TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Smells like corruption to me.
The Good Law Project
- Thread starter Tony L
- Start date
Somafunk
pfm Member
To myself it merely reeks of “tories reverting to type”
Tony L
Administrator
Some coverage here in The Guardian.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
Over the weekend the Mail on Sunday reported, quite explicitly, that our founder, Jo Maugham, is being “targeted by Ministers”. What is suggested is that Good Law Project is somehow “abusing” crowdfunding. But no evidence is given in support of that contention.
And it is false.
There is a need for a stronger ethical framework for crowdfunding. And Jo has led the way in calling for it: see, for example, here and here. In the meantime, we continue to strive for the highest ethical values. And we believe we meet them.
The truth is, the attack is nothing to do with our conduct. It is a transparent and deceitful attempt by Government to target one of its most effective critics. And to close down the most effective route to exposing its disregard for the law.
We will not be silenced. If you are in a position to do so, you can support Good Law Project by setting up a regular donation here:
Donate
The Courts have repeatedly complimented us for our conduct. In our challenge over the Hanbury contract handed to associates of Dominic Cummings, the Judge said she was satisfied that we are managing our cases and funds in an appropriate way. In another hearing the Judge said: “All citizens are likely to have an interest in whether or not the procurement on the part of the government is done using good governance procedures and integrity. And therefore there is a real wider public interest that has been represented by the claimant group…” In our Unpublished Contracts case, the Judge said: we had: “a sincere interest, and some expertise, in scrutinising government conduct in this area. There is no allegation (and no evidence) that it is seeking to use the public procurement regime as a tool for challenging decisions which it opposes for other reasons.”
Over the last 18 months we have used crowdfunding to reveal the shady award of PPE contracts to friends of Tories and to reverse Johnson’s unlawful attempt to mislead the Queen and cancel Parliament. We have also instructed lawyers to examine whether Johnson’s decision to award a peerage to Jon Cruddas - a decision which was followed by a donation of £500,000 by Lord Cruddas to the Conservative party - was unlawful.
But, like all autocrats, Johnson hates scrutiny and wants to put himself beyond challenge.
His Government has decimated legal aid, is advancing reforms to judicial review which would undermine the rule of law and crucial principles of fairness and accountability, and is forcing out officials tasked with upholding standards.
Crowdfunding is the only route by which normal people can challenge the Government’s disregard for the law. Close it down and judicial review becomes a tool only the wealthy can wield.
Government could stop us crowdfunding tomorrow - all it needs is to acquire some basic regard for the law. Meanwhile, we will continue, fearlessly, to press for truth and accountability.
Thank you,
Gemma Abbott,
Legal Director
Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here:
Donate
And it is false.
There is a need for a stronger ethical framework for crowdfunding. And Jo has led the way in calling for it: see, for example, here and here. In the meantime, we continue to strive for the highest ethical values. And we believe we meet them.
The truth is, the attack is nothing to do with our conduct. It is a transparent and deceitful attempt by Government to target one of its most effective critics. And to close down the most effective route to exposing its disregard for the law.
We will not be silenced. If you are in a position to do so, you can support Good Law Project by setting up a regular donation here:
Donate
The Courts have repeatedly complimented us for our conduct. In our challenge over the Hanbury contract handed to associates of Dominic Cummings, the Judge said she was satisfied that we are managing our cases and funds in an appropriate way. In another hearing the Judge said: “All citizens are likely to have an interest in whether or not the procurement on the part of the government is done using good governance procedures and integrity. And therefore there is a real wider public interest that has been represented by the claimant group…” In our Unpublished Contracts case, the Judge said: we had: “a sincere interest, and some expertise, in scrutinising government conduct in this area. There is no allegation (and no evidence) that it is seeking to use the public procurement regime as a tool for challenging decisions which it opposes for other reasons.”
