FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Wealth tax

Wealth tax

By *lfaso OP Couple over a year ago

South East

An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's seems that the flood is due to an increase in the wealth tax... Previously it looks like only 2 millionaires a year left... I wonder how that compares elsewhere ?

Don't know enough of the details otherwise... Or how much "otherx tax is being lost by ppl leaving versus the capital tax raised.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Wealth taxes. Inheritance taxes. None of that would be necessary if HMRC just did their actual job and collected the right tax that was due, properly investigated fraud, stopped doing sweetheart deals with corporations and high net worth individuals, and got rid of small annual payments to avoid non-dom taxes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan over a year ago

borehamwood

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?"
nope it wouldnt, when you have that much wealth you will move to where ever is tax friendly

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

"Wealth taxes. Inheritance taxes. None of that would be necessary if HMRC just did their actual job and collected the right tax that was due, properly investigated fraud, stopped doing sweetheart deals with corporations and high net worth individuals, and got rid of small annual payments to avoid non-dom taxes."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?"

More successful in getting rid of tax avoiding billionaires?

Or more successful as in the billionaires stay, and pay tax?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mateur100Man over a year ago

nr faversham

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

More successful in getting rid of tax avoiding billionaires?

Or more successful as in the billionaires stay, and pay tax?"

Nothing illegal in tax avoidance. Everyone would if they could

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

More successful in getting rid of tax avoiding billionaires?

Or more successful as in the billionaires stay, and pay tax?

Nothing illegal in tax avoidance. Everyone would if they could "

Of course it's not illegal, the rules are set by the people who want to avoid paying taxes.

And speak for yourself, lots of people would pay taxes if they were billionaires. I would.

What's this got to do with the question I asked the OP?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mateur100Man over a year ago

nr faversham

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

More successful in getting rid of tax avoiding billionaires?

Or more successful as in the billionaires stay, and pay tax?

Nothing illegal in tax avoidance. Everyone would if they could

Of course it's not illegal, the rules are set by the people who want to avoid paying taxes.

And speak for yourself, lots of people would pay taxes if they were billionaires. I would.

What's this got to do with the question I asked the OP?"

Oh you're a joy this evening. It's not illegal because no govts have made it illegal, Tory or labour.

You used the phrase tax avoiding billionaires so it's worthy of comment

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lfaso OP Couple over a year ago

South East

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

More successful in getting rid of tax avoiding billionaires?

Or more successful as in the billionaires stay, and pay tax?"

My understanding of a successful tax policy would be one that raised tax revenue as intended rather than inadvertently reducing tax receipts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

More successful in getting rid of tax avoiding billionaires?

Or more successful as in the billionaires stay, and pay tax?

Nothing illegal in tax avoidance. Everyone would if they could

Of course it's not illegal, the rules are set by the people who want to avoid paying taxes.

And speak for yourself, lots of people would pay taxes if they were billionaires. I would.

What's this got to do with the question I asked the OP?

Oh you're a joy this evening. It's not illegal because no govts have made it illegal, Tory or labour.

You used the phrase tax avoiding billionaires so it's worthy of comment

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

More successful in getting rid of tax avoiding billionaires?

Or more successful as in the billionaires stay, and pay tax?

My understanding of a successful tax policy would be one that raised tax revenue as intended rather than inadvertently reducing tax receipts. "

I don't think we need to worry. Current government will fight tooth and nail on behalf of the ultra wealthy to make sure they can pay as little tax as possible.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?"

No. They would do the same here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Have Norway introduced or raised wealth tax ? I thought it was the latter ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove2pleaseseukMan over a year ago

Hastings

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?"

It would be the same hear tax is a hard balance push it up to much people will work harder to move or avoid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect. "

And that. According to the NAO fraud and error is over £50bn (can’t find exact figure right now). Just look at the £billions that will never be recovered from govt (taxpayer) backed Covid loans, furlough fraud, unsuitable PPE provided through “mates” with huge mark ups etc etc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

If an individual of wealth has multiple properties, a business, cars, eats out, goes on holiday and some investments most of the below will be taken continuously. Would you say all of this combined could be classed as wealth tax?

Income Tax

National Insurance Contributions

VAT

Council Tax

Capital Gains Tax

Inheritance Tax

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Insurance Premium Tax

Excise Duties (alcohol, tobacco)

Fuel duty

Income Tax (Sole Traders)

Dividends Tax

Vehicles Tax

TV Licence Tax

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Which PPE was provided through mates?

Civil service sign off contracts for ppe.

Covid was a horrible decision furlough was good but too much handed out.

I remember being on here with my ex under a different name and seeing the forum and many on here clamouring that the government weren't doing enough financially to help....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Which PPE was provided through mates?

Civil service sign off contracts for ppe.

Covid was a horrible decision furlough was good but too much handed out.

I remember being on here with my ex under a different name and seeing the forum and many on here clamouring that the government weren't doing enough financially to help...."

You are really asking about PPE. Research it. VIP lane circumvented normal civil service due diligence. Look up Baroness Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman as just one example. There are many more. I have provided copious amounts of information on this over the last couple of years, just scroll back through the forum threads.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iketoshow74Man over a year ago

Northampton

Wealth taxes do not work at all. The rich people invest so they pay lower taxes. Rishi paid 22% last year which is still quite high for a wealthy person. Several wealthy UK individuals only pay circa 11% tax. Then many super wealthy e.g. Lewis Hamilton are no longer UK residents to pay lower tax.

