have you got the email of the sacking or the board minutes?what are the alternatives here? In the absence of a smoking gun either way, what else would explain Page selling his shares around the time of being sacked (and selling to someone else connect with Knox). I believe (I don’t know for certain) that a better phrase would be “transferred his shares”what's the difference ? " One implies the involvement of money the other doesn’t. To sell a thing you need to own a thing. Page did not own PPE Medpro and nor does Lancaster. As per other post, Barrowman has now admitted he does on the BBC interview. | |||
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) |