Over the last 18 months we have used crowdfunding to reveal the shady award of PPE contracts to friends of Tories and to reverse Johnson’s unlawful attempt to mislead the Queen and cancel Parliament. We have also instructed lawyers to examine whether Johnson’s decision to award a peerage to Jon Cruddas - a decision which was followed by a donation of £500,000 by Lord Cruddas to the Conservative party - was unlawful.
But, like all autocrats, Johnson hates scrutiny and wants to put himself beyond challenge.
His Government has decimated legal aid, is advancing reforms to judicial review which would undermine the rule of law and crucial principles of fairness and accountability, and is forcing out officials tasked with upholding standards.
Crowdfunding is the only route by which normal people can challenge the Government’s disregard for the law. Close it down and judicial review becomes a tool only the wealthy can wield.
Government could stop us crowdfunding tomorrow - all it needs is to acquire some basic regard for the law. Meanwhile, we will continue, fearlessly, to press for truth and accountability.
Thank you,
Gemma Abbott,
Legal Director
Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here:
Donate
oldius
Manchester City, dogs, family and food.
Tony L
Administrator
Here’s the GLP’s statement:
“Michael Gove broke the law by giving a contract to a communications agency run by long time associates of him and Dominic Cummings, the High Court has decided.
The Court found that the decision to award the £560,000 contract to Public First was tainted by “apparent bias” and was unlawful. The Court found that Gove’s:
“failure to consider any other research agency… would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the decision maker was biased” (paragraph 168).
Michael Gove had claimed that the work was such that only Public First could carry it out. However, the High Court rejected that version of events. The simple truth, it held, was that the Cabinet Office didn’t even consider whether anyone else should have the contract.
The decision vindicates Good Law Project’s long-running characterisation of pandemic procurement as “institutionalised cronyism”.
Emails released in the case also showed that both Michael Gove and Number 10 were keen that Public First (and Hanbury) should win no-tender polling contracts. Good Law Project’s judicial review of the decision to award a contract to Hanbury will be heard on 26 July.
The decision is the second in our long slate of crowdfunded procurement judicial reviews – and we have succeeded in both. Two Cabinet Ministers – Michael Gove and Matt Hancock – have now been found to have broken the law.
Following the first decision, Good Law Project wrote to Matt Hancock making proposals to improve procurement and get better value for money for taxpayers. We offered, if that invitation was accepted, to drop our further procurement challenges to save public money. Mr Hancock did not respond. Since that letter, huge further sums in public money have been wasted in fruitless defence of unlawful conduct.
Good Law Project repeats its invitation to the Government to learn lessons – and to stop wasting more public money staving off political embarrassment.
Good Law Project is grateful to its legal team of Jason Coppel QC and Patrick Halliday of 11KBW Chambers, instructed by Rook Irwin Sweeney. And of course to the tens of thousands of people whose financial contributions make litigation like this possible.
We are the arrow but you draw the bow.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here: Donate”
“Michael Gove broke the law by giving a contract to a communications agency run by long time associates of him and Dominic Cummings, the High Court has decided.
The Court found that the decision to award the £560,000 contract to Public First was tainted by “apparent bias” and was unlawful. The Court found that Gove’s:
“failure to consider any other research agency… would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the decision maker was biased” (paragraph 168).
Michael Gove had claimed that the work was such that only Public First could carry it out. However, the High Court rejected that version of events. The simple truth, it held, was that the Cabinet Office didn’t even consider whether anyone else should have the contract.
The decision vindicates Good Law Project’s long-running characterisation of pandemic procurement as “institutionalised cronyism”.
Emails released in the case also showed that both Michael Gove and Number 10 were keen that Public First (and Hanbury) should win no-tender polling contracts. Good Law Project’s judicial review of the decision to award a contract to Hanbury will be heard on 26 July.
The decision is the second in our long slate of crowdfunded procurement judicial reviews – and we have succeeded in both. Two Cabinet Ministers – Michael Gove and Matt Hancock – have now been found to have broken the law.
