Advertisement



  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

The Good Law Project

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Tony L, Feb 19, 2021.

  1. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    I suspect a combination of all three, but we are where we are and only have the tools we have. Resisting a corrupt authority is never simple so best to use everything available against it.
     
    sean99 likes this.
  2. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    PhilofCas likes this.
  3. PhilofCas

    PhilofCas pfm Member

    sean99 likes this.
  4. notaclue

    notaclue pfm Member

    The shaky voice gave him away. Should be in prison.

    In a few decades, Covid will be revealed to have been a giant smash and grab raid on the public finances. Billions stolen.
     
    TheDecameron and Snufkin like this.
  5. Nero

    Nero Call me 'Goose'

    wow, just wow
     
  6. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    But he and his pub landlord and others were busy saving millions of lives….

    Here it is right here, Hancock’s dept knew the contract was going to his mate, it’s just that they took care to launder it through another company then redact the pub landlord’s name from released docs. It shows intent to conceal and shows they knew it to be wrongdoing.

    Hinpack is the pub landlord.

    [​IMG]

    This is corruption in government.
     
  7. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Absolutely, and it is far from an isolated incident. The UK Conservative Party can now only be considered a criminal entity IMHO. I’d like to see a class-action against the actual party organisation itself, i.e. go after its assets to recover the money it has stolen from us.
     
  8. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    It’s theft on an industrial scale,
    Hancock’s dept gave contracts worth $200 million, not opened to competition, to a Florida jewellery designer.

    Go-between paid £21m in taxpayer funds for NHS PPE https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54974373

    Hancock will claim it was an emergency, yet known reputable suppliers not admitted to the Conservative Party VIP Lane, were excluded from tendering.
     
    ks.234 likes this.
  9. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Good Law Project are looking to sue the Met police if they fail to investigate Tory Party breaches of covid restrictions (parties etc):

    “In the very building where the rules were being made, they were being broken. No 10 advisors were reportedly having parties. Those closest to Boris Johnson laughed as they practiced how to lie to us about it.

    There have been multiple reports from people in attendance that a party of 40 – 50 people took place in the Prime Minister’s own home on 18 December 2020. This would have been a clear breach of the ‘tier 3’ restrictions in place at the time.

    Yet, unbelievably, the Met Police claims there isn’t enough evidence to open a criminal investigation.

    Boris Johnson and his Cabinet have shown us what they think about the ‘little’ people. Our sacrifices are just something to laugh at. They think that the laws of the land don’t apply to them.

    But the law says we are all equal. And the Metropolitan Police need to apply it.

    It’s shocking just how much damage to public confidence in policing and the rule of law the top brass at the Met are prepared to do to avoid an embarrassing confrontation with Number 10.

    It seems the Met have forgotten their role is to investigate crime. We intend to remind them.

    Our lawyers have today written to the Met asking them to open an investigation, or if not, to provide the full and detailed reasons behind their refusal to do so. We’re also asking the Met to provide details of its policy ‘not to investigate retrospective breaches of the Covid regulations’, referred to in its statement of 8 December 2021.

    If they fail to do this, we will be left with little choice but to consider suing.

    You can read our letter to the Met in full here.

    Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here.

    We recognise that this is a difficult challenge, so we will assess the response we get before launching fundraising for this case.”
     
  10. zarniwoop

    zarniwoop hoopy frood

    I can't find this now so will have to work from memory and paraphrase, but someone on Twitter a couple of days ago commented that it was an unusual approach for the police to take, deciding not to look for evidence because of lack of evidence.
     
  11. Darmok

    Darmok "They're going to need a much bigger dock"

    ^^ Keystone Cops, ffs...

     
  12. unclefz

    unclefz pfm Member

    Thanks Tony, it is good to hear that at least someone will attempt to reproach both the MET and the Government for their despicable actions.

    I have also donated once more.
     
  13. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Quite a disturbing update today regarding the poor quality of Tory “VIP lane” PPE and attempts to tamper with safety regulations to get it to NHS staff despite it being unsafe/unfit for purpose:

    “PPE supplied by high profile VIPs has repeatedly been cleared for use by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), overruling concerns of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) that it is not fit for purpose.

    Good Law Project challenged the award of £108m of PPE contracts to Clandeboye, a confectionery wholesaler. Clandeboye does not appear on the DHSC’s list of VIPs but Government’s internal documents tell a different story.

    What DHSC told the High Court was that: “Clandeboye answered the call to arms by making a viable offer and performing its contracts” and had been “approved in testing upon arrival”.

    However, emails obtained by the BBC show the [HSE] saying: “The outer packaging for these aprons indicates that they are fluid repellent gowns, which they are not… they are not Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and do not meet the requirements of the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations (EU) 2016/425.” Nevertheless, after months of email correspondence the DHSC issued a notice authorising their use.