If we introduce it in the UK more wealthy people would reside in another country

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"Wealth taxes do not work at all. The rich people invest so they pay lower taxes. Rishi paid 22% last year which is still quite high for a wealthy person. Several wealthy UK individuals only pay circa 11% tax. Then many super wealthy e.g. Lewis Hamilton are no longer UK residents to pay lower tax.

If we introduce it in the UK more wealthy people would reside in another country "

If someone genuinely does not live in UK then I have no problem with them paying their tax where they do live because they are not in any way using the tax payer funded services in the UK.

I take particular issue with fake non-dom status. ie a person claiming they are not domiciled in the UK and being able to pay an annual fee of just £30k to avoid paying £millions in tax despite their kids being at school in UK, partners job being clearly based in UK, family home in UK etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?"

We have no simple tax rules, a wealth tax would never be if you have X you pay Y, it would be 200 pages of if's and but's.

Meaning the structure of a wealth tax would determine the exodus of the wealthy or an increase in accountancy and legal firm profits through avoidance.

I would anticipate any wealth tax would be over complex as is the way and it would leave the potential for avoidance for the most wealthy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *quirtyndirty!Couple over a year ago

Nottingham

There is a sweet spot of tax levels. Too high and very high earners move abroad. Middle to high earners avoid tax or stop some aspects of their work as it is no longer worth it. Current UK tax burden has never been as high in living memory.

Both major UK parties and the Treasury fail to understand this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"There is a sweet spot of tax levels. Too high and very high earners move abroad. Middle to high earners avoid tax or stop some aspects of their work as it is no longer worth it. Current UK tax burden has never been as high in living memory.

Both major UK parties and the Treasury fail to understand this."

Paying taxes is only for the plebs. The reason UK tax code is so complex* is it provides exploitable loopholes the very wealthy can use to avoid paying tax.

*and because HMRC have over the years outsourced a significant chunk of tax policy development to the “big four” accountancy consultancies who then develop products for their clients to exploit the loopholes they have built into the tax code through policy development.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?"

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rauntonbananaMan over a year ago

Braunton

Golden rule… you can’t tax your way to prosperity… not that the politics of envy crowd can comprehend that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?"

No, and it's not because I don't like the idea of taxing the wealthy more.

It's because the best and most long-lasting manner to maintain and grow a stable tax base for the state is to have as wide a tax base as possible, not just focus on specific income/class groups more simply because "they can afford it".

What the UK has now is a problem of stagnant productivity and falling real wages that cannot keep up with inflation. The taxable income for the state has fallen, not risen. People cannot afford higher taxes when they aren't even earning enough or as much as they were five years ago once inflation is factored in.

Taxes focusing on income or wealth shouldn't be the focus. You want to incentivise people to work, be more productive, and earn more money that they can actually keep in their pockets and spend as they wish to stimulate the economy through consumerist demand. Wealth that has been ACTIVELY earned through productive work should be celebrated and protected.

What NEEDS to be taxed more however, are corporate profits and capital gains. There's plenty of room there for further taxation. Money made off from selling goods and services to society, or speculating in a stock or property market that sees general share/property price stability and even constant rises over the long term thanks to political stability of the country, should rightly be taxed more so as to return some money into public investments and benefits to society.

The overall UK earning power and productivity NEEDS to go up, by hook or by crook. Only then can you lessen the demand for more societal financial subsidies through tax money, and let people be able/willing to pay tax/more tax.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?"

Possibly no more successful here. Maybe it depends on the people concerned and their personal spending habits. The tens of millions being lost in Norway, what is that from?. I'm guessing tax on purchases but not sure

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?"

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *quirtyndirty!Couple over a year ago

Nottingham

If taxes were lower and simpler then there wouldn't be the need for loopholes and expensive accountancy tricks. Unfortunately governments love spunking our money up the wall on ludicrous pet projects

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere. "

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?"

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally)."

I might be getting this wrong.

I think the top 2% pay 30% of all income tax

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

I might be getting this wrong.

I think the top 2% pay 30% of all income tax"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

I might be getting this wrong.

I think the top 2% pay 30% of all income tax"

That is not quite right.

The top 2% of employees pay 30% of income tax but that includes footballers whose Agents negotiate net incomes for their clients. It also includes city hot shots who similarly get paid millions for their expertise and experience.

The top 2% generally pay a much lower marginal tax rate than someone on PAYE, because as long as they are not earning “employed” income, they will never be paying the highest rates of “income tax.”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally)."

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Black market. Buying things abroad etc etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *L RogueMan over a year ago

London

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

More successful in getting rid of tax avoiding billionaires?

Or more successful as in the billionaires stay, and pay tax?

Nothing illegal in tax avoidance. Everyone would if they could "

Not very British though, is it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

More successful in getting rid of tax avoiding billionaires?

Or more successful as in the billionaires stay, and pay tax?

Nothing illegal in tax avoidance. Everyone would if they could

Not very British though, is it?"

On the contrary, tax avoidance is a VERY British thing.

Six out of the world's top 10 tax havens are related to the British Empire.

Bermuda

British Virgin Islands

Cayman Islands

Jersey

Singapore

Hong Kong

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Black market. Buying things abroad etc etc. "

Would this be a purchasing strategy of the super wealthy?

VAT is added by default on cars as an example, import duties exist and this is only one tax.

I don't understand your view of a wealthy person using legal channels to reduce their tax burden, is not worth keeping in the country when they contribute through many other taxes and provide a multitude of opportunities to others.

Wealthy is not Joe blogs doing work on the side

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Black market. Buying things abroad etc etc.

Would this be a purchasing strategy of the super wealthy?

No idea, people seem to suggest the super wealthy would move countries to avoid paying more tax. So why not?

VAT is added by default on cars as an example, import duties exist and this is only one tax.

Wealthy is not Joe blogs doing work on the side

I didn't say it's not worth keeping them. Just if we're talking about tax avoiders. I personally don't care if they leave. These types are unlikely to be providing good opportunities to others.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Black market. Buying things abroad etc etc.

Would this be a purchasing strategy of the super wealthy?

No idea, people seem to suggest the super wealthy would move countries to avoid paying more tax. So why not?

VAT is added by default on cars as an example, import duties exist and this is only one tax.

Wealthy is not Joe blogs doing work on the side

I didn't say it's not worth keeping them. Just if we're talking about tax avoiders. I personally don't care if they leave. These types are unlikely to be providing good opportunities to others. "

Why do think you that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Black market. Buying things abroad etc etc.

Would this be a purchasing strategy of the super wealthy?

No idea, people seem to suggest the super wealthy would move countries to avoid paying more tax. So why not?

VAT is added by default on cars as an example, import duties exist and this is only one tax.

Wealthy is not Joe blogs doing work on the side

I didn't say it's not worth keeping them. Just if we're talking about tax avoiders. I personally don't care if they leave. These types are unlikely to be providing good opportunities to others.

Why do think you that?"

Because a lot of high-net worth tax avoiders in the UK strictly speaking use the country to hold their assets. Like rich foreigners buying up mansions in London that sit empty for years because they're effectively just "investments" or "land banks" to hold their wealth away from their home countries so they don't have to pay tax there.

Many don't reside full time in the UK. Even if they reside for a significant time in the UK, it's unlikely that they spend enough in their daily lives buying goods and services to create a significant enough trickle-down effect on the lower rungs of society working in jobs to provide or manufacture such goods and services for them. They have their own ecosystem of shops and service providers they go to. They may as well live in a different world from the rest of us.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Black market. Buying things abroad etc etc.

Would this be a purchasing strategy of the super wealthy?

No idea, people seem to suggest the super wealthy would move countries to avoid paying more tax. So why not?

VAT is added by default on cars as an example, import duties exist and this is only one tax.

Wealthy is not Joe blogs doing work on the side

I didn't say it's not worth keeping them. Just if we're talking about tax avoiders. I personally don't care if they leave. These types are unlikely to be providing good opportunities to others.

Why do think you that?

Stamp duty is not avoidable in your example, or is it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Black market. Buying things abroad etc etc.

Would this be a purchasing strategy of the super wealthy?

No idea, people seem to suggest the super wealthy would move countries to avoid paying more tax. So why not?

VAT is added by default on cars as an example, import duties exist and this is only one tax.

Wealthy is not Joe blogs doing work on the side

I didn't say it's not worth keeping them. Just if we're talking about tax avoiders. I personally don't care if they leave. These types are unlikely to be providing good opportunities to others.

Why do think you that?

Stamp duty is not avoidable in your example, or is it? "

A quick Google showed me several ways to avoid paying stamp duty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Which PPE was provided through mates?

Civil service sign off contracts for ppe.

Covid was a horrible decision furlough was good but too much handed out.

I remember being on here with my ex under a different name and seeing the forum and many on here clamouring that the government weren't doing enough financially to help....

Morleyman - Unless I missed it while scrolling I note you haven’t come back on the PPE scandal. Here is some relevant news released just today...

“Matt Hancock stayed at the mansion of a Tory donor who owns Randox without declaring it. Hancock then awarded them £500m through the VIP PPE lane.”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man over a year ago

Terra Firma

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Black market. Buying things abroad etc etc.

Would this be a purchasing strategy of the super wealthy?

No idea, people seem to suggest the super wealthy would move countries to avoid paying more tax. So why not?

VAT is added by default on cars as an example, import duties exist and this is only one tax.

Wealthy is not Joe blogs doing work on the side

I didn't say it's not worth keeping them. Just if we're talking about tax avoiders. I personally don't care if they leave. These types are unlikely to be providing good opportunities to others.

Why do think you that?

Stamp duty is not avoidable in your example, or is it?

A quick Google showed me several ways to avoid paying stamp duty. "

So have I and I can see 1 particular way that the wealthy would avoid taxes as mentioned.

I'm not sure if that loophole would be picked up in capital gains tax on sale, if not then it needs fixing...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Which PPE was provided through mates?

Civil service sign off contracts for ppe.

Covid was a horrible decision furlough was good but too much handed out.

I remember being on here with my ex under a different name and seeing the forum and many on here clamouring that the government weren't doing enough financially to help....

Hi sorry never saw the reply.

You're going to jave to show me the evidence here I am afraid.

I am not aware of them not having normal civil service due diligence when the contract was won.

I am not aware they skipped the VIP lane.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Which PPE was provided through mates?

Civil service sign off contracts for ppe.

Covid was a horrible decision furlough was good but too much handed out.

I remember being on here with my ex under a different name and seeing the forum and many on here clamouring that the government weren't doing enough financially to help....

