FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Baroness Mone and the 60 million swindle
Baroness Mone and the 60 million swindle
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
She lied about being involved in her (billionaire)husband"s company winning a contract after being recomended by her.
She's been on TV saying she sees no reason to criminally investigate her..
I'm not sure if she just lied.. or lied under oath. But in any circumstance.. liers have no place in the house of lords.
Disgusting that they profiteered from a pandemic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If you think that’s bad wait until you find out about the pharmaceutical companies and all the people involved in supplying vaccines through to “patients”. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"She lied about being involved in her (billionaire)husband"s company winning a contract after being recomended by her.
She's been on TV saying she sees no reason to criminally investigate her..
I'm not sure if she just lied.. or lied under oath. But in any circumstance.. liers have no place in the house of lords.
Disgusting that they profiteered from a pandemic."
Where jave you got 60m from? The barrowman payout?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man
over a year ago
Near Maidenhead |
"If you think that’s bad wait until you find out about the pharmaceutical companies and all the people involved in supplying vaccines through to “patients”."
That could be one reason why Pascal Soriot of Astra Zeneca said in his interview with La Repubblica that AZ decided not to make any profit out of Covid. All they charged were their costs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-apprentice/
I'm assuming links are allowed in the thread - apologies if I am unaware of any rules disallowing this ("I did nothing wrong ....- the Mone defence?)
But here is an article dating back years, where proper digging into her background was done. Well worth a read for any interested in this saga
She has always been a charlatan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now they are claiming to be victims  "
Absolutely, they should be allowed to take public money and funnel it to themselves without the loony left pointing it out. Bleedin' snowflakes, political correctness gone mad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated."
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
"
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit."
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
"
Whether they've done wrong or not they're definitely being made the scapegoats.
The Govt are suing them for 122m of 4b. There's a much much bigger story here but they won't have you believe that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off."
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?"
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying. "
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!"
How did he hide his involvement when he was a negotiator?
According to Barrowman he was transparent in the dealings and has records to prove this.
My question, why only Medpro that NCA have been instructed to investigate, what has happened to the companies that took the money and delivered nothing? Surely due diligence from the procurement team for the government would have looked at the directors, PSC and background, regardless of being a JFDI, as I have said before some things can't be dropped.
I really want this in court and quickly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!"
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment."
Looking for a financial repayment asap, whilst keeping headline news down? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment.
Looking for a financial repayment asap, whilst keeping headline news down?"
I'm not quite sure what your answer says, could you rephrase if possible? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment."
I agree, why specifically them? Something is really off with this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's hard to tell if something is going on as there are many threads.
The firsr is her covering up links. That's been going on since late 2020 and has been a series of denials followed by proof.
I'm not clear how interlinked the government suing and NCO looking at fraud and bribery are interlinked. But the less cynical part of me would at least hope NCO aren't in it for Scape goatimg. I'm surprised that HMG would scale goat one of their own, even one already under the spotlight, as it appears Gove and others may be pulled into the mess.
However it does look like there are layers of odd practices being used here. That raises eye brows for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
How did he hide his involvement when he was a negotiator?
According to Barrowman he was transparent in the dealings and has records to prove this.
My question, why only Medpro that NCA have been instructed to investigate, what has happened to the companies that took the money and delivered nothing? Surely due diligence from the procurement team for the government would have looked at the directors, PSC and background, regardless of being a JFDI, as I have said before some things can't be dropped.
I really want this in court and quickly."
Last I heard there were over 100 investigations into the whole PPE debacle. Baroness Mone is obviously high profile (and whoever is handling her PR is fucking up royally). Now how many of those investigations involve the NCA I don’t know. As for Barrowman being negotiator, and? That could mean as an employee or consultant but not as the PSC of Medpro and ultimate benefactor. This was all posted in the other thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment."
Spotlight/distraction and she has made enemies AND Barrowman is decidedly shady (if you are genuinely interested search up “the loan charge” and how The Knox Group of companies have screwed over hundreds of contractors through dodgy tax avoidance schemes). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment.
Spotlight/distraction and she has made enemies AND Barrowman is decidedly shady (if you are genuinely interested search up “the loan charge” and how The Knox Group of companies have screwed over hundreds of contractors through dodgy tax avoidance schemes)."
She made enemies? No better reason to stitch someone up (not that I'm proposing that's the case).
Barrowman is shady yet the Govt decided to deal with him?
I've a feeling this is all a show to keep eyes from elsewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment.
Spotlight/distraction and she has made enemies AND Barrowman is decidedly shady (if you are genuinely interested search up “the loan charge” and how The Knox Group of companies have screwed over hundreds of contractors through dodgy tax avoidance schemes).
She made enemies? No better reason to stitch someone up (not that I'm proposing that's the case).
Barrowman is shady yet the Govt decided to deal with him?
I've a feeling this is all a show to keep eyes from elsewhere."
They aren’t being stitched up. They did it. Hopefully NCA will prove it. However, yes there are likely others. Doesn’t mean Mone & hubby shouldn’t get what they deserve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment.
Spotlight/distraction and she has made enemies AND Barrowman is decidedly shady (if you are genuinely interested search up “the loan charge” and how The Knox Group of companies have screwed over hundreds of contractors through dodgy tax avoidance schemes).
She made enemies? No better reason to stitch someone up (not that I'm proposing that's the case).
Barrowman is shady yet the Govt decided to deal with him?
I've a feeling this is all a show to keep eyes from elsewhere.
They aren’t being stitched up. They did it. Hopefully NCA will prove it. However, yes there are likely others. Doesn’t mean Mone & hubby shouldn’t get what they deserve."
Oh and Barrowman being shady. Indeed. His companies have been fined by HMRC. Possible motive to hide his PSC in Medpro! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment.
Spotlight/distraction and she has made enemies AND Barrowman is decidedly shady (if you are genuinely interested search up “the loan charge” and how The Knox Group of companies have screwed over hundreds of contractors through dodgy tax avoidance schemes).
She made enemies? No better reason to stitch someone up (not that I'm proposing that's the case).
Barrowman is shady yet the Govt decided to deal with him?
I've a feeling this is all a show to keep eyes from elsewhere.
They aren’t being stitched up. They did it. Hopefully NCA will prove it. However, yes there are likely others. Doesn’t mean Mone & hubby shouldn’t get what they deserve."
A stitch up in the sense that it's being played out in public before any trial.
There are companies who took money and didn't deliver a single item. Medpro delivered what they got paid for, in arrears I may add.
Using influence and not declaring PSC are nowhere near the worst crimes in the PPE scandal. Yet its receiving by far the most attention.
What do they deserve for using influence? I'm not sure what the punishment for that is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Now they are claiming to be victims
I guess that would be unimaginable?
They’re not victims. They made their bed. However, they may be a useful distraction and end up scapegoated.
If we pull back a second and take stock, is this really such a story?
A deal was agreed and money changed hands for PPE. The part that is important is a deal was agreed.
Lying about involvement is poor, but I guess she knew the shit storm it would create and we have evidence that is exactly what happened.