    The BBC’s report – which you can watch here – also shows that large quantities of Clandeboye’s aprons were offloaded on ebay and other auctioneers for a tiny fraction of the price paid by DHSC.

    Good Law Project has written asking Government to explain how it has adhered to its duties of candour and not to mislead the High Court.

    This is not the first occasion on which DHSC has put the HSE under pressure to ‘clear’ for use PPE supplied by VIPs under contracts Good Law Project is challenging.

    Good Law Project is also challenging the award of £349 million of PPE contracts to “VIP” Crisp Websites Limited, trading as “Pestfix”, a then tiny pest control specialist.

    Emails after those proceedings were issued show the HSE complaining that the DHSC was “bombarding” it with requests to provide a statement that was “not factually accurate”. The HSE was sufficiently concerned that it sought legal advice on its position. An email Government contractor talks of there being “quite a bit of ‘political’ pressure to get Pestfix products through the QA [Quality Assurance] process.”

    And then there is P14 Medical.

    P14 Medical was run by ex-Tory Councillor Steve Dechan and won a £116m contract to supply face shields through the Government’s VIP lane. The contract received extensive coverage in the national press.

    Emails obtained by Good Law Project show that DHSC stepped in to approve the face shields for use despite the HSE warning in September 2020 that key documentation and certification was missing.

    The Times reported that the HSE raised concerns about whether face shields supplied by P14 Medical met required standards. HSE wrote to officials saying the shields “cannot enter the NHS supply chain” because of “inconsistencies” in the documentation P14 had supplied. These included certificates that were “out of date” and applied to different companies and products, such as a “packaging firm” and “beauty products”. HSE said the testing laboratory used to verify the safety of the shields was “not an accredited laboratory” either’.

    Despite those concerns, the DHSC overruled the HSE and approved the face shields for use in February of this year.

    A spokesperson for P14 Medical said they are: “an expert company that has been in medical supplies for eight years including PPE that managed to deliver on a big contract that ‘big companies’ could not. They provided the equipment to the government when it was needed, on time and in accordance with the specified requirements”.

    A HSE spokesperson said: “HSE’s round-the-clock advice and assurance to health services at the height of PPE supply shortages was rooted in science and experience, not just the regulations. It was as a result of our checks that we caught a lot of PPE that wasn’t safe and wouldn’t have protected people” and denied that it had been put under political pressure.

    DHSC did not respond to requests for comment.

    There are serious questions to answer. Why has DHSC overruled the HSE to get hundreds of millions of pounds of PPE supplied by high profile VIPs, including those whose contracts are being challenged in court, into the supply chain? Are they putting politics before public health?

    Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here. “
     
    ff1d1l, Somafunk, kendo and 1 other person like this.
  14. wulbert

    wulbert pfm Member

    Thanks for the link...I shall go now and donate. ( Although it is a sad reflection on our society that justice now has to be crowdfunded)
     
    unclefz likes this.
  15. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    GLP raising funds to sue The Met on the grounds that their refusal to investigate illegal Downing St parties is itself unlawful:

    in their words-

    “Their attempts to justify that decision really don’t make sense. First, they say they relied on the Government’s assurances that no rules had been broken. Then, they say there would have been no point in interviewing No 10 staff about the parties because they would have refused to answer questions that exposed them to a risk of prosecution.

    In what other crime would police decline to investigate because the suspected offender assured them no rules had been broken? And those justifications can’t both be true; if no rules were broken, there’s no risk of self-incrimination”.


    Bung a Bob to Bang Up Boris here,

    https://goodlawproject.fundraise.tech/
     
    kendo, ff1d1l, SteveS1 and 2 others like this.
  16. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    BREAKING: High Court finds Government PPE ‘VIP’ lane for politically connected suppliers ‘unlawful’
    Over a year of hard work has paid off today. The High Court has ruled that the Government’s operation of a fast-track VIP lane for awarding lucrative PPE contracts to those with political connections was unlawful.

    In a challenge brought by Good Law Project and EveryDoctor to the behind closed door VIP lane worth billions of pounds, the Court found:

    “the Claimants have established that operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment… the illegality is marked by this judgment.” (§512)

    The Judge agreed the VIP lane conferred preferential treatment on bids: it sped up the process, which meant offers were considered sooner in a process where timing was critical, and VIPs’ hands were held through the process. She said:

    “offers that were introduced through the Senior Referrers received earlier consideration at the outset of the process. The High Priority Lane Team was better resourced and able to respond to such offers on the same day that they arrived”. (§395)

    The Court found the Government allocated offers to the VIP lane on a “flawed basis” (§396) and did not properly prioritise bids:

    “there is evidence that opportunities were treated as high priority even where there were no objectively justifiable grounds for expediting the offer.” (§383).

    The Court noted that the overwhelming majority by value of the product supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda could not be used in the NHS.