Morleyman - Unless I missed it while scrolling I note you haven’t come back on the PPE scandal. Here is some relevant news released just today...

“Matt Hancock stayed at the mansion of a Tory donor who owns Randox without declaring it. Hancock then awarded them £500m through the VIP PPE lane.”"

Matt hancock doesn't award PPE contracts. The civil service do

I am not aware of any case that has gone to court and been found that people were awarded contracts by mos illegally. Without going through civil service.

Can you point me in the right direction?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"An article in yesterday’s Guardian reports that a large number of high wealth individuals have left Norway following the introduction of a wealth tax.

“Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts” The Guardian.

Would a wealth tax be more successful here?

Nope.

The same thing would happen. The rich would be off. Rightly so.

Would that be a good, or bad thing if they left?

What do you think?

Personally, I couldn't care less if a rich person fucked off because they could pay less tax elsewhere.

How about the cash they push into the economy that attracts 20% vat as a starter for 10. Better off without it? If they’re not breaking the law what’s the problem?

How much cash do they really push in? The really rich people avoid tax (of course legally).

VAT is not avoidable, as I said let's start from there. Are you happy the super wealthy will leave because you couldn't care less as they can pay less tax elsewhere? How much tax will that lose?

There are a number of taxes that can't avoided to follow

I asked you how much this would be. You can't just then ask me.

And yes, you can avoid paying VAT.

Share the VAT avoidance

Black market. Buying things abroad etc etc.

Would this be a purchasing strategy of the super wealthy?

No idea, people seem to suggest the super wealthy would move countries to avoid paying more tax. So why not?

VAT is added by default on cars as an example, import duties exist and this is only one tax.

Wealthy is not Joe blogs doing work on the side

I didn't say it's not worth keeping them. Just if we're talking about tax avoiders. I personally don't care if they leave. These types are unlikely to be providing good opportunities to others.

Why do think you that?

Stamp duty is not avoidable in your example, or is it?

A quick Google showed me several ways to avoid paying stamp duty.

So have I and I can see 1 particular way that the wealthy would avoid taxes as mentioned.

I'm not sure if that loophole would be picked up in capital gains tax on sale, if not then it needs fixing..."

I agree the tax holes need fixing. Can't see it happening anytime soon. Which is why the OP doesn't need to worry. The government doesn't want to collect taxes they're supposed to from the ultra wealthy (which largely includes themselves), so they're hardly going to introduce more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *pentoall555Man over a year ago

benfleet

No the same thing would happen,the wealthy would leave and the country loses whatever tax they normally pay.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Which PPE was provided through mates?

Civil service sign off contracts for ppe.

Covid was a horrible decision furlough was good but too much handed out.

I remember being on here with my ex under a different name and seeing the forum and many on here clamouring that the government weren't doing enough financially to help....

Hi sorry never saw the reply.

You're going to jave to show me the evidence here I am afraid.

I am not aware of them not having normal civil service due diligence when the contract was won.

I am not aware they skipped the VIP lane.

Google is your friend. All the evidence is out there. It has also been very widely discussed, so if you have not heard about it, then that is most surprising.

I can also 100% guarantee you that normal Civil Service due diligence was dropped for those coming through the “VIP route”. That is why companies with zero track record in PPE that were only registered days before, normally in tax havens like the IoM, with therefore no trading history, were awarded contracts worth hundreds of millions.

I pointed you towards Baroness Mone and Doug Barrowman. Look it up (include PPE in your search). You can try Lord Ashworth’s daughter too.

Actually just google “PPE VIP lane” and read the entries on page one.

Aren’t you the “do your research” guy?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Which PPE was provided through mates?

Civil service sign off contracts for ppe.

Covid was a horrible decision furlough was good but too much handed out.

I remember being on here with my ex under a different name and seeing the forum and many on here clamouring that the government weren't doing enough financially to help....

Morleyman - Unless I missed it while scrolling I note you haven’t come back on the PPE scandal. Here is some relevant news released just today...

“Matt Hancock stayed at the mansion of a Tory donor who owns Randox without declaring it. Hancock then awarded them £500m through the VIP PPE lane.”

Matt hancock doesn't award PPE contracts. The civil service do

I am not aware of any case that has gone to court and been found that people were awarded contracts by mos illegally. Without going through civil service.

Can you point me in the right direction?"

Oh dear. For “evidence” see my earlier post. Re this point. The Civil Service were told by Ministers what to do using emergency executive powers during the pandemic. I can 100% guarantee you that normal due diligence was circumvented with a JFDI approach.

While not PPE (but pandemic related) it was why Hancock’s pub landlord best mate and neighbour was awarded a £20m contract to supply glass test tubes.

As for court cases. You want the Government to take action against itself? The only way this ever reaches court is if the Tories lose next GE.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Which PPE was provided through mates?

Civil service sign off contracts for ppe.

Covid was a horrible decision furlough was good but too much handed out.

I remember being on here with my ex under a different name and seeing the forum and many on here clamouring that the government weren't doing enough financially to help....

Hi sorry never saw the reply.

You're going to jave to show me the evidence here I am afraid.

I am not aware of them not having normal civil service due diligence when the contract was won.

I am not aware they skipped the VIP lane.

Google is your friend. All the evidence is out there. It has also been very widely discussed, so if you have not heard about it, then that is most surprising.

I pointed you towards Baroness Mone and Doug Barrowman. Look it up (include PPE in your search). You can try Lord Ashworth’s daughter too.

Actually just google “PPE VIP lane” and read the entries on page one.

Aren’t you the “do your research” guy?"

Oh I have heard about it I am asking you specifically what you think they did to cheat the system.

As I can't find anything that suggests it

What do you THINK money did for example?

What do you THINK Barrowman has done

What do you THINK Ashworths daughter did.

I'm going to ask you a question.

Did the government change policy during covid on many things?

Do you think the usual tendering process should have taken place?

Do you think any MP made civil servants hand out contracts?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect. "

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Which PPE was provided through mates?

Civil service sign off contracts for ppe.

Covid was a horrible decision furlough was good but too much handed out.

I remember being on here with my ex under a different name and seeing the forum and many on here clamouring that the government weren't doing enough financially to help....

Morleyman - Unless I missed it while scrolling I note you haven’t come back on the PPE scandal. Here is some relevant news released just today...

“Matt Hancock stayed at the mansion of a Tory donor who owns Randox without declaring it. Hancock then awarded them £500m through the VIP PPE lane.”

Matt hancock doesn't award PPE contracts. The civil service do

I am not aware of any case that has gone to court and been found that people were awarded contracts by mos illegally. Without going through civil service.

Can you point me in the right direction?

While not PPE (but pandemic related) it was why Hancock’s pub landlord best mate and neighbour was awarded a £20m contract to supply glass test tubes.

As for court cases. You want the Government to take action against itself? The only way this ever reaches court is if the Tories lose next GE."

Can you show me what due diligence wasn't taken?

Can you point me towards a court case that says government due diligence was bo sufficient?

You are insinuating laws were breached but refuse to point towards a judge deciding and any actual evidence?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes."

To be fair on both sides a lot of expenses are for staff.

Where I disagree with it is hiring family members and friends as staff. The uk gets some of this back in taxes and national insurance on the staff wages.

I completely disagree with people buying football tickets,airport, taxis to and from Parliament.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Brldn you are aware people have tried taking the gov to court already over VIP lanes? Yes?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"Brldn you are aware people have tried taking the gov to court already over VIP lanes? Yes?"

Not replying to multiple posts will just do it here.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/12/use-of-vip-lane-to-award-covid-ppe-contracts-unlawful-high-court-rules

Yes the GoodLawProject have taken Govt to court. It takes deep pockets. Few would bother.

I am not insinuating. I know for a fact that normal procurement rules and due diligence processes were circumvented using emergency executive powers granted during the pandemic.

I also know that I am not going to post ACTUAL written evidence about that on a swingers forum. There are proper channels.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

"Brldn you are aware people have tried taking the gov to court already over VIP lanes? Yes?

Not replying to multiple posts will just do it here.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/12/use-of-vip-lane-to-award-covid-ppe-contracts-unlawful-high-court-rules

Yes the GoodLawProject have taken Govt to court. It takes deep pockets. Few would bother.

I am not insinuating. I know for a fact that normal procurement rules and due diligence processes were circumvented using emergency executive powers granted during the pandemic.

I also know that I am not going to post ACTUAL written evidence about that on a swingers forum. There are proper channels."

Again this is the case of reading the headlines and not the judgement.

The judge ruled that urgency in spring meant normal rules couldn't be applied.

They ruled transparency is required.

The court deemed the creation of the team breached law.

The court ruled dhse complied with its duties and decision processes.

Hadn't relied on the high priority lane to simply award the contract.

So where is this about hancock giving his mates preferential treatment?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

I suggest in future. You read judiciary website and the actual judgements.

Not headlines.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes."

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE."

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osexyCouple over a year ago

ST AUSTELL

40% of the super rich are not British anyway so impose a wealth tax and they may leave the UK . These people contribute around 30% of all the tax revenue so that would leave a big hole to fill . A increase in tax can often mean a reduction in revenue .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

And again.

I am yet to see a judgement that due diligence was not followed, that mps influenced the outcome of contracts.

Etc

I know we all love clickbait.

I know we all love a bad headline.

But seriously start doing the research. The judgements are available on judiciary. Uk and bailii .org

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

"40% of the super rich are not British anyway so impose a wealth tax and they may leave the UK . These people contribute around 30% of all the tax revenue so that would leave a big hole to fill . A increase in tax can often mean a reduction in revenue . "

This 30% figure is for income tax. Not all tax revenue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)"

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?"

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?"

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable? "

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?"

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on. "

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Putting just read up. Is exactly the problem.

Reading headline sis VASTLY different form reading the actual judgement.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?"

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly. "

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osexyCouple over a year ago

ST AUSTELL

This 30% figure is for income tax. Not all tax revenue."

Yes that's what I meant

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines."

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?"

What breaches in law?

What billions to their pals.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

You know that's also illegal right?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?"

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation."

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

Your problem seems to be as part of the tendering process friends of Tory mps were given contracts.

So you seem to be at a contradiction.

Do you jave a problem with friends of Tory mps being given government supplier contracts or do you want them banned?

Some clarification here possibly?

Then we can move this discussion on as to procurement procedures being followed etc?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Again though. What breach for law?

The courts ruled it was a necessity and that parliament couldn't sit and vote and that the government was within its rights to act in the manner.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, on Ground 2:

i) the Defendant was obliged to comply with the principles of equal treatment and transparency set out in regulation 18 in relation to the process chosen by the Defendant for making direct contract awards without prior publication pursuant to regulation 32(2)(c) of the PCR;

ii) use of the 'open source' procurement complied with the obligations of equal treatment and transparency;

iii) the Defendant put in place the selection criteria to be used and issued guidance to the evaluators as to the application of such criteria so that the offers could be properly evaluated;

iv) operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment.

