Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Matt Hancock/Government Break the Law







Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
11,378
Crawley
The very same people who were berating the government for not acting quickly enough are unsurprisingly, the ones trying to make the most of one aspect of this ruling now. A ruling that found most claims (oft repeated on here) re appointments being made because of nepotism and/or political connections (eg, corruption) against the government were without any foundation.

“The collective effect of the conclusions set out during this judgment is that*the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety. The claim by the Runnymede Trust fails on Grounds 1 and 3; it succeeds on Ground 2 only to the extent that the decisions on the process to be used when appointing to the positions of Interim Chair of NIHP in August 2020, and Director of Testing at NHSTT in September 2020 were made without compliance with the public sector equality duty


Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

Failing to act sooner has been used as a defence for acting in haste. If they acted sooner, they could have had something closer to a proper recruitment process that involved candidates other than just the wives of ministers, old Etonians, Lords or Ministers mates.

The Judge said Dido Harding had relevant experience, so lets look, after stepping down as CEO of Talk Talk in April 2017, having lost the business 95,000 customers, £60M, and a £400K fine from the ICO for failing to implement even the most basic cyber security measures, she was appointed to Chair of NHS Improvement in October 2017, so this is relevant experience that other somewhat disgraced CEO's of mobile phone companies won't have had, also she has sat on the Economic Affairs Select Committee since October 2017.

So she had some relevant experience, enough to make her a reasonable candidate, but we don't know if anyone else was considered or their experience, so we can't say with total confidence that nepotism was not a factor.

How did Dido Harding get her relevant experience?
1. Made friends with a bloke called David Cameron whilst at Oxford University
2. Got appointed to The House of Lords in 2014
3. Got appointed to Chair of NHS Improvement, a Non Departmental Public Body, and the Economic Select Affairs Committee pretty soon after quitting business life in 2017.

No personal connections involved, my arse.
 


JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
Spot on.

There always seems to be a lot of cake and eating it on these threads which is why I rarely bother.

I desperately want Boris to go, as he’s a pillock, but nobody, when the pandemic started, knew of the devastation and impact it would cause, and in government you are reacting to an ever changing situation.

Everything, is always easier in hindsight…..
I completely understand your reluctance to engage. Just look at this thread; even after the court ruled their was no evidence of political appointments or nepotism, the untrue claims are repeated yet again.

Perhaps in the future, the government should be looking to social media for all their appointments as it appears to be awash with self-proclaimed experts on every topic who seem to think they have all the answers ... [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
19,171
Deepest, darkest Sussex
“Yes it turned out Crystal Palace tapped him up illegally then fielded him when he wasn’t eligible to play, but they were desperate for a keeper and if they’d lost the game they’d have been relegated, so let’s cut them some slack.”
 


nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,990
Gods country fortnightly




portslade seagull

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2003
17,768
portslade
I completely understand your reluctance to engage. Just look at this thread; even after the court ruled their was no evidence of political appointments or nepotism, the untrue claims are repeated yet again.

Perhaps in the future, the government should be looking to social media for all their appointments as it appears to be awash with self-proclaimed experts on every topic who seem to think they have all the answers ... [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

Court rulings/ investigation's only count for one side silly :facepalm:
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
25,092
West is BEST
I completely understand your reluctance to engage. Just look at this thread; even after the court ruled their was no evidence of political appointments or nepotism, the untrue claims are repeated yet again.

Perhaps in the future, the government should be looking to social media for all their appointments as it appears to be awash with self-proclaimed experts on every topic who seem to think they have all the answers ... [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

You don't understand why people don't trust our government or the processes that supposedly hold then to account? You might nor share these concerns. In fact you clearly think the opposite but looking at it objectively do you not see reason to be suspicious of the government when it comes to these matters?
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,270
Why is there all this angst about the government's failure to follow procedures about appointing a few people? There are far, far worse breaches of the law to consider. For crying out loud, they closed the schools without even going through parliament. They closed shops and offices, they made it illegal to visit parents, they did all sorts of "illegal" activities far beyond a procedural appointment. Let the people who think there was no hurry and no need to cut corners, complain about those things instead.
 