What is the crime? The profit, the lies, the introduction or is it that people who are millionaires already made even more money?
It's conflict of interest. You're not supposed to use your role in government to funnel public money into stuff you personally profit from. Against the rules, innit.
I’m going to have a bit more of a look into this….. something is off.
Do we really have to go over this again? Personal enrichment from the public purse is against the rules. Not declaring you are a Person of Significant Control in a company is against the law. Mone and Barrowman deliberately hid their involvement with PPE Medpro in order to enrich themselves to the tune of £60m of public money! In what world do you think that is ok?
Was Mone a shareholder or decision maker at Medpro?
The introduction doesn't add up to them hiding involvement does it, and I do believe Barrowman was negotiating the deal, again nothing there to suggest hiding. Admittedly, they lied to the press, can you blame them / her if she had a suspicion of how this would flare up as it did.
Of all the companies that took money and did a runner, this one seems gets priority after it delivered the goods, why?
This will be interesting when it gets to court, one side is certainly lying.
It would be a rather disappointing use of public funds if the National Crime Agency turns out to have no case!
It is illegal to not declare a PSC and Barrowman has admitted he was a PSC amd ultimate beneficiary. Moan should have declares her husband’s connection. It’s shady. The NCA clearly thinks so!
I'm assuming it's the following which Mone has fallen foul of?
(b) Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
I'm still at a loss as to why they're receiving special treatment.
Spotlight/distraction and she has made enemies AND Barrowman is decidedly shady (if you are genuinely interested search up “the loan charge” and how The Knox Group of companies have screwed over hundreds of contractors through dodgy tax avoidance schemes).
She made enemies? No better reason to stitch someone up (not that I'm proposing that's the case).
Barrowman is shady yet the Govt decided to deal with him?
I've a feeling this is all a show to keep eyes from elsewhere.
They aren’t being stitched up. They did it. Hopefully NCA will prove it. However, yes there are likely others. Doesn’t mean Mone & hubby shouldn’t get what they deserve.
A stitch up in the sense that it's being played out in public before any trial.
There are companies who took money and didn't deliver a single item. Medpro delivered what they got paid for, in arrears I may add.
Using influence and not declaring PSC are nowhere near the worst crimes in the PPE scandal. Yet its receiving by far the most attention.
What do they deserve for using influence? I'm not sure what the punishment for that is. "
I am neither a lawyer or police investigator, but I would say the issue is fraud through hiding the involvement in Medpro as the PSC (again see other thread).
I am not sure the OTHER case against Medpro holds up. If, as Barrowman asserts, Medpro delivered to spec then either that isn’t true or the spec was wrong (blame the Civil Servants that wrote it). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out? "
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is. "
are you thinking something is off regardless of any court result ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
I “think” a lot of the outrage is that Mone used her political position to contact then cabinet minister Michael gove to then get special treatment from the then health secretary Jeremy hunt… in that fact that the contract for the PPE contract went through the fast track process
The fast track process meaning the same checks were not in place
Also if they were both directors of medpro (which was a newly founded company for this acquisition) then there names should have been on the paperwork filed with companies house which it wasn’t
They had basically trying to hide their part in the scheme by getting lawyers to threaten people via legal action if they talked
The other part is obviously the PPE was unfit for purpose so they are being sued to get the money back…. But because money has been transferred into the accounts of none and/or barrowman, and they are registered in the Isle of Man, they have also avoided paying tax which HMRC say is in the region of 25 million pounds….. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is. "
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!"
People who vote for the Tories seem to argue tooth and nail for the rights of the rich to be able to transfer as much wealth from the public domain to their own pockets as possible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!"
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
People who vote for the Tories seem to argue tooth and nail for the rights of the rich to be able to transfer as much wealth from the public domain to their own pockets as possible. "
Who votes Tory in this thread? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
People who vote for the Tories seem to argue tooth and nail for the rights of the rich to be able to transfer as much wealth from the public domain to their own pockets as possible.
Who votes Tory in this thread? "
No idea. What's this got to do with anything? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I “think” a lot of the outrage is that Mone used her political position to contact then cabinet minister Michael gove to then get special treatment from the then health secretary Jeremy hunt… in that fact that the contract for the PPE contract went through the fast track process
The fast track process meaning the same checks were not in place
Also if they were both directors of medpro (which was a newly founded company for this acquisition) then there names should have been on the paperwork filed with companies house which it wasn’t
They had basically trying to hide their part in the scheme by getting lawyers to threaten people via legal action if they talked
The other part is obviously the PPE was unfit for purpose so they are being sued to get the money back…. But because money has been transferred into the accounts of none and/or barrowman, and they are registered in the Isle of Man, they have also avoided paying tax which HMRC say is in the region of 25 million pounds….."
Are you sure the above is accurate, are you happy to judge right now on what you’ve read on the internet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
People who vote for the Tories seem to argue tooth and nail for the rights of the rich to be able to transfer as much wealth from the public domain to their own pockets as possible.
Who votes Tory in this thread?
No idea. What's this got to do with anything?"
Perfect answer  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
People who vote for the Tories seem to argue tooth and nail for the rights of the rich to be able to transfer as much wealth from the public domain to their own pockets as possible.
Who votes Tory in this thread?
No idea. What's this got to do with anything?
Perfect answer "
Did you identify yourself as someone who argues tooth and nail for the rights of rich people to be allowed to transfer wealth from the tax payer to their own pocket, and assumed I was assuming that you're a Tory voter?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"She lied about being involved in her (billionaire)husband"s company winning a contract after being recomended by her.
She's been on TV saying she sees no reason to criminally investigate her..
I'm not sure if she just lied.. or lied under oath. But in any circumstance.. liers have no place in the house of lords.
Disgusting that they profiteered from a pandemic.
Where jave you got 60m from? The barrowman payout?
"
Err.. the news. Google it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
People who vote for the Tories seem to argue tooth and nail for the rights of the rich to be able to transfer as much wealth from the public domain to their own pockets as possible.
Who votes Tory in this thread?
No idea. What's this got to do with anything?
Perfect answer
Did you identify yourself as someone who argues tooth and nail for the rights of rich people to be allowed to transfer wealth from the tax payer to their own pocket, and assumed I was assuming that you're a Tory voter?
"
I did think you were calling me a tory voter in your reply, I wont know this unless you can be clear in your response to this whether you were or not, was you?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
People who vote for the Tories seem to argue tooth and nail for the rights of the rich to be able to transfer as much wealth from the public domain to their own pockets as possible.
Who votes Tory in this thread? "
What have I told you about asking irrelevant questions  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
People who vote for the Tories seem to argue tooth and nail for the rights of the rich to be able to transfer as much wealth from the public domain to their own pockets as possible.
Who votes Tory in this thread?
What have I told you about asking irrelevant questions "
Bollocks, fell into the hole again! It does get dark in here but there are plenty of people to talk to  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
People who vote for the Tories seem to argue tooth and nail for the rights of the rich to be able to transfer as much wealth from the public domain to their own pockets as possible.
Who votes Tory in this thread?
