Could there be a tactical reason why GLP have chased after this?
No, its entirely practical, there is always a risk of losing and they donāt want to be on the hook for Ā£1m.
Cheers and understood. Useful considering my courtroom experience amounts to a Holywood version of people shouting āObjectionā at each other or a very very vague memory of Rumpole of the Bailey.
1 Like
Also the point of the action is not the money. If the GLP lose they are in trouble. If the government loses the taxpayer ends up paying. It makes absolute sense to cap costs.
1 Like
I hadnāt thought of it that way.
Yes, makes total sense for the GLP to seek a costs capping order. I had a look at the costs budget from the government on the Cummings hearing from last Monday (GLP v Cabinet Office) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SKTR9v-Z4wpwATqUUWJYtVdb0-6qGM3C/view?usp=drivesdk) and it was Ā£503k!
I have to say thatās absurd. That case just concerns the narrow issue of the appointment by the Cabinet Office (It is argued de facto Cummings) of Public First. No way should the costs of answering that action be that high.
Conversely, this action that was before the Court today (same judge, incidentally, Mrs Justice OāFarrell) might merit costs in that region given the far wider ambit of the issues pleaded (itās effectively three claims that have been consolidated into one). So bizarrely this order probably more appropriate for the case at the beginning of last week. We should have the judgment from that one soon.
I wouldnāt read too much into it but it could be argued that as well as providing some costs protection for the GLP the order today also suggests that Mrs Justice OāFarrell considers that the GLP has a reasonable case.
One thing that troubles me is why should it even be necessary for the GLP to bring such an action? The NAO has already launched an investigation into many of these contracts. Is it the case that the NAO isnāt truly independent or doesnāt have sufficient powers of enquiry (on a level with the courts)? If not, why not? If the NAO is independent and does have sufficient powers of enquiry, why the need for a body like the GLP to seek judicial review?
The government are almost certainly going to say that this action is a pointless distraction if this scrutiny is precisely what the NAO is there for and is in the process of undertaking (as I say, itās already investigated at least one of the contracts that the GLP are citing).
I hope Iām wrong but I canāt get away from the feeling that Maugham enjoys the public spotlight and adulation of standing up for democracy, resisting these authoritarian arseholes, exposing the corrupt Tory cunts, fighting to prevent Brexit etcā¦all crowd funded by members of the public, some of them undoubtedly misled on spin, half-truths and window-dressing. The guyās got a massive ego.
Somebody should do a study on how much of these crusades have actually achieved anything other than parting members of the public with over a million pounds of which a sizeable chunk has contributed towards Maughamās comfortable lifestyle.
Iāve seen Maugham falsely describe the failure to publish contract details in time as āillegalityā. Iāve seen him falsely describe the costs of the government (above) as relating to 11 Solicitors, 6 junior counsel and 2 QCs. The reality is that the costs schedule relates to 6 Solicitors (or Chartered Legal Executives) and at most 4 Barristers, heās overstated the number of Solicitors and Barristers by nearly double. Only one of these fee earners has a higher charging rate than me.
These misrepresentations may seem trivial but itās a constant spin from him, seemingly done deliberately to overstate matters. As a matter of principle I donāt like it when heās being funded by donations that these exaggerations partly encourage.
This distortion shouldnāt even have been necessary either, the bottom line of Ā£503k was obscene and seemingly disproportionate. No need to wrongly inflate the size of the army on the other side. But thatās the imagery heās trying to tap into. Us against the ruling elite with their hundreds of lawyers, desperate to stop proper scrutiny of the government.
Meanwhile the GLP costs in that action are themselves well over Ā£200k and for what? Considerably less time is needed to ask a question or throw out an allegation than it takes to answer it. Maugham himself is a QC. The donations allow the GLP to fund an extensive legal team of its own (Jason Coppel is also a QC) and itās somewhat ironic (highly hypocritical) that the GLP doesnāt hold itself to the same standards of transparency and open selection/appointment that it demands of others. It exercises its own cronyism and financial obfuscation.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
This is pertinent on the subject of female membership of the Labour Party. The replies are instructive.
1 Like
In fairness, you could have seen this one coming with a palantirā¦
These deals do need scrutiny so Iām all for shining sunlight on them. But they also highlight the conflict between wanting a world-leading contact tracing system and preventing companies getting access to our data. You cannot have one without the other. Of course, what systems are then put in place to ensure that our data is not abused or exploited for purposes other than these legitimate public health objectives is the key.
I did understand your reference 
Tbf, the UK government did rather bodge the whole ātrying to sneak it through thingā by publishing the details on its contract publishing portal.
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/9233a767-bd2b-49eb-9c57-310bb2e259e0
Gareth has moved on from the days of being assistant branch manager/assistant to the branch managerā¦
Do you have examples?
Only person I could think of that would be a good reference on this would be David Baddiel. Sadly not a member of the forum but I believe heās written a book on this kind of thing. He seems to be very much at the forefront of raising awareness on the topic.
Even David Baddiel divides opinion on this though, including within the Jewish community.
https://twitter.com/JeffSamuels16/status/1363299555798900738
https://twitter.com/sitrapont/status/1363306057347567616
https://twitter.com/JeffSamuels16/status/1363317669215240192
https://twitter.com/JeffSamuels16/status/1361680696113319943
I havenāt set out the full thread that then followsā¦do click on the link if you want to read it
As I understand it, the IHRA What is antisemitism? (which also divides opinions amongst the jewish community) does distinguish between what is criticism of the Israeli government (particularly policies that might be described as zionist) and antisemitism. Meaning that it is not automatically antisemitic to criticise Israel (and more specifically the Israeli government).
However, this continues to divide opinion. Personally, I am of the view that criticising the actions of the Israeli government ought not to be considered antisemitic if the actions being criticised are unconnected with being Jewish or judaism and/or the language being used (or the motivation) to criticise is not itself antisemitic.