    An independent investigation by the BBC has also revealed issues with the product supplied by Clandeboye which were not disclosed to the High Court. Good Law Project believes that the Government misled the Court and is in correspondence with lawyers for the Secretary of State.

    The Judge found that, even though Pestfix and Ayanda received unlawful preferential treatment via the VIP lane, they would likely have been awarded contracts anyway. The Judge also refused to allow publication of how much money was wasted by the Government’s failure to carry out technical assurance on the PPE supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda. Good Law Project is considering the wider implications of these aspects of the ruling and next steps.

    We first revealed the red carpet-to-riches VIP lane for those with political connections in October 2020. Since then, we have fought to reveal details of those who benefited, and at whose request - while the Government fought to conceal them.

    Never again should any Government treat a public health crisis as an opportunity to enrich its associates and donors at public expense.

    Thank you for your trust in us, and your continued support of this case over 18 long months. Without you, this simply wouldn’t have been possible.

    We also want to express our deep gratitude to our expert legal team on this case: Rook Irwin Sweeney and Jason Coppel QC, Patrick Halliday and Zac Sammour of 11KBW. They have worked tirelessly on this case and we hugely appreciate their efforts.

    You can read the full judgment from the High Court here.

    Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here.”
     
    Darmok, Nick_G and kendo like this.
  17. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Good Law Project on the terrifying implications of Clause 9 of the Borders & Nationality bill. This really couldn’t be much more racist and oppressive if it tried:


    Today, we are publishing advice about the extension to the powers to strip Britons of their citizenship in the Nationality and Borders Bill. The advice was commissioned from some of the country’s leading immigration barristers, Raza Husain QC, Jason Pobjoy and Eleanor Mitchell, instructed by Leigh Day solicitors. We worked with Media Diversified and CAGE to commission it.

    The advice is conclusive, and alarming:

    • “Clause 9, as presently framed, confers upon the Secretary of State an exorbitant, ill-defined and unconstitutional power to make a deprivation order without notice.”
    • The new powers are “identified in terms so broad and vague that, and on their face, they do very little to constrain the exercise of the Secretary of State’s discretion”.
    • “Exercise of the deprivation power has a disproportionate impact on non-white British citizens”.
    • Even without Clause 9, “the United Kingdom already has significantly more power to deprive an individual of their citizenship than any other G20 country.”
    • It describes the Clause 9 removal of the right notice, by analogy, as “astonishingly unjust.”
    We share the concerns expressed by a wide range of civil society groups about what Clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill means. The provisions will affect the citizenship of almost half of all Asian British people and two in five Black Britons.

    Media Diversified told us: “Up to six million people will live in fear that one wrong move, even just one unforced error or car accident could see us arrested, judged in secret and deported. This targeted, racist legislation is an existential threat to all our loved ones, neighbours, and colleagues.”

    Muhammad Rabbani, CAGE Managing Director, said: “The legal opinion outlines that citizenship deprivation overwhelmingly and disproportionately impacts minorities. This is two tier citizenship in action, and why the Bill must be challenged. Citizenship is a right we must all enjoy equally.”

    We hope this legal analysis informs the debate in the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It notes Hannah Arendt’s oft-quoted observation that citizenship is “the right to have rights”, and contrasts it with the troubling rhetoric recently adopted by the Home Office that “British citizenship is a privilege not a right”.

    Whatever the Government’s intent, provisions which make it easier to remove the contingent citizenship held by large numbers of black and brown people are racist in effect. We are inviting the Government to reflect on whether it wishes to embed racism in our legislation.

    You can read the full legal advice from Raza Husain, Jason Pobjoy and Eleanor Mitchell here.

    Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here.

    Media Diversified is a non-profit working to enrich, engage and improve the UK’s media landscape. The organisation was founded in 2013 with a mission to challenge the homogeneity of voices in UK news media, through addressing the under-representation of BAME communities.

    CAGE is an independent grassroots organisation striving for a world free of injustice and oppression. They campaign against discriminatory state policies and advocate for due process and the rule of law.”

    Anyone with a shred of decency needs to fight this with everything they have IMHO.
     
  18. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    This is very interesting regarding the legal action against Cressida Dick/The Met and their attempts at secrecy hiding from public scrutiny:


    When we received the Met’s formal pre-action response to our judicial review claim, over its failure to apply the same criminal law to the Prime Minister as it applies to others, they told us not to publish it.

    We have never before been asked to keep a pre-action response hidden from you, our supporters and funders.

    Yesterday, we filed our claim in court. The Met now have until 10 February to provide their formal response.

    We also wrote to the Met telling them that when we get that response, we will publish the grounds for our claim. We will also publish their response. If they want to, we invite them to make an application to the Court to continue to maintain this secrecy.

    If they make such an application, we will let you know. Our position on that application to the Court will be that justice must be seen to be done.

    We will keep you updated as the case progresses.

    Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here.
     

Share This Page





Advertisement


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice