It’s all kicking off in Bristol

[FoxEye]

They won't, and likely pathetic lap dogs will vote them in again, lapping up the everyone else's fault rhetoric. Divide, misdirect, profit.

Well, we can hope.

Professor Robert Barrington, from the Centre for the Study of Corruption at the University of Sussex, told The Independent that the PPE procurement episode “suggests either corruption or incompetence”, and that there are “more than enough red flags to merit a thorough and independent investigation”.

A few MPs have suggested they want an independent review. Let's hope they follow through.

 

[a1ex2001]

You guys don't have a clue. A competitive tendering process with such a dynamic market? lol.

"Chaps you have 5 days to listen, 5 days to respond, 5 days to come to orals"... yeah right, hundreds would be dead already.

And by the way, awarding a contract doesn't mean cash left the bank. There is a thing called a Goods Receipt and Invoice Receipt as part of a 3 way match. Whilst source to contract may have been expedited allowing quality escapes, no one is getting paid unless something is delivered.

massive amounts of the money was handed over up front to nobodies while people who actually did this sort of thing normally were ignored despite practically begging the government to talk to them. The process was a mess some of it came off and some of it didn’t and a disproportionate amount of money went to friends of the Tory party.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Much of the PPE ordered couldn't be used as it didn't meet UK safety standards.

The only thing that happened is associates of the Tory party made bank.

I look forward to the review of govt spending when this is all over, and I sincerely hope heads roll.

'Much'? Define much... there was some that got rejected because it had elastic not string. It was a the height of the pandemic, the 'peak' not yet reached...

massive amounts of the money was handed over up front to nobodies while people who actually did this sort of thing normally were ignored despite practically begging the government to talk to them. The process was a mess some of it came off and some of it didn’t and a disproportionate amount of money went to friends of the Tory party.

A contract doesn't constitute a transfer of money, but you know that.

They won't, and likely pathetic lap dogs will vote them in again, lapping up the everyone else's fault rhetoric. Divide, misdirect, profit.

Who else is there to vote in? Captain hindsight who helped a child molester?

 

[a1ex2001]

'Much'? Define much... there was some that got rejected because it had elastic not string. It was a the height of the pandemic, the 'peak' not yet reached...


A contract doesn't constitute a transfer of money, but you know that.


Who else is there to vote in? Captain hindsight who helped a child molester?

No but is a stated fact that the government made massive down payments based on very very little there was a lady in the bbc who was given millions before delivery of anything who had never supplied PPE to anyone in her life and countless other examples. I no way think that every deal was a failure but there were plenty that were and the sway towards Tory party friends is corruption in the open. Even the daily Mail is ripping the government for it and they wouldn’t care if Boris plucked the wings off a thousand fairies live on National tv.

 

[d_brennen]

Who else is there to vote in? Captain hindsight who helped a child molester?

Literally anyone else? Unless of course, you secretly enjoy being taken for a ride and sneered at

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Literally anyone else? Unless of course, you secretly enjoy being taken for a ride and sneered at

It's a two party system until something drastic happens and you know that.

No but is a stated fact that the government made massive down payments based on very very little there was a lady in the bbc who was given 20 million before delivery of anything who had never supplied PPE to anyone in her life and countless other examples. I no way think that every deal was a failure but there were plenty that were and the sway towards Tory party friends is corruption in the open.

I've heard some of the sensationalist headlines but most turned out to be click bait where what was delivered was paid for, some were not fit for purpose due to the exacting standards that the NHS wouldn't concede on (but were still used/sold elsewhere) and some non-delivered (and therefore not paid for). Is there a full list of what vendors were used and how much was spent with nothing delivered? And what interests MPs (Tory or otherwise) had in those organisations?

I mean the whole thing reads like a fantastic movie, if it was true. But it really isn't. Is it?

 

[robfosters]

Literally anyone else? Unless of course, you secretly enjoy being taken for a ride and sneered at

Compared to Starmer, Davey or god forbid, Sturgeon, it’s a worthy sacrifice.