Following the first decision, Good Law Project wrote to Matt Hancock making proposals to improve procurement and get better value for money for taxpayers. We offered, if that invitation was accepted, to drop our further procurement challenges to save public money. Mr Hancock did not respond. Since that letter, huge further sums in public money have been wasted in fruitless defence of unlawful conduct.
Good Law Project repeats its invitation to the Government to learn lessons – and to stop wasting more public money staving off political embarrassment.
Good Law Project is grateful to its legal team of Jason Coppel QC and Patrick Halliday of 11KBW Chambers, instructed by Rook Irwin Sweeney. And of course to the tens of thousands of people whose financial contributions make litigation like this possible.
We are the arrow but you draw the bow.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Only with your support can we continue to hold the Government to account. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here: Donate”
eddie pugh
pfm Member
Not wishing to put a downer on this win in any way but why target a contract worth a modest half a million when much greater instances of cronyism were rife
The high court judges time costs, barristers fees etc etc and general jobsworth time costs probably exceeded the contract value
The costs of all the ongoing public enquiries that actually end in no usable results are just mindboggling
Sorry Just having a bad afternoon
eddie
The high court judges time costs, barristers fees etc etc and general jobsworth time costs probably exceeded the contract value
The costs of all the ongoing public enquiries that actually end in no usable results are just mindboggling
Sorry Just having a bad afternoon
eddie
Frizzy
Liberal anarchist
There is a long history of the tories using the public information dept as a way to make Tory and public policy appear to be the same thing. Ppe becomes a issue of gov efficiency, not bribery and corruption.
Unfortunately a year till the official investigation might as well be centuries, the public have a woefully short attention span and you can be sure some other celebration or crisis will be timed to overshadow any findings (which will not appear before the next election)
Blair was excoriated in the war report, did it do him any harm, or Bush. Both men were found to have lied extensively, result sweet FA.
Unfortunately a year till the official investigation might as well be centuries, the public have a woefully short attention span and you can be sure some other celebration or crisis will be timed to overshadow any findings (which will not appear before the next election)
Blair was excoriated in the war report, did it do him any harm, or Bush. Both men were found to have lied extensively, result sweet FA.
mondie
pfm Member
So what happens now? Is anyone in trouble or punished for this unlawful action?
I think it is pretty clear that the Government is just ignoring this, Gove and co will ignore it (and receive no sanction whatsoever), and there will be no consequences at all. Just like living in a banana republic.
To make matters worse it's possible that in the future "crowdfunding" for the Good Law Project may be prohibited.
I think it is pretty clear that the Government is just ignoring this, Gove and co will ignore it (and receive no sanction whatsoever), and there will be no consequences at all. Just like living in a banana republic.
To make matters worse it's possible that in the future "crowdfunding" for the Good Law Project may be prohibited.
kensalriser
pfm Member
Yes, I'm wondering what consequences Hancock and Gove will face for their lawbreaking.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
What happens now is that Britain Trump and his party attack the independence of the courts and attempt to shut down the GLP.
Tony L
Administrator
Sadly I suspect this is the trajectory. The Tory Party now basically own England and will use all the power and isolationism they gained with Brexit to remove political accountability, human rights and civil liberties. It was the plan all along IMO.
Tony L
Administrator
Today’s update/new campaign:
“Peter – or Baron, as for now we must call him – Cruddas was once a Treasurer of the Conservative Party.
In March 2012 the Sunday Times published a rather mean piece about him which included the claim that (as the Court put it) “in return for cash donations to the Conservative Party, [he] corruptly offered for sale the opportunity to influence government policy and gain unfair advantage through secret meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers.”
He sued the Sunday Times for defamation and, to be fair to him, he won but the Court of Appeal also said the claim above was substantially true. As a candidate for a great honour you would think he was, well, you would think he was an odd one.