No idea. What's this got to do with anything?
Perfect answer
Did you identify yourself as someone who argues tooth and nail for the rights of rich people to be allowed to transfer wealth from the tax payer to their own pocket, and assumed I was assuming that you're a Tory voter?
I did think you were calling me a tory voter in your reply, I wont know this unless you can be clear in your response to this whether you were or not, was you?
"
I haven't assumed you vote Tory, I am not accusing you of being a Tory voter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer. "
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue."
Do you feel you might be a little obsessed with this topic?
Is waste in the public sector unusual? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue."
I'm still unclear why you think I should be outraged right now and not after they have actually been found guilty of something... Found guilty by someone who has all of the information to hand and understands the law. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
I'm still unclear why you think I should be outraged right now and not after they have actually been found guilty of something... Found guilty by someone who has all of the information to hand and understands the law. "
Not sure it could be any clearer? You don’t mind a person in public office using that position to get hold of wealth your tax funded? Ok we have a very different moral compass, so be it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
Do you feel you might be a little obsessed with this topic?
Is waste in the public sector unusual?"
Is waste in the public sector acceptable? You start a fair few threads attacking the public sector, imc NHS. So why would personal enrichment outrage you less?
I find the thought processes of some quite odd and contradictory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
Do you feel you might be a little obsessed with this topic?
Is waste in the public sector unusual?
Is waste in the public sector acceptable? You start a fair few threads attacking the public sector, imc NHS. So why would personal enrichment outrage you less?
I find the thought processes of some quite odd and contradictory. "
I’m not aware that I “attack” anything. The NHS is not a sacred cow to me, nor should it be to anyone concerned about the quality of health care in the UK. The focus should be on providing a health system that can provide a decent standard of care for all, what exactly its form is for me is a total irrelevance. The same cannot be said for the “Our NHS” cultists.
Unfortunately like with many things in the UK, due to probably being a country which “developed” earlier so has more baggage, and due now mainly to vested interests, we have an ideological adherence to a failed healthcare system which we seem unable to detach ourselves from.
I live in Birmingham, where we have a bankrupt Council which will be costing those who fund it very dear going forward. Public sector waste and incompetence is very real, as it is with the NHS.
I’m just not sure why I should be uniquely concerned about some low level grifting by a bra saleswoman who saw an opportunity to drag some cash out of an incompetent government and public sector. Whatever money she has made it is likely peanuts in the scheme of things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
Do you feel you might be a little obsessed with this topic?
Is waste in the public sector unusual?"
No .. but “waste” as you put it is up from roughly 7bn for the 2yrs before the pandemic to about 20bn for the 2 years after….
So it looks like a lot of people may have made a lot of money
If you want a sense of what 20 billion is worth… if they could retrieve just 1 billion of that, that would be enough to completely pay off the junior doctors settlement..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
Do you feel you might be a little obsessed with this topic?
Is waste in the public sector unusual?
Is waste in the public sector acceptable? You start a fair few threads attacking the public sector, imc NHS. So why would personal enrichment outrage you less?
I find the thought processes of some quite odd and contradictory.
I’m not aware that I “attack” anything. The NHS is not a sacred cow to me, nor should it be to anyone concerned about the quality of health care in the UK. The focus should be on providing a health system that can provide a decent standard of care for all, what exactly its form is for me is a total irrelevance. The same cannot be said for the “Our NHS” cultists.
Unfortunately like with many things in the UK, due to probably being a country which “developed” earlier so has more baggage, and due now mainly to vested interests, we have an ideological adherence to a failed healthcare system which we seem unable to detach ourselves from.
I live in Birmingham, where we have a bankrupt Council which will be costing those who fund it very dear going forward. Public sector waste and incompetence is very real, as it is with the NHS.
I’m just not sure why I should be uniquely concerned about some low level grifting by a bra saleswoman who saw an opportunity to drag some cash out of an incompetent government and public sector. Whatever money she has made it is likely peanuts in the scheme of things."
But Birmingham city council are also in a bind because they have foot the cost of losing the equal pay case, so they will need to find hundreds of millions to back pay female workers….. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
Do you feel you might be a little obsessed with this topic?
Is waste in the public sector unusual?
Is waste in the public sector acceptable? You start a fair few threads attacking the public sector, imc NHS. So why would personal enrichment outrage you less?
I find the thought processes of some quite odd and contradictory.
I’m not aware that I “attack” anything. The NHS is not a sacred cow to me, nor should it be to anyone concerned about the quality of health care in the UK. The focus should be on providing a health system that can provide a decent standard of care for all, what exactly its form is for me is a total irrelevance. The same cannot be said for the “Our NHS” cultists.
Unfortunately like with many things in the UK, due to probably being a country which “developed” earlier so has more baggage, and due now mainly to vested interests, we have an ideological adherence to a failed healthcare system which we seem unable to detach ourselves from.
I live in Birmingham, where we have a bankrupt Council which will be costing those who fund it very dear going forward. Public sector waste and incompetence is very real, as it is with the NHS.
I’m just not sure why I should be uniquely concerned about some low level grifting by a bra saleswoman who saw an opportunity to drag some cash out of an incompetent government and public sector. Whatever money she has made it is likely peanuts in the scheme of things."
You think £60m is low level 
So by your rationale as long as it isn’t hundreds of millions or billions then it is ok and can be ignored! Utterly bizarre. Reckon £60m would have helped Birmingham Council though?
And if you are not uniquely concerned about Mone then why even bother posting in this thread. You have agency you know. Nobody forces you to open, read, and post in threads  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
I'm still unclear why you think I should be outraged right now and not after they have actually been found guilty of something... Found guilty by someone who has all of the information to hand and understands the law.
Not sure it could be any clearer? You don’t mind a person in public office using that position to get hold of wealth your tax funded? Ok we have a very different moral compass, so be it."
My moral compass is very clear, I want them in court and a full explanation from them and the government on how things actually played out.
Until then I will not be outraged.
One thing I want to understand, do you believe people in public office shouldn’t have business interests in any way?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
I'm still unclear why you think I should be outraged right now and not after they have actually been found guilty of something... Found guilty by someone who has all of the information to hand and understands the law.
Not sure it could be any clearer? You don’t mind a person in public office using that position to get hold of wealth your tax funded? Ok we have a very different moral compass, so be it.
My moral compass is very clear, I want them in court and a full explanation from them and the government on how things actually played out.
Until then I will not be outraged.
One thing I want to understand, do you believe people in public office shouldn’t have business interests in any way?
"
I believe people in public office should not have direct business interests in companies that will benefit from govt contracts or policy. Clearly that does not mean modest (non controlling) shareholding. But being a Director, NED, PSC, or ultimate beneficiary should not be allowed.
I also believe ex-public servants should be forbidden from having any professional relationship with any company that directly benefitted from govt policy over which that public servant had influence for a period of 5 years after leaving office. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
I'm still unclear why you think I should be outraged right now and not after they have actually been found guilty of something... Found guilty by someone who has all of the information to hand and understands the law.