 

[FoxEye]

'Much'? Define much... there was some that got rejected because it had elastic not string. It was a the height of the pandemic, the 'peak' not yet reached...

"Much," as in, millions of items of PPE. Costing £millions.

The billions spent by the UK government on fighting Covid need proper scrutiny | Health policy | The Guardian

The sums are staggering, as is the potential for waste. In August it was reported that 50m face masks unsuitable for the NHS cost the Treasury £155m: they came from a contract worth £252m with Ayanda Capital, a firm with a senior adviser who was also an adviser to the UK Board of Trade at the Department for International Trade. The NAO found multiple shortcomings with deals signed with Ayanda and Public First.

....

On Friday, a high court judge ruled that Matt Hancock, the health secretary, acted unlawfully by not publishing details of multibillion-pound government Covid contracts. The case was also taken by the Good Law Project, which highlighted three PPE contracts: “A £252m contract for the supply of face masks with a finance company, Ayanda Capital; a £108m contract with Clandeboye Agencies, which had previously supplied only confectionery products, and PPE contracts worth £345m with a company trading as Pestfix.” It claims that the government has failed to publish such contracts in a timely manner, hampering scrutiny and transparency.

They've literally already been found to be acting unlawfully. Not that the electorate will care.

There are multiple similar stories btw about PPE items being unsuitable and not able to be used.

 

[Malevolence]

The blatant and open procurement corruption that the Tories indulged in.

Yes, but if it were a Labour government it would be just as bad, if not worse. They're all as corrupt and as bad as each other.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

"Much," as in, millions of items of PPE. Costing £millions.

The billions spent by the UK government on fighting Covid need proper scrutiny | Health policy | The Guardian



They've literally already been found to be acting unlawfully. Not that the electorate will care.

There are multiple similar stories btw about PPE items being unsuitable and not able to be used.

And rightly so they should now be subject to proper scrutiny if anyone acted unlawfully. But 50m dodgy bits when you have 2.4 billion items being delivered? Fella, its a rounding error. A bit like how it costs Bill Gates more to pick up $100 than to leave it on the floor.

Just because it can't be used by the NHS doesn't mean it went to the trash heap either. A lot of the kit was good but didn't meet the black and white. The same folk who moaned when the EU had standards for how big a banana should be now whinging the same exacting standards put loads of kit into stock pile...

 

[Tony Edwards]

corruption or incompetence

That sound like a Tory tag line. "Heres to Corruption" says JRM. "Dont forget incompetence" wimpers Gavin Williams.

Yes, but if it were a Labour government it would be just as bad, if not worse. They're all as corrupt and as bad as each other.

But they are not. Labour builds silverware while in government, while the Tories sell it all off cheap.

 

[mmj_uk]

It’s an authoritarian power grab to stop dissenting voices and prevent us underlings from exercising our democratic rights and arranging protests. They have made noisy protests illegal. It’s as daft as making cake, without flour, illegal. It can be done, but it’s a pointless waste of time.

There's still hope that it's all just a strategy to teach western values because over the last few decades we've already been steadily creeping into bigger and bigger government, fewer and fewer freedoms, more and more surveillance, conformity, cancel culture and many people have been happily cheering it on, fighting for it even.

I don't know if you guys have heard the boiled frog analogy but the saying goes that if you put a frog in cold water and slowly boil the water the frog doesn't recognise the danger it's in until it's too late. Perhaps the best way to have the whole Venezuela experience is for Boris and his mates to give us a quick demonstration of it rather than electing Jeremy Corbyn who actually thinks it's a good idea.

 

[Nitefly]

Yes, but if it were a Labour government it would be just as bad, if not worse. They're all as corrupt and as bad as each other.

I never understand this. A defined group of politicians are demonstrably ultra ********* and people vote for them on the fear that others would be worse.

After that whole prorogue Parliament bull I will never vote tories again. Unspeakably, shockingly, horribly soul crunchingly miserable that was.

 

[Hagar]

I never understand this. A defined group of politicians are demonstrably ultra ********* and people vote for them on the fear that others would be worse.

