Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Establishment networking, sleaze and corruption. A handy compendium.

Although the who is important too. From one of the documents referred to at the beginning of the thread:
  • PPE Medpro won two contracts worth over £200m to supply PPE to the NHS. The £100 company, set up by the former business associate of Conservative peer Baroness Mone, won the contract just seven weeks after it was set up.
  • SG Recruitment UK Limited, a staffing agency, won two PPE contracts worth over £50m, despite auditors raising concerns about its solvency. Tory Peer Lord Chadlington sits on the Board of its parent company, Sumner Group Holdings Limited.
  • P14 Medical Limited, controlled by former Conservative Councillor Steve Dechan, who stood down in August this year, was awarded three contracts worth over £276m despite having negative £485,000 in net assets.
Companies seemingly totally unsuitable to receive major contracts with (as I recall) no competitive bidding process. But if we're going to suggest corruption for any company linked to a Conservative :rolleyes:
 
Although the who is important too. From one of the documents referred to at the beginning of the thread:
  • PPE Medpro won two contracts worth over £200m to supply PPE to the NHS. The £100 company, set up by the former business associate of Conservative peer Baroness Mone, won the contract just seven weeks after it was set up.
  • SG Recruitment UK Limited, a staffing agency, won two PPE contracts worth over £50m, despite auditors raising concerns about its solvency. Tory Peer Lord Chadlington sits on the Board of its parent company, Sumner Group Holdings Limited.
  • P14 Medical Limited, controlled by former Conservative Councillor Steve Dechan, who stood down in August this year, was awarded three contracts worth over £276m despite having negative £485,000 in net assets.
Companies seemingly totally unsuitable to receive major contracts with (as I recall) no competitive bidding process. But if we're going to suggest corruption for any company linked to a Conservative :rolleyes:
I guess my point is that if there is a bidding process which is at least notionally transparent, then we're a step closer to making sure these contracts go to companies who stand a chance of fulfilling them at a reasonable cost. But yes - it's no guarantee that it's not corrupt. I mean, in theory, the Government could ensure that only favoured companies were shortlisted...and, given that they're pretty brazen about what they're doing now, it's probably almost inevitable that something like that will be going on for those rare contracts that might actually be subject to tender, rather than the mate network...
 
Hmmm are the government a bit concerned? Possibliy.

from the Good Law Project

Update on Abingdon Health: A cover-up

On 21st January, Government wrote to our lawyers to say that they had cancelled, with immediate effect, all outstanding orders placed with Abingdon Health for antibody lateral flow tests, because they had failed to gain approval from the MHRA for home use of those tests.
Government also confirmed that they won’t be placing any more orders under their existing contract with Abingdon Health.
Abingdon Health did not disclose this to the market when it issued a trading update yesterday
The letter from the Government Legal Department can be read here.
 
Last edited:

It’s time to put an end to the COVID-19 goldrush. Government must conduct a full review of the companies who did not deliver adequate PPE and recover the profits from those who benefitted.

Will you sign the petition and demand the money wasted on duff PPE is recovered?
 
A new proposed law that would hold the Government to account for awarding contracts to its chums, has passed its first House of Commons hurdle.

Presented to the Commons by Scottish National Party MP Owen Thompson this afternoon, the Bill received the assent of MPs in the chamber – which means it will now be the subject of a formal parliamentary debate and vote.

The Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill would ensure that MPs can interrogate ministers in the House of Commons about any personal, political or financial connections they may have to a company that is awarded a Government contract.

 
Es01TH-XYAgVaGw
 
Absolute cunts, not only are they attempting to drown GLP in paperwork but now this:

Correspondence with Government has revealed they expect to spend a staggering £1 million defending our judicial review of their decisions to award contracts criticised by the NAO. This is a sum unprecedented in our lawyers’ experience of judicial review proceedings. We can’t but wonder whether they are trying to scare us off – using the bottomless public purse to avoid accountability to the public.

Government also says, remarkably, that finding out whether they acted lawfully in channelling hundreds of millions or billions to their VIP associates, is not in the public interest.

We had until recently been working on the understanding that we had raised enough money for our challenges to Government’s awards of hundreds of millions of pounds of PPE contracts to Pestfix, Ayanda, and Clandeboye.

We were shocked to learn that – having failed to provide the evidence we’ve been asking for since July – Government is threatening a vast disclosure exercise going well beyond what would normally be undertaken in a judicial review. And not just that they have hired an expensive international commercial law firm. They expect to have a team of 30-40 working for up to 3 months on an exercise that has not been requested by us, or by the Court.

In the experience of our legal team, costs incurred by Government in judicial review proceedings rarely exceed £100,000. Here Government says it has already spent over £325,000, and estimates their total costs will amount to £1 million – a staggering sum for a judicial review.

Government knows full well that we cannot take existential risk on bringing a single case. So we wrote to Government asking it to agree and order ‘capping’ both our costs and the taxpayers’ costs in these public interest proceedings.

We were shocked this week to receive their response contending that the litigation is not in the public interest, and refusing our proposed reciprocal cap: “In particular our client does not agree that the proceedings are ‘public interest proceedings'”. These are cases involving on Government’s own admission hundreds of millions of pounds being spent on unusable facemasks on companies that went through the VIP lane.

Not in the public interest? What are they on!

The point is all the more remarkable given that a barrister employed by the Government Legal Department in her witness statement of 30 November stated that: “We acknowledge that there is considerable public interest in Covid related procurement, particularly of PPE.”

We have now applied to the court for a Cost Cap. In line with our transparency principles I am publishing my Witness Statement. But if we don’t get one, unless a white knight or white knights emerge, the simple fact is we will have to abandon the litigation. We are not in a position to bear a £1 million risk.
 
More dirty tricks:

Mirror piece on this:


but apparently Lee Swain's witness statement has been withdrawn because it wasn't signed.

 
We shall see what doesn't come of this.

Country is fucked for what the Government have been allowed to get away with. Where are the journalists? No-one is holding them to account. :mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom