In 2014 Boris said " the EU is a wonderful thing. If we did not have it we would have to invent it"
Starmer backing his party leader , not specifically over an anti semitism matter, does not even remotely compare to so many statements and lies told by Boris.
1 Like
Come on Kopstar. You would never join any outrage against the Tory party.
The fact is you would need a bigger forum than this to debate and explain all the money wasting issues and " jobs for the boys " issues involved with this Government .
2 Likes
At no point did I say that it did. In fact I didnât even mention Johnson and was having a go at the Conservative Partyâs bullshit.
1 Like
You must like ignoring all the posts where in fact I do criticise the government and the Conservatives. Just like the one above that you quoted and gave a strawman response to something I hadnât said.
This thing where people just make things up to argue againstâŚcould we stop doing that?
1 Like
Reading the article what could be said is this could just be innocent/nothing in it, although the other person in the article âhis friendâ seems to be fanning the flames of suspicion for some reason. They only part I would question is
"In a statement, Alpha Laboratories said: âAlthough we were aware Alex Bourne had met Mr Hancock,â
How did they find that out? Did Hancock mention this to someone, which may have resulted in them looking at this guy more favourably. Or this this guy just name drop Hancock?
1 Like
The article doesnât say. The suggestion that he was looked at more favourably is also conjecture and something, moreover, that is flatly denied by everyone. The fact that he failed to satisfy the criteria for producing a different product would suggest that whatever connections he had he still had to demonstrate that he could provide appropriate equipment.
Funny thing is that one of the great features of this forum is that it shows how often a link has been clicked. At the time of writing this, the link to the actual article has been clicked just once
Itâs worth noting that tucked away at the end of the article it says this,
Asked whether Hinpack received any preferential treatment because of Bourneâs contacts with the health secretary, a DHSC spokesperson said it had not: âThere is no evidence to support these claims. As the National Audit Office report has made clear, ministers are not involved in procurement decisions or contract management and to suggest otherwise is wholly inaccurate.â
1 Like
Give me a chance. Iâm still catching up. Mad week / month
1 Like
Anyone know if it was a pro-forma arrangement regarding his invoice termsâŚ! Just asking
1 Like
The question is would a similar âgood newsâ entrepreneurially spirited individual manage to get the contracts and access to number 10 without having a direct line to Matt Hancock?
Mrs Mascot always reflects that the most interesting thing about the cultural change as Government went from red to blue when she was a senior-ish civil servant in 2010, was the way the Tory ministers didnât understand that nepotism and cronyism was even a problem. If the conclusion to a meeting was âwe need a new IT systemâ the Tory ministerâs response would inevitably be âBrilliant, Iâve got a mate whoâll do that for usâ.
Despite being reminded and advised that spending significant amounts of public money needed to come with a degree of scrutiny, accountability and trust, and therefore contracts should be tendered and considered, they didnât get it, and would get angry and frustrated that they couldnât just give Dazza from the Rugger Club a ring and sort it out.
As has been said, this isnât a good look. It might be as Kopstar says, but I really doubt it. The track record of this government suggests otherwise. There has been too much public money casually siphoned off to friends, spouses and relatives of Government ministers to appeal to good faith. Just the nepotism is bad enough, but most of them have then proved incapable of even delivering the work.
4 Likes
You know how some people like to make self-denigrating jokes but then get highly offended when someone else makes a joke about them? Thatâs what you are like with the conservative party. Your criticisms of the Tories recently have often felt contrived, but perhaps admirably you are doing so to ease the tension in what is a forum full of people that support LFC and therefore donât have much time for the Tory party and in what is often the most bitter threads on the forum. Still the second anyone who is not a Tory (so everyone except Ptt and I assume Rambler) has a criticism there is a fucking massive chance that you are going to fly in and argue to the finest detail how the government had the best intentions, and often throwing the âat least he isnât Corbynâ jab in at the end. And here you are drawing attention to the fact that you have criticised the government recently. As I say, I havenât felt it is genuine. Its just my opinion though.
I know you are a paid up Tory member. You had suggested previously that you signed up purely due to Brexit, so Iâll take your word for it that you signed up in 2016/2017 and you havenât been a member for the last decade. [/NOSTALK] Iâm used to the Tory defence now. I know if there is recent negative UK government news you will be in here defending. Just like Iâm sure you will know before reading what mine and some of the other Tory-despising peopleâs opinions are going to be.
Relating to this article, no-one, not even Bourne himself, appeared confident that he wasnât directed to a different channel for the procurement process. Likewise I donât think anyone is claiming Hancock was involved in the procurement process, but I also wonder who exactly puts tenderers in the normal procurement stream and who in the VIP Tory stream from the website and what barriers are in place to stop ministers being involved in that decision. The Auditors have already identified this so obviously there arenât many barriers. Very very easy to connect those dots when a government has such an incredible recent history of doing exactly this.
Another point as has already been made in here but youâve either missed or ignored is that tenderers generally have to have pretty fucking solid past evidence of previous experience in the field that the procurement relates to. I have been involved in procurement processes that are a tiny fraction of the sums we are talking here and they were pretty thorough practices. I just fail to see how someone without that experience can even be in with a chance. Oh, unless they are in the VIP stream and they are tendering against even less qualified Tory mates.
1 Like
The thing is, there was a nationwide appeal for people to come forward and offer whatever help they could. That was absolutely in everybodyâs interests. We had Formula 1, with no previous experience of making ventillators, coming together in record time to manufacture them. We had dyson with no previous experience in ventillators doing the same and even re-designing the fucking things.
This guyâs got a moulding factory thatâs probably about to see a significant drop off in business due to lockdown and contacts a bloke he knows in government saying he might be able to help. That bloke directs him to the appropriate channels (channels for everyone). He goes through the procurement process - is rejected for the first product the government asks if he can help with. He gets in independent experts and regulatory advisers, re-tools his factory, gets in specialist equipment and then gets the approval to provide a different product, reportedly at a competitive price and of satisfactory quality.
What was he supposed to do? What was Hancock supposed to do? Tell him to fuck off? Seems like the only thing that makes this smell a bit is the fact he knows Hancock - everything else about the story sounds like it was done entirely above board.
Happy to keep an open mind here but I bet you there are people in government who know the owners of the Formula 1 teams and those who know James Dyson. Fucking wankers trying to help in a national crisis. Who do they think they are? Friends of Tories? Ha! LIES! You expect me to believe Tories have friends?! I wish all these do-gooders would just fuck off!
Is that how we should play it?
1 Like
They should be prosecuted to the limit of the law for every instance where cronieism, mates under the table, âI know a guyâ etc is found to have been in play. Simple nest feathering and blatant corruption should be the first area of scrutiny in government procurement.
2 Likes
Wow, where to even begin with this.
Iâve been criticising politicians of all hues for fucking decades. Iâve voted for Labour, LibDems and the Conservatives at General Elections. To even suggest that my criticism of a particular party is recent or contrived is just absolute rank nonsense. Shows you havenât been paying attention.
A paid up member of the Conservatives? Nope. Signed up in 2016/17? Nope. I joined the Conservative party LAST YEAR for one reason and one reason only, to try and stop Johnson from being elected leader. Thatâs probably more than anyone else did on this forum. As soon as the leadership election was done I cancelled my membership, although I still get emails from them.
Although I think Corbyn would have been a fucking disaster, I donât recall ever saying âat least he isnât Corbynâ in some form of whataboutism in trying to defend any Conservative politician. Maybe youâre right and I did in relation to the general election? I would hardly be alone in that.
As for why Iâve referenced the fact I have criticised the government I did so purely to rebutt the errant nonsense that I would defend a Conservative politician irrespective of the issue. Thatâs quite evidently horse-shit. What I try and do is not jump to knee-jerk conclusions, to want to see more than just bullshit innuendo before arriving at my own judgement. Quite often, in order to have some form of balance in these threads, that does involve me asking where the evidence is for any particular allegation of wrong-doing based purely on pre-conceived prejudices and distortion. The majority of such posts are directed towards the Conservatives.
But Iâve defended Labour politicians against such smears as well. I just say it as I see it, regardless of political affiliations. That appears almost unique in this forum. Might explain why some seem to be so unbalanced by it.
3 Likes
He took quite a risk there, retooling etc. That isnât cheap.
Unless he knew something that we donâtâŚjust sayin.
Iâd like to believe this is a good story but I cant get past that it involves this government, Matt Hancock and the previous history associated with this kind of stuff.
At least there wasnât a Spanish middle man this time. Itâs always good when we can show how we can stand alone without people from the EU.
1 Like
Yes, maybe heâd been told that heâd need to improve his operations to a sufficient standard if he was going to have a chance of being engaged as part of the governmentâs procurement process? That simply knowing Hancock wasnât going to cut it?
Nope, canât be that.
If the fact that he engaged with experts and regulators, and spent money on ensuring he was properly equipped to deliver the product to the required regulatory standard can even be used against him then I think weâve disappeared pretty far down the rabbit hole.
One thingâs for certain - all this coverage and unsubstantiated smears and innuendo will make people think twice before offering assistance in a national crisis again.
For the avoidance of doubt (ridiculous that I even feel the need to add this), I am not condoning ANY corruption, cronyism, nepotism or any other favours-for-mates scenarios. Everything absolutely must be above board.
1 Like
Itâs fucking ironic (but sadly unsurprising) that the very response to my post saying, âThis thing where people just make things up to argue againstâŚcould we stop doing that?â is a post of made up things that are then argued against. 
1 Like
Usually where there has to be a lot of language in defence of an issue, its bollocks. There was no âarms lengthâ about this and that raises a presumption of bias. Procurement law is supposed to deal with bias, in fact, the entire jursiprudence of procurement law most closely resembles that on judicial review, which is to protect fair and impartial decision making.
In the most technical of sense, this stinks to fck.
Nothing will be done about it because we should all be well adjusted to this by now.
2 Likes
Go on then. Assuming youâve read the article and know all the facts, in what way did this contravene any public procurement laws?
2 Likes
Why are you asking me to make out a premise I have not put?
A presumption of bias does not amount to a breach.
Additionally, even with reading the article and knowing all the facts you would be in no better position; you need to read the rules of the tender competition.
Its Friday night have a beer 
2 Likes
That must have been me that clicked it otherwise that feature doesnât work as it should.
2 Likes