As far as I can tell, the Secretary of State for Health (/Social Services) has, rather curiously/surprisingly, never had a medical background 
He is rather remarkable in how poorly he is able to disguise his absolute disregard for norms - he very clearly misled the House, which is in a sense a far more serious matter than violating lockdown rules. Yet he appears to believe he can bluster his way through that by pointing to a report to come, that by its nature has almost no bearing on the matter of the confidence of the House
2 Likes
I wonder if there were camerasā¦
edit: should have added, āIf not, then it didnāt happenāā¦
Here is the Guardian
And the independent
Both going with the āunlawfulā claim.
Iām not sure what you think is clickbait. The judgement said it was unlawful
Thatās what I mean though. Media will spin the headline which is most sensational.
Hereās Monckton Chambersā summary (the Defendant being the Secretary of State). The linked article includes a link to the full written judgment.
Following a five-day hearing in May 2021, OāFarrell J found almost entirely in the Defendantās favour. In brief summary, she held:
i. The Secretary of State was obliged to comply with the principles of equal treatment, notwithstanding the applicability of Regulation 32(2)(c). While the āopen sourceā approach he had adopted generally was compliant, the operation of the High Priority Lane itself was not: offers that were introduced through āSenior Referrersā received earlier consideration at the outset of the process, thereby increasing their chances of securing a contract.
ii. Prior to the issue of proceedings, the Secretary of State had complied with his duty to give clear and sufficient reasons for awarding the contracts under challenge.
iii. None of the award decisions was irrational: the Secretary of State had not placed any reliance on their referral to the High Priority Lane when awarding the contracts to PestFix and Ayanda, and sufficient technical and financial verification had been carried out.
iv. The Claimants had sufficient interest to bring the claims.
v. Relief (in this case, a declaration of unlawfulness) in respect of the breach of the obligation of equal treatment was nevertheless refused under s.31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, on the basis it is highly likely that the outcome would not be substantially different. Given the high volumes of supply on offer, the contracts would still have been awarded.
Gordon Brown perhaps?
1 Like
Yes, for some reason I thought he had attended private school but his wikipedia page indicates otherwise. Incidentally, his wiki also says that he was romantically involved for a while with āMargarita, the Crown Princess of Romaniaāā¦! It quotes her as saying, āIt was a very solid and romantic story. I never stopped loving him but one day it didnāt seem right any more, it was politics, politics, politics, and I needed nurturing.ā
Roll on Jonathan Pie.
1 Like
The complete disappearance of the entire Cabinet today is remarkable. Not a peep as far as I can tell. You could do a version of thisā¦
1 Like
Can I punch this cunt in the face too??
However, Chope adds that it is disappointing that the prime minister has got caught up in the āarrogance of the establishmentā, with civil servants and ministers at the top feeling they can behave in a different way to ordinary people.
Not Borisā fault, apparentlyā¦
FMD
āministers at the topā
Heās really not sensing the irony there is he?
1 Like
These are the four separate challenges about which judgment has been handed down today. The Court has dismissed all of these claims for declaratory relief brought by the Good Law Project against the government. All of them.
So the court has dismissed them all, but also found that the government behaved unlawfully?
How does that work then?
The GLP asked the Court to make a declaration that the contracts had been awarded unlawfully. The Court has refused to make that order on the basis that the contracts would have been awarded anyway, even if they had not been put through the VIP lane (which the Court found was unlawful on the basis that it did not treat tenders equally).
The GLPās action has literally failed on every ground. This legal virtue signalling malarkey is money for old rope.
You can bet they will be fundraising off the back of the āvictoriousā finding that the process was unlawful. That fellow seems to be a special kind of grifter.
1 Like
Full transcript of Johnsons waffle at PMQs today
Mr Speaker, I want to apologise. I know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months. I know the anguish that they have been through - unable to mourn their relatives, unable to live their lives as they want or do the things they love. And I know the rage they feel with me and with the government I lead, when they think that in Downing Street itself the rules are not being properly followed by the people who make the rules.
And though I cannot anticipate the conclusions of the current inquiry I have learned enough to know there were things we simply did not get right and I must take responsibility. Number 10 is a big department with the garden as an extension of the office - which has been in constant use because of the role of fresh air in stopping the virus. And when I went into that garden just after six on the 20th of May 2020, to thank groups of staff before going back into my office 25 minutes later to continue working, I believed implicitly that this was a work event."
But, Mr Speaker, with hindsight I should have sent everyone back inside, I should have found some other way to thank them and I should have recognised that even if it could be said technically to fall within the guidance, there would be millions and millions of people who simply would not see it that way. People who suffered terribly - people who were forbidden from meeting loved ones at all, inside or outside. And to them and to this house I offer my heartfelt apologies. And all I ask is that Sue Gray be allowed to complete her inquiry into that day and several others so that the full facts can be established.
Itās as embarrassing as it gets really.
Iād agree if youāre talking about legal objectives in that narrow sense.
However, as someone (who is probably a target of the āgriftā that the Good Law Project is running), the finding that the so-called VIP lanes was unlawful is significant, as is the finding that regardless of that, no harm was done since the end result was the same (which is what youāre focusing on, I presume).
To me, itās about keeping the government honest, and Iād want that regardless of whoever was in charge.
1 Like
Thatās insane.
The point is that having a VIP lane for Government procurement contracts is transparently corrupt. Everything should be put through proper channels. It is absolutely beside the point if those companies would have won contracts through the proper channels regardless.
By the way, Pestfix and Ayanda - the two companies whoās VIP access was being investigated, supplied PPE - gowns and masks - all of which proved unsuitable for use.
People in the NHS were dying as this public money was being wasted on this shit.
2 Likes