For the reasons set out above, on Ground 3, prior to the issue of proceedings, the Defendant complied with his duty to give clear and sufficient reasons for awarding the contracts the subject of challenge.

For the reasons set out above, on Ground 5:

i) the Defendant did not place any reliance on their referral to the High Priority Lane when awarding the contracts to PestFix and Ayanda;

ii) sufficient financial due diligence was carried out in respect of the Interested Parties and their suppliers when awarding the contracts to PestFix and Ayanda;

iii) sufficient technical verification was carried out in respect of the contracts awarded to PestFix and Ayanda

The Claimants' challenge to the Defendant's decisions to award the contracts to the Interested Parties fails on Grounds 3 and 5.

The Claimants' challenge in respect of the contracts awarded to Clandeboye is dismissed.

Although operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment under the PCR and therefore unlawful, it is highly likely that the outcome would not be substantially different and the contracts would have been awarded to PestFix and Ayanda. In those circumstances, pursuant to section 31(2A) and (2B) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court refuses to grant declaratory relief.

Following hand down of this judgment, the hearing will be adjourned to a date to be fixed for the purpose of any consequential matters, including any applications for permission to appeal, and any time limits are extended until such hearing or further order.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

"And again.

I am yet to see a judgement that due diligence was not followed, that mps influenced the outcome of contracts.

Etc

I know we all love clickbait.

I know we all love a bad headline.

But seriously start doing the research. The judgements are available on judiciary. Uk and bailii .org "

You’re wrong. Rail against it all you want. You are wrong. You have zero first hand knowledge on this subject. You are an accountant who did an A Level in economics many years ago. Are you now also an expert in government procurement? Just because YOU are not aware of the detail and keep demanding detail that simply cannot be provided in this forum, doesn’t make you right. If and that is a big IF the Tories lose the GE then MAYBE this will surface and heads will roll.

As you are always so keen on posting questions here is one for you.

Q. Is it right that a company registered in a tax haven just a few days before the Govt requested bids to supply PPE, was able to win a contract worth over £200m in a specialist procurement area they have zero track record in and one of the directors of that newly registered company is the spouse of a Tory member of the HoL who was able to refer that company via the VIP lane circumventing normal Civil Service procurement due diligence?

Q. Is it then acceptable that this same company applied such a huge mark up that £160m of the value was profit?

Q. Is it THEN acceptable that from that profit £29m was paid into an Isle of Man registered Trust Fund whose sole beneficiaries are the Tory Peer who referred to the VIP lane and their children?

This is only one, admittedly higher profile, case. It will eventually find its way to court.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation.

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

Your problem seems to be as part of the tendering process friends of Tory mps were given contracts.

So you seem to be at a contradiction.

Do you jave a problem with friends of Tory mps being given government supplier contracts or do you want them banned?

Some clarification here possibly?

Then we can move this discussion on as to procurement procedures being followed etc?"

Er no you are wrong again...

"You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes."

Yes you can. That is why the UK Govt established procurement frameworks (or rosters) for suppliers to the public sector. It means all the suppliers on the framework have had all necessary due diligence undertaken on them so that for the period of the frameworks lifespan, those companies can bid for contracts. For any worth over £100k they were previously subject to an OJEU hence the benefits of frameworks.

If you are not on a framework then you cannot bid for the Govt contract. ie you are legally excluded.

Guess what? DHSC had frameworks to procure things like PPE with multiple, highly experienced suppliers. And yet many of these failed to secure PPE contracts which were instead awarded to companies with zero experience or expert knowledge but cane via the VIP route.

Morley you should stick to A level economics and accountancy rather than try to also position yourself as a Govt Procurement expert!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

"And again.

I am yet to see a judgement that due diligence was not followed, that mps influenced the outcome of contracts.

Etc

I know we all love clickbait.

I know we all love a bad headline.

But seriously start doing the research. The judgements are available on judiciary. Uk and bailii .org

As you are always so keen on posting questions here is one for you.

Q. Is it then acceptable that this same company applied such a huge mark up that £160m of the value was profit?

Q. Is it THEN acceptable that from that profit £29m was paid into an Isle of Man registered Trust Fund whose sole beneficiaries are the Tory Peer who referred to the VIP lane and their children?

This is only one, admittedly higher profile, case. It will eventually find its way to court."

No.

I merely read I read actual judgements of cases. Not the guardian or independent

I have asked you for prove instead you reach for a personal attack on my qualifications about reading the judgement. Do I find myself ocne again...where is your evidence on mone etc?

Where are the court judgements? Evidence from police?

It's a simple question. Why can you not answer it with factual based evidence?

I'm not bothered about the perceived morality of the contract. Just the judgement. Can you please provide it

You don't seem to understand how companies work. Many new companies are made when supplying new good and winning Contracts. That's the nature kf business. My current employed has 120 companies for 5 hotels.

You seem to have a problem. That people who are given funds for activities they honoured transfer those funds somewhere? Is that illegal now?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation.

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

Your problem seems to be as part of the tendering process friends of Tory mps were given contracts.

So you seem to be at a contradiction.

Do you jave a problem with friends of Tory mps being given government supplier contracts or do you want them banned?