Not sure it could be any clearer? You don’t mind a person in public office using that position to get hold of wealth your tax funded? Ok we have a very different moral compass, so be it.
My moral compass is very clear, I want them in court and a full explanation from them and the government on how things actually played out.
Until then I will not be outraged.
One thing I want to understand, do you believe people in public office shouldn’t have business interests in any way?
I believe people in public office should not have direct business interests in companies that will benefit from govt contracts or policy. Clearly that does not mean modest (non controlling) shareholding. But being a Director, NED, PSC, or ultimate beneficiary should not be allowed.
I also believe ex-public servants should be forbidden from having any professional relationship with any company that directly benefitted from govt policy over which that public servant had influence for a period of 5 years after leaving office."
Do you include the family of said public servants, question if they are servants who are their masters. A clue it ain't the public. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have to ask why some posters on here such as NotMe seem to not be outraged, or at least somewhat angry at a person in public office exploiting that position for personal enrichment at the expense of tax payers. Is that really acceptable to you? Are you really more interested in why them rather than why per se? I keep seeing posters making excuses for them. Why?
Yes the spotlight on them may be conveniently masking other embarrassments for the Govt. Does that give Mone/Barrowman a get out?
I will save my outrage for the court case, when the facts are scrutinised by professionals and a decision is made by a person who knows the laws and rules. Until then it is he said, she said no matter how obvious I or you think the answer is.
So let’s just say for a minute that Mone & Barrowman did nothing wrong regarding Medpro. Are you still not remotely outraged that someone in public office was able to use their privileged position to enrich their husband and themselves from the public purse? That is ok with you? It isn’t ok with me regardless of the rest of the accusations!
If they did nothing wrong what is there to punish?
You keep banging the drum on hearsay, I’m patiently awaiting real life evidence and cross examination of what has been accused. Has my position been anything other than that? My comment of I would like to see this in court and quickly…
I have questions, nobody here is qualified to answer.
Nope! My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
That is personal enrichment from public purse.
The rest of the stuff will need the NCA and DHSC to pursue.
I'm still unclear why you think I should be outraged right now and not after they have actually been found guilty of something... Found guilty by someone who has all of the information to hand and understands the law.
Not sure it could be any clearer? You don’t mind a person in public office using that position to get hold of wealth your tax funded? Ok we have a very different moral compass, so be it.
My moral compass is very clear, I want them in court and a full explanation from them and the government on how things actually played out.
Until then I will not be outraged.
One thing I want to understand, do you believe people in public office shouldn’t have business interests in any way?
I believe people in public office should not have direct business interests in companies that will benefit from govt contracts or policy. Clearly that does not mean modest (non controlling) shareholding. But being a Director, NED, PSC, or ultimate beneficiary should not be allowed.
I also believe ex-public servants should be forbidden from having any professional relationship with any company that directly benefitted from govt policy over which that public servant had influence for a period of 5 years after leaving office.
Do you include the family of said public servants, question if they are servants who are their masters. A clue it ain't the public."
Spouse yes. If they don’t like it don’t go into public office. Simple.
However, I also believe the salaries for MPs and Ministers should double but no more home flipping, much tighter controls on expenses and second jobs only allowed if they are meeting a minimum threshold of parliamentary and constituency business. Also believe an MP should have to live in their constituency and have done so for 3-5 years before they can be put forward as a candidate.
You’re correct re “public servant” but in a democracy they should be here to serve us not themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed."
Well, I'm going to dispute it, as what you've said isn't 'fact'.
The VIP Lane was open to everyone, not just Tory peers. You might claim that they wouldn't have listened to a Labour approach, but that's not Mone's fault.
Barrowman wasn't paid £60m from Medpro. That's the profit that Medpro made. Some of that went to company expenses, some of it went to other companies, and some went to trusts controlled by Barrowman. None of it ended up in his pocket.
Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids.
I'm sure someone is going to ask me why I'm defending them. I'm not. It all looks very dodgy to me. What I'm saying here is that some people's 'undisputed facts' are, in reality, just not true.
I'm with NotMe. I'll wait for the actual facts to come out, and then get busy condemning them accurately. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
Well, I'm going to dispute it, as what you've said isn't 'fact'.
The VIP Lane was open to everyone, not just Tory peers. You might claim that they wouldn't have listened to a Labour approach, but that's not Mone's fault.
Barrowman wasn't paid £60m from Medpro. That's the profit that Medpro made. Some of that went to company expenses, some of it went to other companies, and some went to trusts controlled by Barrowman. None of it ended up in his pocket.
Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids.
I'm sure someone is going to ask me why I'm defending them. I'm not. It all looks very dodgy to me. What I'm saying here is that some people's 'undisputed facts' are, in reality, just not true.
I'm with NotMe. I'll wait for the actual facts to come out, and then get busy condemning them accurately."
Profit is what is left after costs expenses tax including shareholders agents employes, 60 million is a lot of profit.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed."
"Well, I'm going to dispute it, as what you've said isn't 'fact'.
The VIP Lane was open to everyone, not just Tory peers. You might claim that they wouldn't have listened to a Labour approach, but that's not Mone's fault.
Barrowman wasn't paid £60m from Medpro. That's the profit that Medpro made. Some of that went to company expenses, some of it went to other companies, and some went to trusts controlled by Barrowman. None of it ended up in his pocket.
Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids.
I'm sure someone is going to ask me why I'm defending them. I'm not. It all looks very dodgy to me. What I'm saying here is that some people's 'undisputed facts' are, in reality, just not true.
I'm with NotMe. I'll wait for the actual facts to come out, and then get busy condemning them accurately."
"Profit is what is left after costs expenses tax including shareholders agents employes, 60 million is a lot of profit."
You're talking about net profit. The £60m figure was gross profit, which doesn't include expenses and overheads.
Yes, £60m is a lot of profit on a £209m contract. Too much I think. But as I said before, I'm not defending them, I'm just correcting some people's misunderstandings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ask yourself why they focus on this couple? Could it be to distract from who else has profited? Lots of wealthy established folk were on the take, these were just a little too overt about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Ask yourself why they focus on this couple? Could it be to distract from who else has profited? Lots of wealthy established folk were on the take, these were just a little too overt about it."
I want this to go to court, not settled, I want the facts and Mone is not afraid to throw anyone under the bus |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
Well, I'm going to dispute it, as what you've said isn't 'fact'.
The VIP Lane was open to everyone, not just Tory peers. You might claim that they wouldn't have listened to a Labour approach, but that's not Mone's fault.
Barrowman wasn't paid £60m from Medpro. That's the profit that Medpro made. Some of that went to company expenses, some of it went to other companies, and some went to trusts controlled by Barrowman. None of it ended up in his pocket.
Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids.
I'm sure someone is going to ask me why I'm defending them. I'm not. It all looks very dodgy to me. What I'm saying here is that some people's 'undisputed facts' are, in reality, just not true.
I'm with NotMe. I'll wait for the actual facts to come out, and then get busy condemning them accurately."
