I was saying that as the previous case was such a minor slap, they are now sending… oh what’s the point, you’re going to prove that i’m wrong whatever it is.
Anyway, you do work very hard at being right always, as a legal person might be expected to in a legal setting. In lay-person land we sometimes see things a bit more circumspect and holistically.
I’m done with this ruling now and with your legal superiority. I’ll allow you get the last retort in again.
So you weren’t conflating, just drawing a false equivalence? OK.
I spend way too much time explaining and clarifying legal issues that frequently get misrepresented and distorted. I’d hope that most would appreciate that sort of expert input but if it’s contrary to the prevailing narrative, I guess not.
I still care about accuracy.
Thread…
These are the details that need proper scrutiny. Some of them are already before the Courts so we’ll have to see what comes out of that process and others.
I personally hope that this whole thing is ripped open and all details exposed whether they are right or otherwise.
I hope this isn’t clouded by some legalese / technical judgement. We need to see nd understand what they did, how and why they did it.
What: they gave the money to their mates.
How: by bending/breaking the rules.
Why: because they’re self-serving cunts.
Yep but I want it all laid out on the table. How it all came to be and even the motivation behind it (which we strongly suspect we know already) but I want to hear one of them admit it.
It will never happen of course but we can hope.
Which is why it is important that Court judgments are presented and reported accurately. Otherwise you just get situations where things are described as “illegal” which are not illegal and people then wonder why no action is being taken. Or where an action that seeks a mandatory order (requiring somebody to do something) fails in that objective but is still somehow framed as a huge deal. This then corrodes public trust in the judicial system and whether governments and individuals within governments can ever truly be held accountable.
It’s important to be able to know what shit is serious and what shit isn’t. The awarding of PPE contracts and the potential for these to be exploited to the advantage of politicians in positions of power and to the detriment of the public is serious. Some people are carrying on like last week’s judgment was determining these, altogether separate and more serious, issues.
If you are referring to the case against Hancock then surely that is illegal? If by law, the government needs to advertise the awarding of a contract within 30 days and they fail to do that then that is illegal? Unless you are talking about something else?
It was not illegal, which is a term that describes a criminal act. It was unlawful, which is a breach of the civil law.
Sheesh. Scottish politics is giving Westminster a run for its money when it comes to potentially corrupt practices. This is not me trying to get you all to look the other way, but fucking hell…
Fuck me. Imagine being a non-native English speaker and trying to interpret Michael Gove’s handwriting. I took me about 4 attempts to get it, although still not certain if ‘much’ or ‘well’ after so… ‘Support’ is legible so I guess there’s that.
It also had me wondering whether it was written using sarcasm font.
‘With every good wish’
WTF?
I can’t see that it’s been reported anywhere yet but I understand that the Good Law Project has succeeded on getting a costs capping order (this was the interim hearing today). Each side limited to £250k in costs (the government wanted up to £1million).
The Good Law Project has now also confirmed the order.
Final hearing set for May.
Is that as protection against incurring costs of the case in case they lose?
Yes, essentially the winning side cannot recover more than £250k of costs from the losing side. Obviously, if you believe that you’re not going to lose you’re not going to be too concerned about the other side’s costs.