Some clarification here possibly?

Then we can move this discussion on as to procurement procedures being followed etc?

Er no you are wrong again...

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

If you are not on a framework then you cannot bid for the Govt contract. ie you are legally excluded.

Morley you should stick to A level economics and accountancy rather than try to also position yourself as a Govt Procurement expert!"

Dod you read the judgement I posted it.

Maybe you should read that before you embarrass yourself further?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

You see due diligence was still carried out.

The NAO were happy.

The judge was happy.

All evidence is supplied on the website I sent you.

Knock yourself out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

I'm out here supplying links to the legal judgements , the evidence esubmitted, the complete judgements bu judge O'Farrel.

You're here giving me guardian articles and having hissy fits about my A level and career.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldnCouple over a year ago

Brighton

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation.

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

Your problem seems to be as part of the tendering process friends of Tory mps were given contracts.

So you seem to be at a contradiction.

Do you jave a problem with friends of Tory mps being given government supplier contracts or do you want them banned?

Some clarification here possibly?

Then we can move this discussion on as to procurement procedures being followed etc?

Er no you are wrong again...

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

If you are not on a framework then you cannot bid for the Govt contract. ie you are legally excluded.

Morley you should stick to A level economics and accountancy rather than try to also position yourself as a Govt Procurement expert!

Dod you read the judgement I posted it.

Maybe you should read that before you embarrass yourself further?"

Only person embarrassing them-self is you. I have already said the vast majority of this has not gone to court (yet - maybe never).

You said you cannot legally exclude a company bidding on govt contracts. I have just explained that you can.

Also...

“The fact that one third of the total spent on unsuitable PPE went to half of the VIP lane suppliers will renew questions about the government’s due diligence and decision-making processes.

One in ten suppliers processed through the VIP lane (50 out of 493) were awarded contracts, compared to less than one in a hundred suppliers through the ordinary lane (104 of 14,892).

In November 2021, the government confirmed that 46 of the contracts awarded through the VIP lane did not go through the 8-stage due diligence process which was introduced by DHSC in May 2020.

In August 2021, Lord Bethell said that DHSC “was engaged in commercial discussions (potentially leading to litigation)” in relation to 40 contracts for undelivered or substandard PPE worth £1.2 billion. But it is not clear which suppliers the government is seeking to recoup losses from.”

Morley you are wrong on this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation.

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

Your problem seems to be as part of the tendering process friends of Tory mps were given contracts.

So you seem to be at a contradiction.

Do you jave a problem with friends of Tory mps being given government supplier contracts or do you want them banned?

Some clarification here possibly?

Then we can move this discussion on as to procurement procedures being followed etc?"

Not sure what's going on here. Feels like we've slipped into a parallel universe.

To be clear. I don't think that friends, neighbours, pals, chums, buddies, donors of the government should be given priority over everyone else when handing out multi million pound contracts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation.

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

Your problem seems to be as part of the tendering process friends of Tory mps were given contracts.

So you seem to be at a contradiction.

Do you jave a problem with friends of Tory mps being given government supplier contracts or do you want them banned?

Some clarification here possibly?

Then we can move this discussion on as to procurement procedures being followed etc?

Er no you are wrong again...

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

If you are not on a framework then you cannot bid for the Govt contract. ie you are legally excluded.

Morley you should stick to A level economics and accountancy rather than try to also position yourself as a Govt Procurement expert!

Dod you read the judgement I posted it.

Maybe you should read that before you embarrass yourself further?

Only person embarrassing them-self is you. I have already said the vast majority of this has not gone to court (yet - maybe never).

You said you cannot legally exclude a company bidding on govt contracts. I have just explained that you can.

Also...

“The fact that one third of the total spent on unsuitable PPE went to half of the VIP lane suppliers will renew questions about the government’s due diligence and decision-making processes.

One in ten suppliers processed through the VIP lane (50 out of 493) were awarded contracts, compared to less than one in a hundred suppliers through the ordinary lane (104 of 14,892).

In November 2021, the government confirmed that 46 of the contracts awarded through the VIP lane did not go through the 8-stage due diligence process which was introduced by DHSC in May 2020.

Morley you are wrong on this. "

Again it'd not the govenrment. It's the civil service.

The government runs its own due diligence as does the actually procurement department dhsc.

Yes many of those new suppliers could get bulk imports / productions vs regular suppliers.

This isin NAO report.

Re your nov 21 quote form guardian

"10 Of the 394 contracts awarded through the Parallel Supply Chain and UK Make,

115 were awarded to 51 VIP lane suppliers, referred to as the ‘High-Priority Lane’

by the Department. Some 493 potential suppliers were suggested by government

officials, ministers’ offices, members of Parliament, senior NHS staff and other health

professionals through a VIP lane. Contracts agreed through the VIP lane totalled

£3.8 billion and were expected to deliver 7.8 billion items of PPE. The Department’s

process for checking suppliers evolved over time, and in May 2020 it introduced an

eight-stage due diligence process. The Department told us that before May 2020,

it conducted some due diligence such as financial, commercial and legal checks but

not all of these were completed before contracts were awarded. Forty-six out of the

115 contracts awarded to VIP lane suppliers did not go through the eight-stage due

diligence process as they were awarded before May 2020. This indicates that the

Department was not in a position to fully understand the contract management risks

it was exposing itself to with some of these suppliers (paragraph 1.6)."