Your facts are wrong. I’ll come back on this eventually but on the £29m in Trust. Mone and her children are the only beneficiaries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ask yourself why they focus on this couple? Could it be to distract from who else has profited? Lots of wealthy established folk were on the take, these were just a little too overt about it."
they weren't overt, just bad at being covert!
I doubt the guardian would hesitate at outing any other MP, Lord, or Civil Servant who set up a business to make PPE. (Although I wouldn't be suprised if some took commission)
Did this then put them in the spot light to be sued by HMG ? Or are there others? I'm not sure.
I'm also not sure of the NCO came because of any of this or as well as. Or maybe HMG only started suing after NCO became involved and shone some unhelpful lights. Again, not sure.
She's getting media focus now because it's a huge shit storm that just keeps giving. And shit storms sell.
If there's a deeper truth in here it's just how opaque all these offshore companies are, how rich people disguise ownership and beneficial owners, how there are some interesting intra company loans to add to the confusion, and how many rich people will use struck off lawyers for some reason one can only speculate .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"My last point is demonstrable fact. Mone used her position to recommend Medpro through VIP lane (if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that). Barrowman was paid £60m by Medpro (a company that did not exist until then) off the back of the Govt contract. Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into. None of that is disputed.
Well, I'm going to dispute it, as what you've said isn't 'fact'.
The VIP Lane was open to everyone, not just Tory peers. You might claim that they wouldn't have listened to a Labour approach, but that's not Mone's fault.
Barrowman wasn't paid £60m from Medpro. That's the profit that Medpro made. Some of that went to company expenses, some of it went to other companies, and some went to trusts controlled by Barrowman. None of it ended up in his pocket.
Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids.
I'm sure someone is going to ask me why I'm defending them. I'm not. It all looks very dodgy to me. What I'm saying here is that some people's 'undisputed facts' are, in reality, just not true.
I'm with NotMe. I'll wait for the actual facts to come out, and then get busy condemning them accurately.
Your facts are wrong. I’ll come back on this eventually but on the £29m in Trust. Mone and her children are the only beneficiaries. "
How do you know that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids."
"Your facts are wrong. I’ll come back on this eventually but on the £29m in Trust. Mone and her children are the only beneficiaries."
Sloppy wording on my part. I said "Barrowman's family" by which I meant his wife and her kids. I didn't realise that he had kids of his own. But the rest is correct. The trust still only pays out on his death, and she'll still have to share it with her kids. Claiming that she received £29m is wildly inaccurate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids.
Your facts are wrong. I’ll come back on this eventually but on the £29m in Trust. Mone and her children are the only beneficiaries.
Sloppy wording on my part. I said "Barrowman's family" by which I meant his wife and her kids. I didn't realise that he had kids of his own. But the rest is correct. The trust still only pays out on his death, and she'll still have to share it with her kids. Claiming that she received £29m is wildly inaccurate."
Oh well that makes it all ok then, silly me! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Mr Discretion, in response to your points...
"The VIP Lane was open to everyone, not just Tory peers. You might claim that they wouldn't have listened to a Labour approach, but that's not Mone's fault."
I never said it was only open to Tory Peers! I stated two facts: 1) Only by virtue of Mone being a Peer was she able to access the VIP channel. 2) Mone is a Conservative Peer. Both those statements are true/fact.
However, if you want to focus on whether being a Tory provided additional advantage, that too is demonstrably true. I will quote the BMJ as hopefully you will accept them as a credible source?
“There were £1.6bn worth of contracts awarded as a result of referrals from Conservative politicians. No other political party successfully referred companies through this fast tracked route.
A report by the National Audit Office last year found that firms referred through the VIP lane had a 10 times greater success rate for securing contracts than companies whose bids were processed through normal channels.”
"Barrowman wasn't paid £60m from Medpro. That's the profit that Medpro made. Some of that went to company expenses, some of it went to other companies, and some went to trusts controlled by Barrowman. None of it ended up in his pocket."
I can only really assume from your response (and later response to Buddy) that you have never owned or had significant shareholding in a LTD company or LLP? Or I am missing some nuance in your argument. Apologies if you have but maybe we need to spell it out:
1. Based on my understanding Barrowman personally received £60m (leaked bank docs).
2. If you own a company the “money” in that company is not yours, it is the company’s.
3. Medpro received c.£203m out of which they would have needed to pay suppliers, logistics, operating costs (inc salaries, office, banking costs, business rates etc). That would then leave them with a gross (pre-tax) profit. At that point they would need to pay Corporation Tax (although I believe Medpro is registered in the IoM so is not subject to UK taxes). That then leaves net profit. You can only (legally) pay dividends from net profit. So if Barrowman received £60m that has to be from net profit.
4. Interestingly Barrowman could have got around this by having a consultancy contract with Medpro that would pay him £Xm or X% for his involvement in negotiations and finders fee. However, Barrowman has admitted to being the “ultimate beneficiary” of Medpro so cannot now claim that. That also means he was a/the Person with Significant Control (PSC) that should be declared and wasn’t (legal ramifications I believe) and that the shares were being held on his behalf and for his benefit.
"Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids."
Not sure how that changes anything/much? Mone and kids will benefit from £29m of our tax funded money. How do you know if they can only access the money in the trust when Barrowman dies? Why is your source accepted but other sources questioned? Do you know how the trust is structured? Mone and kids splitting equally? Mone first and kids access when she dies? Mone majority kids less?
I don’t pay my taxes for that to line the pockets of a privileged few and their families regardless of when or how they receive it! Do you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"Mr Discretion, in response to your points...
The VIP Lane was open to everyone, not just Tory peers. You might claim that they wouldn't have listened to a Labour approach, but that's not Mone's fault.
I never said it was only open to Tory Peers! I stated two facts: 1) Only by virtue of Mone being a Peer was she able to access the VIP channel. 2) Mone is a Conservative Peer. Both those statements are true/fact.
However, if you want to focus on whether being a Tory provided additional advantage, that too is demonstrably true. I will quote the BMJ as hopefully you will accept them as a credible source?
“There were £1.6bn worth of contracts awarded as a result of referrals from Conservative politicians. No other political party successfully referred companies through this fast tracked route.
A report by the National Audit Office last year found that firms referred through the VIP lane had a 10 times greater success rate for securing contracts than companies whose bids were processed through normal channels.”
Barrowman wasn't paid £60m from Medpro. That's the profit that Medpro made. Some of that went to company expenses, some of it went to other companies, and some went to trusts controlled by Barrowman. None of it ended up in his pocket.
I can only really assume from your response (and later response to Buddy) that you have never owned or had significant shareholding in a LTD company or LLP? Or I am missing some nuance in your argument. Apologies if you have but maybe we need to spell it out:
1. Based on my understanding Barrowman personally received £60m (leaked bank docs).
2. If you own a company the “money” in that company is not yours, it is the company’s.
3. Medpro received c.£203m out of which they would have needed to pay suppliers, logistics, operating costs (inc salaries, office, banking costs, business rates etc). That would then leave them with a gross (pre-tax) profit. At that point they would need to pay Corporation Tax (although I believe Medpro is registered in the IoM so is not subject to UK taxes). That then leaves net profit. You can only (legally) pay dividends from net profit. So if Barrowman received £60m that has to be from net profit.