On the other hand, he is Very Rich. And he has given quite a lot of money to the Conservative Party: over £3m. He gave a quarter of a million quid to them on 10 January 2020 and a few weeks later it emerged he’d been nominated as a Baron by Boris Johnson.
He was crowned, or whatever happens to them, ‘Baron’ Cruddas on 2 February 2021 and a few days later, on 5 February 2021, he gave the Tories another half a million. We’re not saying any of this was pre-arranged – there’s no evidence of that and buying and selling peerages is a crime – but the timing of it all is, well, it is odd.
Given his past record, the House of Lords Appointments Commission thought he wasn’t the kind of man we should be giving a peerage to. And it advised Boris Johnson not to make him a Baron. But Boris did anyway – making history by ignoring the Appointments Commission for the first time ever.
We don’t only think it is odd. We also think it is unlawful. We think a fair-minded and informed observer, presented with the facts of the matter, would conclude that there was a real possibility or danger of bias in the Defendant’s decision making. We also think that the Prime Minister took legally irrelevant considerations – past donations and the prospect of future donations – into account in making him a Baron.
And so we’re suing. We’ve instructed Bindmans LLP, Dan Squires QC and Alice Irving. You can read our letter here.
Make no mistake, we intend to issue proceedings. But this time, we’re not setting up a crowdfunder. What we’d really like you to do instead is (1) sign our petition calling for him to be stripped of his peerage and (2) share this update with your friends and family.”
—————————————-
<moderating>
Please be very careful when responding to this post. Anything that could even remotely be considered libel will be removed. The GLP know exactly what they are doing so choose their words very carefully indeed. We need to do the same.
PS I’m off to sign the linked petition now, obviously.
“Peter – or Baron, as for now we must call him – Cruddas was once a Treasurer of the Conservative Party.
In March 2012 the Sunday Times published a rather mean piece about him which included the claim that (as the Court put it) “in return for cash donations to the Conservative Party, [he] corruptly offered for sale the opportunity to influence government policy and gain unfair advantage through secret meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers.”
He sued the Sunday Times for defamation and, to be fair to him, he won but the Court of Appeal also said the claim above was substantially true. As a candidate for a great honour you would think he was, well, you would think he was an odd one.
On the other hand, he is Very Rich. And he has given quite a lot of money to the Conservative Party: over £3m. He gave a quarter of a million quid to them on 10 January 2020 and a few weeks later it emerged he’d been nominated as a Baron by Boris Johnson.
He was crowned, or whatever happens to them, ‘Baron’ Cruddas on 2 February 2021 and a few days later, on 5 February 2021, he gave the Tories another half a million. We’re not saying any of this was pre-arranged – there’s no evidence of that and buying and selling peerages is a crime – but the timing of it all is, well, it is odd.
Given his past record, the House of Lords Appointments Commission thought he wasn’t the kind of man we should be giving a peerage to. And it advised Boris Johnson not to make him a Baron. But Boris did anyway – making history by ignoring the Appointments Commission for the first time ever.
We don’t only think it is odd. We also think it is unlawful. We think a fair-minded and informed observer, presented with the facts of the matter, would conclude that there was a real possibility or danger of bias in the Defendant’s decision making. We also think that the Prime Minister took legally irrelevant considerations – past donations and the prospect of future donations – into account in making him a Baron.
And so we’re suing. We’ve instructed Bindmans LLP, Dan Squires QC and Alice Irving. You can read our letter here.
Make no mistake, we intend to issue proceedings. But this time, we’re not setting up a crowdfunder. What we’d really like you to do instead is (1) sign our petition calling for him to be stripped of his peerage and (2) share this update with your friends and family.”
—————————————-
<moderating>
Please be very careful when responding to this post. Anything that could even remotely be considered libel will be removed. The GLP know exactly what they are doing so choose their words very carefully indeed. We need to do the same.
PS I’m off to sign the linked petition now, obviously.
kensalriser
pfm Member
Thanks, also made a donation.