So you haven’t read the full judgment then… 
No. You said read certain paragraphs so I did that. Are you changing your advice?
That’s hardly a defence!! 
Can’t get link to work,Deleted post
1 Like
These are the more pertinent investigations
2 Likes
Don’t worry! It only took six years to force certain companies to pay employees the minimum wage… Don’t worry! You’re entitled to that six year legal battle on a wage that which one can’t afford to live! Shame! Here’s my bill…
1 Like
https://mobile.twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/1362705940668153860
You mean workers, as opposed to employees or self-employed, I suppose? Don’t worry, the distinctions can be confusing.
Hahahaha! You literally made my point!
If you were inadvertently making the point that understanding someone’s job status is a complex issue, yes, I guess I did.
1 Like
If making something simple into something unnecessarily complex, then yes…
Unionists,and in particular the DUP really are paving the way for a united Ireland.
2 Likes
Such a minor slap that the govt are sending 4 barristers and 8 lawyers to a hearing tomorrow where the GLP are seeking to have cost capping imposed so they can persue the PPE procurement case. No doubt they really don’t want the public to hear the details of how the’ve spaffed an awful lot of their cash on their friends.
1 Like
Heard this earlier today. Worth noting that we’re also paying for those lawyers and barristers
Two separate cases 
Scrutinising through the courts the actual process of awarding procurement contracts is definitely the legal action capable of damaging the government if there was widespread corruption.
The one from Friday was a time consuming, money-wasting irrelevance.
Try not to confuse the two.
I never said it was the same case. Prob doesn’t slot neatly into the anal world of legal interpertation but - they are both sort of sitting in the same bucket of shite,
1 Like
You just regularly conflate two different things in such a way as to make out they’re the same then, huh?
No comment about how the GLP puts its own costs currently at over £200k without acknowledgement of the vastly more work the government would be required to do.
Not sure where i conflated two things here (or when i regularly conflate two different things). I clearly mentioned GLP’s case tomorrow without inferring that it was the same case as last week Both cases are inextricably linked i suppose to the money spaffing escapade - and maybe that’s how you’re conflating my posts yourself?
Anyway, there’s no point attacking GLP, the legal ruling said, as you know, they can’t be criticized for bringing the claim.
The real issue but, imagine, a government putting itself in this position, trying to defend itself for breaking the law when it clearly knows it did. The audacity of GLP, or anyone, to try expose it.
Poor dears eh.
Fucking hell. Whether you realise it or not the “minor slap” you were referencing was about the GLP’s case against the SoS for Health (Hancock’s department) [case no. CO/3610/2020], the 4 barristers and 8 lawyers you seek to reference in respect to that “minor slap” in fact relates to an entirely different case brought by the GLP against the SoS for Health and others [case no. HT-2020-000226, 291, 292]. Two different cases that you’re treating as if they’re the same…
Which you then conflate, again…
The judge said that about the claim the government failed to publish details in time (CO/3610/2020), which was the second hearing from last week, not the transparency/procurement claim (HT-2020-000226) on which there is a hearing tomorrow and about which, incidentally, the NAO have already reported on.
There was also a third (crowd funded, naturally) claim brought by the GLP that was heard last Monday. This one was against the Cabinet Office and concerned Dominic Cummings and Public First [case no. HT-2020-000290]. We haven’t had the judgment from that one yet.
Three separate claims. Three different issues.
The one from Friday is really a nothing claim that only wasted time and money. The other two, particularly the one on which there’s a hearing tomorrow, could have significant implications for the government.
The one tomorrow looks like an interim hearing incidentally so unlikely we’ll learn a great deal from it. That will be later.
Incidentally, I doubt that the government are sending “4 barristers and 8 lawyers”. They’re not the only respondents to the claim as Pestfix, Clandaboye and Ayanda will also be represented. I suspect that number of representatives include the representatives of those three additional parties. I doubt that the government will send more than two barristers.