On the flip side though The Critical Drinker has joined the party 
1 Like
I honestly donât know who that is?! I saw him/her/them referenced in the -ism thread - do they do youtube videos discussing general topics of interest or something?
Youtube Critical Drinker. A very clever movie critic why does an excellent impression of a drunk Scotsman:
Think it was ubermick who first linked his GOT videos on here. He does like some stuff but like all critics, the rants are better. His Star-wars stuff is epic 
1 Like
He does film reviews on Youtube and is an author in real life. Pretty good reviews on occasion but really went after the new Star Wars films and Captain Marvel. His thoughts on the films arenât far off the mark I think but he seems to push certain boundaries which are getting a little uncomfortable. The one he posted up about Gina Carano completely caught me out I must admit.
Anyway heâs joined the Labour Party? Does anyone know where he lives - England or Scotland?
1 Like
He used to be a good critic, but of late there isnât a problem in a film or TV show that isnât the fault of Hollywoodâs SJW woke agenda. As a result he has become really, really boring.
His video on Gina Carano was absolutely ridiculous. Seems have gone with the âenemy of my enemy is my friendâ idea, but in this case it was more likely that the enemy of my enemy is just a fucking tool.
1 Like
1 Like
Interesting. There was some talk a day or two ago that Frostâs move into the Cabinet was because some were unhappy with people close to Gove moving into more influential positions at No.10. Now this.
1 Like
I made the mistake of reading a few comments on the timelines of The Good Law Project, Caroline Lucas and David Lammy. Oh dear 
I did wonder how it was going to be reported and also then misinterpreted at large and now I know!
I would encourage anyone with half an hour to spare to read the judgment which can be found here https://drive.google.com/file/d/19QsmLv8LkAL9EO6D-HSlmOHJ4VpoSPn5/edit
Frustratingly the Good Law Project has not made it possible for you to save or print it off, thus discouraging most people from reading it. Weird that. Maybe itâs because the judgment isnât particularly complimentary about the Claimants either? Maybe itâs because the details of the judgment might give a slightly different impression than the headlines?
If you canât be bothered to read it in full my own summary is that the government failed to publish various information relating to the awarding of contracts within the timescale set out in legislation and also within the timescales itself has set out in its own transparency policies. The excuse given by the government was that they were facing an unprecedented pandemic and they were simply overwhelmed.
The judgment indicates that this reality was an understandable reason for the failures to publish all of the information within the required timescales. The government indicate what lengths it went to in order to comply (considerable) and also evidenced that it was certainly trying to comply (ie, it wasnât a deliberate, concerted or systematic failure to comply as alleged).
The fact is though that at least half of the information had not been published within the required timescales and there was, therefore, numerous breaches. This has taken the government several months in order to catch up and reach the point where they are at now that they can continue to comply with the publication obligations (this is why there has been no order for mandatory relief, as sought by the Claimants).
The government has suggested that these proceedings have, in fact, hindered its ability to comply because resources have had to be diverted to answer them. I have some sympathy for this but the Court considers that in the round the proceedings brought by the GLP did help to focus the governmentâs attention on meeting its transparency obligations and has contributed to it getting its house in order quicker.
The Court specifically refused to rule that the governmentâs failure to publish in accordance with the timescales set out in legislation and in the various transparency policies were either systematic or done to deliberately conceal.
The take home is that the government was overwhelmed, which meant it then breached its transparency requirements. That is a fact and provided no strict justification for the breach, and was therefore unlawful (note, not illegal, it wasnât a criminal act).
That in some respects litigation like this serves a valuable public service but can also hinder the effective operation of government and ironically delay achieving the very objective that is being demanded of it. That the tenor of litigation such as this does not assist in achieving optimum outcomes. You can sense the ego and lack of objectivity that Maugham has with these things - he really over-eggs everything (half of the allegations he brought were rejected by the Court). He always seems to me to be just ever-so unhinged. As well as being a massive twat.
Still, like many of his other faintly ludicrous actions he has brought over the last few years and funded by the public, he can spin this to the satisfaction of his eager audience.
2 Likes
The ruling was clearly against Hancock, and ruled that the claimant could not be critisized for bringing the claim. Whatever way you try to spin it, thereâs no getting away from the fact that it was convenient for Hancock and co to keep the details of these contracts away from public scrutiny as long as possible so that other news would wash over them. The court wasnât prepared to grant declarations on the matter of systematic failures, some call it refusal like some kind of victory., it;s all spin on words.
One of the contracts to Ayanda (who are listed offshore in Mauritius) was for over a quarter of a billion pounds (yes billion) for PPE. Andrew Mills, Tory advisor, funnily enough also adviser to Ayanda just happened to own a company that had secured capacity from a large chinese producer of PPE. .
The court also singles out Hancock insistence on letting the case run when he knew he was indeed in multiple breach of reg 50 costing him (the taxpayer) a couple of hundred grand.
All in all a filthy affair by the tories where billions were funnelled to companies of tory councillors, their friends and party donors under the cover of a global pandemic
4 Likes
So they were able to spunk billions on contracts but unable to hire additional staff to meet demand?
I honestly donât buy that.
1 Like
Iâm not sure of the dates of these contracts because I havenât read the details of the case but in regards to recruitment, if it was the first half of the year, there would have been difficulties in bringing in staff. Particularly with the knowledge or skills to do the job. There were a number of priority recruitments for the government (such as brexit) that meant the central recruitment teams were already stretched and pushing back on non urgent recruitment.
The bigger question for me is not on the recruitment but redeploying of existing staff - for example if Brexit had been paused, then could that have freed up personnel capable of dealing with this.
1 Like
I can fully understand that the Government had to face a pandemic and therefore had little time to go through the proper accountability and transparency procedures.
What stretches credibility is that, as they were overwhelmed by the pandemic, they coincidentally gave massive public contracts to all their mates. I would have thought the path of least resistance would have been to support existing providers to scale up production rather than award huge contracts to start up companies with no track record of delivering what was needed.
3 Likes
I still dont buy it. The UK is not short of consultants that can administer works of pretty much anything. Considering they were busy throwing thousands at management consultants, friends down the pub, and a mysterious supplier of pigeon netting I honestly dont believe it was beyond them to find someone to handle some communications obligations.
2 Likes
WhatâŚoverwhelmed at the profits that could be made 
1 Like
I agree with that and there needs to be a comprehensive and independent enquiry. But itâs worth acknowledging how we know to whom these contracts have been awarded - itâs because the details have been published and thereâs no evidence that there was any attempt to suppress them.
1 Like
Read the judgment. Itâs nowhere near as straightforward as that.
2 Likes
Exactly. The first thing you do in a resource crisis is look at what you have, identify the weaknesses and conclude what you need to hit targets.
What you dont do is speak to a mate down the pub.
1 Like
I donât think it is simply publishing the contracts, there will be a whole host of other work that will have to be done involving legal and commercial staff, not just communications.
2 Likes
I suspect it isnât. Iâll admit the thought of trawling through is a little off putting at a time nearing 9pm.
1 Like