4. Interestingly Barrowman could have got around this by having a consultancy contract with Medpro that would pay him £Xm or X% for his involvement in negotiations and finders fee. However, Barrowman has admitted to being the “ultimate beneficiary” of Medpro so cannot now claim that. That also means he was a/the Person with Significant Control (PSC) that should be declared and wasn’t (legal ramifications I believe) and that the shares were being held on his behalf and for his benefit.
Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids.
Not sure how that changes anything/much? Mone and kids will benefit from £29m of our tax funded money. How do you know if they can only access the money in the trust when Barrowman dies? Why is your source accepted but other sources questioned? Do you know how the trust is structured? Mone and kids splitting equally? Mone first and kids access when she dies? Mone majority kids less?
I don’t pay my taxes for that to line the pockets of a privileged few and their families regardless of when or how they receive it! Do you?"
lol thats all you have ever done if you pay taxes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mr Discretion, in response to your points...
The VIP Lane was open to everyone, not just Tory peers. You might claim that they wouldn't have listened to a Labour approach, but that's not Mone's fault.
I never said it was only open to Tory Peers! I stated two facts: 1) Only by virtue of Mone being a Peer was she able to access the VIP channel. 2) Mone is a Conservative Peer. Both those statements are true/fact.
However, if you want to focus on whether being a Tory provided additional advantage, that too is demonstrably true. I will quote the BMJ as hopefully you will accept them as a credible source?
“There were £1.6bn worth of contracts awarded as a result of referrals from Conservative politicians. No other political party successfully referred companies through this fast tracked route.
A report by the National Audit Office last year found that firms referred through the VIP lane had a 10 times greater success rate for securing contracts than companies whose bids were processed through normal channels.”
Barrowman wasn't paid £60m from Medpro. That's the profit that Medpro made. Some of that went to company expenses, some of it went to other companies, and some went to trusts controlled by Barrowman. None of it ended up in his pocket.
I can only really assume from your response (and later response to Buddy) that you have never owned or had significant shareholding in a LTD company or LLP? Or I am missing some nuance in your argument. Apologies if you have but maybe we need to spell it out:
1. Based on my understanding Barrowman personally received £60m (leaked bank docs).
2. If you own a company the “money” in that company is not yours, it is the company’s.
3. Medpro received c.£203m out of which they would have needed to pay suppliers, logistics, operating costs (inc salaries, office, banking costs, business rates etc). That would then leave them with a gross (pre-tax) profit. At that point they would need to pay Corporation Tax (although I believe Medpro is registered in the IoM so is not subject to UK taxes). That then leaves net profit. You can only (legally) pay dividends from net profit. So if Barrowman received £60m that has to be from net profit.
4. Interestingly Barrowman could have got around this by having a consultancy contract with Medpro that would pay him £Xm or X% for his involvement in negotiations and finders fee. However, Barrowman has admitted to being the “ultimate beneficiary” of Medpro so cannot now claim that. That also means he was a/the Person with Significant Control (PSC) that should be declared and wasn’t (legal ramifications I believe) and that the shares were being held on his behalf and for his benefit.
Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids.
Not sure how that changes anything/much? Mone and kids will benefit from £29m of our tax funded money. How do you know if they can only access the money in the trust when Barrowman dies? Why is your source accepted but other sources questioned? Do you know how the trust is structured? Mone and kids splitting equally? Mone first and kids access when she dies? Mone majority kids less?
I don’t pay my taxes for that to line the pockets of a privileged few and their families regardless of when or how they receive it! Do you?lol thats all you have ever done if you pay taxes"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Apparently Barrowman/Mone are having a bit if a firesale of their assets and Mone’s bank accounts have been frozen!
Is she taking cash only for these assets? "
Good question! The article did not say if Barrowman’s accounts were frozen, only mentioned Mone. In fact I presume (anyone know) the NCA can probably only freeze bank accounts within the UK not worldwide? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Strictly speaking the companies/trusts that hold these assets are selling them...
They just happen to benefit from using them.
Who knows why these companies have a need for liquidity ATM ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Strictly speaking the companies/trusts that hold these assets are selling them...
They just happen to benefit from using them.
Who knows why these companies have a need for liquidity ATM ... "
Quite right. A lot (most? All?) of their assets are owned by companies or trusts. It appears Barrowman hid his involvement in some of those companies too! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The VIP Lane was open to everyone, not just Tory peers. You might claim that they wouldn't have listened to a Labour approach, but that's not Mone's fault."
"I never said it was only open to Tory Peers! I stated two facts: 1) Only by virtue of Mone being a Peer was she able to access the VIP channel. 2) Mone is a Conservative Peer. Both those statements are true/fact."
What you actually said was "if she had not been a Conservative Peer she could not have done that". That's inaccurate, she could have done it if she was any sort of politically connected person. She didn't have to be a peer, or a Conservative.
"However, if you want to focus on whether being a Tory provided additional advantage ..."
It probably did, but again, that's not Mone's fault.
"I can only really assume from your response (and later response to Buddy) that you have never owned or had significant shareholding in a LTD company or LLP? Or I am missing some nuance in your argument."
I think there's some misunderstanding here. I currently have multiple company directorships.
"1. Based on my understanding Barrowman personally received £60m (leaked bank docs)."
I don't know where you got that from, but it doesn't match up with other sources. Again, I'm not trying to prove that I am right, just that the facts are not clear and undisputed.
"3. Medpro received c.£203m out of which they would have needed to pay suppliers, logistics, operating costs (inc salaries, office, banking costs, business rates etc). That would then leave them with a gross (pre-tax) profit."
Gross profit is the difference between the direct costs of supply, and the remuneration received. In this case that means the contract value, minus the cost of the PPE and shipping (and possibly import duties).
Net profit is the one that includes operating costs and overheads.
"Mone did not receive £29m. That money was paid to a trust that covers Barrowman's family if he dies. So she might get some of it in the future if he dies before her, or she might get none. Even if he dies tomorrow, she'll have to share it with the kids."
"Not sure how that changes anything/much? Mone and kids will benefit from £29m of our tax funded money."
You originally said "Mone received £29m via a trust Barrowman paid into". Apart from the word 'trust', all of that is wrong. Mone hasn't received anything yet, if she does it won't be £29m, and the money didn't come from Barrowman it came from one of his companies or trusts.
"How do you know if they can only access the money in the trust when Barrowman dies?"
Because that's what she said in the BBC interview. I'm going to assume that the BBC has done some sort of corroboration.
"Why is your source accepted but other sources questioned?"
Again, I'm not attempting to defend them, or to prove that I'm cleverer than you. All I'm doing is pointing out that your 'indisputable facts' are actually disputed and possibly not facts.
Wait for the enquiry / court case, and then you'll have lots of cast iron evidence to attack her with (though probably not as much as you would like). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
I can see (and should know by now) that semantics and a pedants approach to every word I use in my post is required Mr Discretion.