Due diligence requirements changed over time.. but due diligence was still carried out.

For the LOVE OF GOD please just read this stuff and not the guardian.

Your complaint is. " omg they didnt go through the agreed May 2020 due diligence when they were signed in April and agreed under the April due diligence"

Shock horror. Things took place without the agreed formate before the format was agreed.

Again in your August 21. I mentioned domestic suppliers agreed with dhsc what was required and what was delivered then dhsc changed its mind.

What legal case has been submitted? Have you any evidence the government (tories) pushed through contracts for good that were substandard to dhsc requirements?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation.

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

Your problem seems to be as part of the tendering process friends of Tory mps were given contracts.

So you seem to be at a contradiction.

Do you jave a problem with friends of Tory mps being given government supplier contracts or do you want them banned?

Some clarification here possibly?

Then we can move this discussion on as to procurement procedures being followed etc?

Not sure what's going on here. Feels like we've slipped into a parallel universe.

To be clear. I don't think that friends, neighbours, pals, chums, buddies, donors of the government should be given priority over everyone else when handing out multi million pound contracts."

Emsonyoir problem is the VIP lane.

You think we should have gone through the normal procurement procedures and not centralised?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation.

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

Your problem seems to be as part of the tendering process friends of Tory mps were given contracts.

So you seem to be at a contradiction.

Do you jave a problem with friends of Tory mps being given government supplier contracts or do you want them banned?

Some clarification here possibly?

Then we can move this discussion on as to procurement procedures being followed etc?

Not sure what's going on here. Feels like we've slipped into a parallel universe.

To be clear. I don't think that friends, neighbours, pals, chums, buddies, donors of the government should be given priority over everyone else when handing out multi million pound contracts.

Emsonyoir problem is the VIP lane.

You think we should have gone through the normal procurement procedures and not centralised?

I think that friends, neighbours, pals, chums, buddies, donors of the government should be given priority over everyone else when handing out multi million pound contracts.

Not sure how to be any clearer.

I am against government nepotism. How's that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan over a year ago

golden fields

Uh. *Should not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orleymanMan over a year ago

Leeds

Or if governments didn't waste so much of the tax they do collect.

Bingo. THAT's the biggest problem.

Maybe if MP's weren't claiming over quarter of a million quid in expenses on top of their 84K salary too.

650 MP's. Quarter of a mill each.

MP expenses alone account for around £175 million ish - and that all comes out of our taxes.

And that's fuck all compared to what they handed to their pals for dodgy PPE.

Again what did they hand their pals for dodgy ppe.

I am yet to have some one send me proof people were paid for dodgy ppe

Linked to a minister.

There was a case where some were accepted. But that was because phe ( if I remember) changed their guidance on masks having already committed to a purchase)

It's extremely well documented and reported on. Are you suggesting this didn't happen?

Then simply put the judgement down on here. If it's so well reported. You will post the judges comments?

What judges? What are you talking about.

Have you genuinely not heard about the 20+ billion quid that went to pals of the government for PPE which was largely unusable?

All contracts from " pals" were sent to the civil service to be signed off and be overlooked.

Many were not signed. Some were.

Some " pals " acted as intermediaries.

What do you think is the problem here?

Which MP has been found to have signed off a contract themselves or influenced the procurement process illegally?

Mate seriously. You should read up about what went on.

If you're happy that friends and neighbours of the government got over £20 billion of public money. Then what can I say. Crack on.

So youndont want to prove what you claim then?

I've asked for evidence _irldn has mentioned a case where they thought a judge ruled simproper conduct was undertaken. But they were incorrect.

You don't feel like actually supplying any backing to your claim then?

I'm not claiming anything. You appear to be making the claim that this didn't happen.

You're challenging what happened, not me. If I claim the moon is made of gravy, and demand you prove it's made of rock. That would be silly.

I am saying the court found nothing wrong in the procurement process.

It accepted that breaches in law were made. But they were necessary. This is why you read judgements. Not headlines.

There you go. So you're happy with the breaches in law and billions going to their pals?

What breaches in law?

The ones you just mentioned.

What billions to their pals.

The billions for PPE that we're currently discussing.

Are you insinuating no one linked to a person in government should ever be allowed to bid for governemnt contracts?

Nope.

You know that's also illegal right?

What's illegal?

This is a really, really weird conversation.

You can not legally leave people out of tendering g processes.

Your problem seems to be as part of the tendering process friends of Tory mps were given contracts.

So you seem to be at a contradiction.

Do you jave a problem with friends of Tory mps being given government supplier contracts or do you want them banned?

Some clarification here possibly?

Then we can move this discussion on as to procurement procedures being followed etc?

Not sure what's going on here. Feels like we've slipped into a parallel universe.

To be clear. I don't think that friends, neighbours, pals, chums, buddies, donors of the government should be given priority over everyone else when handing out multi million pound contracts.

Emsonyoir problem is the VIP lane.

You think we should have gone through the normal procurement procedures and not centralised?

I think that friends, neighbours, pals, chums, buddies, donors of the government should be given priority over everyone else when handing out multi million pound contracts.

Not sure how to be any clearer.

I am against government nepotism. How's that?"

It was open to a lot of people.

Not just tory mps you know that right?

How would you have handled it then? Stayed din the old procurement process?

Each Trust getting its own supply at higher costs. Or not getting supplies at all.

The French took the masks for one of the nhs trusts.