After that whole prorogue Parliament bull I will never vote tories again. Unspeakably, shockingly, horribly soul crunchingly miserable that was.

To be fair, parliament at the time was absolutely useless, it could not make a decision even when given free reign to discuss and vote on as many versions of Brexit that they wanted. All failed. It was a Parliament of the doomed and the damned. It deserved to be removed. The speaker was the worst we've had in recorded memory making the rules up ad hoc as only he saw fit. I am little surprised that radical actions were taken but I did not agree that they were right at the time.

Luckily the government was refreshed and work abandoned for three years could start again. I don't suppose many will agree with me on this, each to his own opinions though.

 

[platinum87]

Much of the PPE ordered couldn't be used as it didn't meet UK safety standards.

The only thing that happened is associates of the Tory party made bank.

I look forward to the review of govt spending when this is all over, and I sincerely hope heads roll.

The only way to reduce that sort of abuse is to reduce the size of government.

You support a bigger government, and thus you would create a department to oversee the spending. This simply increases spending even more, increases corruption even more and makes it harder to know what is even going on.

To me there is no difference between spending money on benefits/nhs/pensions, or if they simply steal the money so their mates can buy ferrari's.

In all cases money is taken from me, and used for something that does not benefit me, and removes the freedom to choose.

There's still hope that it's all just a strategy to teach western values because over the last few decades we've already been steadily creeping into bigger and bigger government, fewer and fewer freedoms, more and more surveillance, conformity, cancel culture and many people have been happily cheering it on, fighting for it even.

I don't know if you guys have heard the boiled frog analogy but the saying goes that if you put a frog in cold water and slowly boil the water the frog doesn't recognise the danger it's in until it's too late. Perhaps the best way to have the whole Venezuela experience is for Boris and his mates to give us a quick demonstration of it rather than electing Jeremy Corbyn who actually thinks it's a good idea.

There is no strategy, nobody is planning a bigger government, its a natural thing. Push back only slows it down, you cant actually stop it.

You see humans are lazy, its genetic. We need challenges to overcome, to use our brains and then achieve something.

 

[FoxEye]

The only way to reduce that sort of abuse is to reduce the size of government.

You support a bigger government, and thus you would create a department to oversee the spending. This simply increases spending even more, increases corruption even more and makes it harder to know what is even going on.

To me there is no difference between spending money on benefits/nhs/pensions, or if they simply steal the money so their mates can buy ferrari's.

I was going to reply sensibly until I reached the last line I've quoted above...

...literally WTF are you smoking?

 

[Raikiri]

To me there is no difference between spending money on benefits/nhs/pensions, or if they simply steal the money so their mates can buy ferrari's.

In all cases money is taken from me, and used for something that does not benefit me, and removes the freedom to choose.

This might be the dumbest thing I've read this month. Good job.

There is of course a difference, but not to me. I dont need any of those things. Why should i pay for it?

For the betterment of society as a whole, and so you can pretend not to be a sociopath.

 

[platinum87]

I was going to reply sensibly until I reached the last line I've quoted above...

...literally WTF are you smoking?

And what about it? If i could opt out of all of them and pay less tax as a result i would do so. Obviously, earning more means you get less value, earning minimum wage means you are getting great value.

Supporting those things because i am poor, therefore they are great value would be in my best interest, in that example i am supporting that someone earning more than me should pay the difference. That is not morally correct to do so.

There is of course a difference, but not to me. I dont need any of those things. Why should i pay for it?

 

[Deleted User 298457]

And what about it? If i could opt out of all of them and pay less tax as a result i would do so. Obviously, earning more means you get less value, earning minimum wage means you are getting great value.

Supporting those things because i am poor, therefore they are great value would be in my best interest, in that example i am supporting that someone earning more than me should pay the difference. That is not morally correct to do so.

There is of course a difference, but not to me. I dont need any of those things. Why should i pay for it?

Maybe watch Mad Max or something, lol. Very daft view to put forward tbh.

 

[platinum87]

Not wanting to pay for something i do not want or need is the dumb?