Not going over it again because we can go in circles over what was meant or how it was interpreted. I know what I was saying and you know how you read it. So an impasse!
BTW:
Sales - direct costs = gross profit - overheads = net profit
The difference between gross profit and net profit is operating expenses and taxes.
Net profit is surplus “cash” after all expenses have been paid that can be distributed to business owners or reinvested into the business.
Hence Barrowman receiving £60m in dividends must be from net profit (I think you may be referring to operating profit?) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I can see (and should know by now) that semantics and a pedants approach to every word I use in my post is required Mr Discretion.
Not going over it again because we can go in circles over what was meant or how it was interpreted. I know what I was saying and you know how you read it. So an impasse!
BTW:
Sales - direct costs = gross profit - overheads = net profit
The difference between gross profit and net profit is operating expenses and taxes.
Net profit is surplus “cash” after all expenses have been paid that can be distributed to business owners or reinvested into the business.
Hence Barrowman receiving £60m in dividends must be from net profit (I think you may be referring to operating profit?) "
Just read that back, so to be REALLY precise...
Net profit is surplus “cash” after all expenses (ie operating expenses and taxes) have been paid that can be distributed to business owners or reinvested into the business.
And a question to you MrD...
As you are a Company Director (multiple) I assume you may also hold shares in these companies (you may not of course). Are your dividends paid pre or post Corporation Tax? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Everything and everyone is paid before tax is levied, a shareholder would be a bit riled if they had to pay tax twice before they receive the payment or dividend and then on their own personal tax liability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Everything and everyone is paid before tax is levied, a shareholder would be a bit riled if they had to pay tax twice before they receive the payment or dividend and then on their own personal tax liability. "
Not sure what your point is or how it is relevant to the discussion?
The company pays corporation tax BEFORE they are then able to pay any dividends to shareholders. Then the shareholder has to pay dividend tax on the income they receive via the dividend. That doesn’t change even if the own 100% of the company. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net profit is surplus “cash” after all expenses have been paid that can be distributed to business owners or reinvested into the business.
Hence Barrowman receiving £60m in dividends must be from net profit (I think you may be referring to operating profit?) "
That's only true if he did actually receive £60m. I've seen no evidence to support that, but I have seen a report stating that Medpro made £60m gross profit on the PPE deals.
All of which goes to bolster my only argument, which is that the facts are not clear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Net profit is surplus “cash” after all expenses have been paid that can be distributed to business owners or reinvested into the business.
Hence Barrowman receiving £60m in dividends must be from net profit (I think you may be referring to operating profit?)
That's only true if he did actually receive £60m. I've seen no evidence to support that, but I have seen a report stating that Medpro made £60m gross profit on the PPE deals.
All of which goes to bolster my only argument, which is that the facts are not clear."
I have seen multiple articles by a variety of sources citing £60m or £65m. Also that Barrowman is the ultimate beneficiary. Also that leaked docs from HSBC show Medpro paying the £60-65m direct to Barrowman. That Medpro’s accounts showed only £900k.
But yes let’s see how this pans out and then we can discuss it again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Net profit is surplus “cash” after all expenses have been paid that can be distributed to business owners or reinvested into the business.
Hence Barrowman receiving £60m in dividends must be from net profit (I think you may be referring to operating profit?)
That's only true if he did actually receive £60m. I've seen no evidence to support that, but I have seen a report stating that Medpro made £60m gross profit on the PPE deals.
All of which goes to bolster my only argument, which is that the facts are not clear.
I have seen multiple articles by a variety of sources citing £60m or £65m. Also that Barrowman is the ultimate beneficiary. Also that leaked docs from HSBC show Medpro paying the £60-65m direct to Barrowman. That Medpro’s accounts showed only £900k.
But yes let’s see how this pans out and then we can discuss it again "
These pesky banks leaking documents again or letting documents leak… didn’t end well last time that happened, I seem to recall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Net profit is surplus “cash” after all expenses have been paid that can be distributed to business owners or reinvested into the business.
Hence Barrowman receiving £60m in dividends must be from net profit (I think you may be referring to operating profit?)
That's only true if he did actually receive £60m. I've seen no evidence to support that, but I have seen a report stating that Medpro made £60m gross profit on the PPE deals.
All of which goes to bolster my only argument, which is that the facts are not clear.
I have seen multiple articles by a variety of sources citing £60m or £65m. Also that Barrowman is the ultimate beneficiary. Also that leaked docs from HSBC show Medpro paying the £60-65m direct to Barrowman. That Medpro’s accounts showed only £900k.
But yes let’s see how this pans out and then we can discuss it again
These pesky banks leaking documents again or letting documents leak… didn’t end well last time that happened, I seem to recall."
No it didn’t and I am sure HSBC will be reviewing how this happened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Bump as suspect that part of those is linked to the x statement
https://twitter.com/MichelleMone/status/1741746468329840866?t=VfAr5_aGVOaza7aSE0zR0g&s=19
I agree the procurement review needs to be asap as this is core to running a successful government.
I've not checked their many numbers. Or statements about being the only one in civil courts etc. I will take as read. But these only act to argue they are scapegoats (quite possibly) rather than done anything wrong.
There are 3 issues afoot imo, and this maybe covers one.
These issues are
1) lack of public disclosure from Mone
2) whether contracts were delivered
3) any legal issues above and beyond this.
This letter address the second only.
On transoatency, The claim of many thousands of emaits is interesting. Love to see them. But it just makes HMG more complicit.
Because this was all hidden from the public. Afaik there was no declaration from Mone about her involvement. And didn't she threaten legal action against those suggesting it?
And secondly there is the legality of it all. The web of companies, and shareholders, and (apparently) missing person of significant control from company house. (Which is potentially criminal). That's an issue too. I'm sure that happens all the time, but again, not addressed in the letter.
I'm interested in this bit as it's become a fascinating insight into the very wealthy. A case study of the loops people take to disguise wealth and influence. It's almost an aside to the actually PPE or Tory element.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bump as suspect that part of those is linked to the x statement
https://twitter.com/MichelleMone/status/1741746468329840866?t=VfAr5_aGVOaza7aSE0zR0g&s=19
I agree the procurement review needs to be asap as this is core to running a successful government.
I've not checked their many numbers. Or statements about being the only one in civil courts etc. I will take as read. But these only act to argue they are scapegoats (quite possibly) rather than done anything wrong.
There are 3 issues afoot imo, and this maybe covers one.
These issues are
1) lack of public disclosure from Mone
2) whether contracts were delivered
3) any legal issues above and beyond this.
This letter address the second only.
On transoatency, The claim of many thousands of emaits is interesting. Love to see them. But it just makes HMG more complicit.
Because this was all hidden from the public. Afaik there was no declaration from Mone about her involvement. And didn't she threaten legal action against those suggesting it?
And secondly there is the legality of it all. The web of companies, and shareholders, and (apparently) missing person of significant control from company house. (Which is potentially criminal). That's an issue too. I'm sure that happens all the time, but again, not addressed in the letter.
I'm interested in this bit as it's become a fascinating insight into the very wealthy. A case study of the loops people take to disguise wealth and influence. It's almost an aside to the actually PPE or Tory element.
"
Seemingly quiet on this form people who believed everything else on twitter.
Mone is correct her husband could dilute the process however he wanted.
She wasn't linked to the company in any form. But ofcourse aided in setting up the procurement process.
If the emails exist and form all the evidence( hence why you haven't see it yet hovis) it should absolutely dispel the idea she's guilty.
The more pressing one for me is finding out if dhsc were just utterly and completely incompetent.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Bump as suspect that part of those is linked to the x statement
https://twitter.com/MichelleMone/status/1741746468329840866?t=VfAr5_aGVOaza7aSE0zR0g&s=19
I agree the procurement review needs to be asap as this is core to running a successful government.
I've not checked their many numbers. Or statements about being the only one in civil courts etc. I will take as read. But these only act to argue they are scapegoats (quite possibly) rather than done anything wrong.
There are 3 issues afoot imo, and this maybe covers one.
These issues are
1) lack of public disclosure from Mone
2) whether contracts were delivered
3) any legal issues above and beyond this.
This letter address the second only.
On transoatency, The claim of many thousands of emaits is interesting. Love to see them. But it just makes HMG more complicit.
Because this was all hidden from the public. Afaik there was no declaration from Mone about her involvement. And didn't she threaten legal action against those suggesting it?
And secondly there is the legality of it all. The web of companies, and shareholders, and (apparently) missing person of significant control from company house. (Which is potentially criminal). That's an issue too. I'm sure that happens all the time, but again, not addressed in the letter.
I'm interested in this bit as it's become a fascinating insight into the very wealthy. A case study of the loops people take to disguise wealth and influence. It's almost an aside to the actually PPE or Tory element.
Seemingly quiet on this form people who believed everything else on twitter.
Mone is correct her husband could dilute the process however he wanted.
She wasn't linked to the company in any form. But ofcourse aided in setting up the procurement process.
If the emails exist and form all the evidence( hence why you haven't see it yet hovis) it should absolutely dispel the idea she's guilty.
The more pressing one for me is finding out if dhsc were just utterly and completely incompetent.
"
If there is truly nothing in this, then the National Crime Agency have spent a shit tonne of time, resource, and money investigating it for nothing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
"Bump as suspect that part of those is linked to the x statement
https://twitter.com/MichelleMone/status/1741746468329840866?t=VfAr5_aGVOaza7aSE0zR0g&s=19
I agree the procurement review needs to be asap as this is core to running a successful government.
I've not checked their many numbers. Or statements about being the only one in civil courts etc. I will take as read. But these only act to argue they are scapegoats (quite possibly) rather than done anything wrong.
There are 3 issues afoot imo, and this maybe covers one.
These issues are
1) lack of public disclosure from Mone
2) whether contracts were delivered
3) any legal issues above and beyond this.
This letter address the second only.
On transoatency, The claim of many thousands of emaits is interesting. Love to see them. But it just makes HMG more complicit.
Because this was all hidden from the public. Afaik there was no declaration from Mone about her involvement. And didn't she threaten legal action against those suggesting it?
And secondly there is the legality of it all. The web of companies, and shareholders, and (apparently) missing person of significant control from company house. (Which is potentially criminal). That's an issue too. I'm sure that happens all the time, but again, not addressed in the letter.
I'm interested in this bit as it's become a fascinating insight into the very wealthy. A case study of the loops people take to disguise wealth and influence. It's almost an aside to the actually PPE or Tory element.
Seemingly quiet on this form people who believed everything else on twitter.
Mone is correct her husband could dilute the process however he wanted.
She wasn't linked to the company in any form. But ofcourse aided in setting up the procurement process.
If the emails exist and form all the evidence( hence why you haven't see it yet hovis) it should absolutely dispel the idea she's guilty.
The more pressing one for me is finding out if dhsc were just utterly and completely incompetent.
"
I particularly enjoyed reading the 3rd line
"she wasn't linked to the company in any form . But of course aided in setting up the procurement process"
If nothing else , it made me smile  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Bump as suspect that part of those is linked to the x statement
https://twitter.com/MichelleMone/status/1741746468329840866?t=VfAr5_aGVOaza7aSE0zR0g&s=19
I agree the procurement review needs to be asap as this is core to running a successful government.
I've not checked their many numbers. Or statements about being the only one in civil courts etc. I will take as read. But these only act to argue they are scapegoats (quite possibly) rather than done anything wrong.
There are 3 issues afoot imo, and this maybe covers one.
These issues are
1) lack of public disclosure from Mone
2) whether contracts were delivered
3) any legal issues above and beyond this.
This letter address the second only.
On transoatency, The claim of many thousands of emaits is interesting. Love to see them. But it just makes HMG more complicit.
Because this was all hidden from the public. Afaik there was no declaration from Mone about her involvement. And didn't she threaten legal action against those suggesting it?
And secondly there is the legality of it all. The web of companies, and shareholders, and (apparently) missing person of significant control from company house. (Which is potentially criminal). That's an issue too. I'm sure that happens all the time, but again, not addressed in the letter.
I'm interested in this bit as it's become a fascinating insight into the very wealthy. A case study of the loops people take to disguise wealth and influence. It's almost an aside to the actually PPE or Tory element.
Seemingly quiet on this form people who believed everything else on twitter.
Mone is correct her husband could dilute the process however he wanted.
She wasn't linked to the company in any form. But ofcourse aided in setting up the procurement process.
If the emails exist and form all the evidence( hence why you haven't see it yet hovis) it should absolutely dispel the idea she's guilty.
The more pressing one for me is finding out if dhsc were just utterly and completely incompetent.
I particularly enjoyed reading the 3rd line
"she wasn't linked to the company in any form . But of course aided in setting up the procurement process"
If nothing else , it made me smile "
Come on Baroness Mone, the successful bra millionaire business woman (before she ever met Barrowman), had simply no idea that the company she was requesting be included in the VIP lane, that had not yet been incorporated, had anything to do with her husband. She was clearly so naive in terms of her knowledge on how businesses work that she didn’t feel the need to check into the company she was personally sponsoring that would therefore put her reputation on the line!
She was clearly amazed and surprised when her husband paid £29m into an offshore trust that she and her kids benefit from as she really only thought he might buy her a Louis Vuitton handbag as a thanks for the intro to Govt procurement.
I do feel sorry for Mone and Barrowman as they clearly did not mean to deliberately conceal their involvement in, or connection to, Medpro and it obviously and genuinely had nothing to do with Barrowman’s Knox Group being investigated and fined by HMRC for operating illegal tax avoidance schemes. They are both clearly victims in all this and were just altruistically doing their bit to help the nation during an emergency.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Oh and on further reflection you have to also feel sorry for Mone and Barrowman that their relationship is not one where a wife is aware of her husband’s business activity in any way. Must have been pure coincidence that Barrowman could set up a business to take advantage of a procurement route 10 times more likely to be successful and his wife just so happened to be in a position to access that route. What luck! What happy coincidence! Doubt they’d even mentioned it to each other before that! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