The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
25,092
West is BEST
Why is there all this angst about the government's failure to follow procedures about appointing a few people? There are far, far worse breaches of the law to consider. For crying out loud, they closed the schools without even going through parliament. They closed shops and offices, they made it illegal to visit parents, they did all sorts of "illegal" activities far beyond a procedural appointment. Let the people who think there was no hurry and no need to cut corners, complain about those things instead.

A few people? They squandered billions on useless contracts and unsuitable appointments. Billions. God knows how many lives were lost due to the delays in procuring suitable PPE. But that aside, what a bizarre point you are making. Genuinely. Why would anyone complain about the government taking perfectly rational measures to slow the spread of a pandemic? You say these were "illegal". Why the quote marks? And why were they "illegal"?

Sorry, but you are coming out with some very strange "points".
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,270
A few people? They squandered billions on useless contracts and unsuitable appointments. Billions. God knows how many lives were lost due to the delays in procuring suitable PPE. But that aside, what a bizarre point you are making. Genuinely. Why would anyone complain about the government taking perfectly rational measures to slow the spread of a pandemic? You say these were "illegal". Why the quote marks? And why were they "illegal"?

Sorry, but you are coming out with some very strange "points".
The point is that a lot of things were done in the pandemic that should not be done in normal times. If it is the Runnymede Society's belief that, in principle, it was wrong for the government to ignore normal procedures in taking their emergency action, then there are plenty of more serious normal procedures they can have a pot at. If, on the other hand, it is accepted that the emergency was such that corners had to be cut, then what's wrong with cutting this particular corner?

Whether they were competent or not in getting the PPE is a different matter. This argument is about whether, in principle, the government were right to ignore certain established procedures in running the pandemic policy, or whether they sohould have played it by the book as if nothing unusual was happening.
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
25,092
West is BEST
The point is that a lot of things were done in the pandemic that should not be done in normal times. If it is the Runnymede Society's belief that, in principle, it was wrong for the government to ignore normal procedures in taking their emergency action, then there are plenty of more serious normal procedures they can have a pot at. If, on the other hand, it is accepted that the emergency was such that corners had to be cut, then what's wrong with cutting this particular corner?

Whether they were competent or not in getting the PPE is a different matter. This argument is about whether, in principle, the government were right to ignore certain established procedures in running the pandemic policy, or whether they sohould have played it by the book as if nothing unusual was happening.

No. Quite wrong in my opinion. The point is whether they cut corners to benefit the public or to benefit themselves and their friends.

There is no normal procedure for shutting schools, shops etc. There is procedure for procurement. When you have established PPE manufacturers and providers being completely ignored, even when they are offering their services, in favour of the "VIP lane" then yes, questions need to be asked and answered satisfactorily.

It's not as binary as you make out. We can't just allow any behaviour because the situation is "not normal".

Shutting school, shops and pubs because the situation is not normal? The right decision.

Giving billion pound contracts to people you are connected to who have no idea what they are doing to while ignoring companies with experience because the situation is not "normal"? Deliberately the wrong decision.

If I accept one action, I have to accept them all? No. That's not how it works.
 




dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,270
No. Quite wrong in my opinion. The point is whether they cut corners to benefit the public or to benefit themselves and their friends.

There is no normal procedure for shutting schools, shops etc. There is procedure for procurement. When you have established PPE manufacturers and providers being completely ignored, even when they are offering their services, in favour of the "VIP lane" then yes, questions need to be asked and answered satisfactorily.

It's not as binary as you make out. We can't just allow any behaviour because the situation is "not normal".

Shutting school, shops and pubs because the situation is not normal? The right decision.

Giving billion pound contracts to people you are connected to who have no idea what they are doing to while ignoring companies with experience because the situation is not "normal"? Deliberately the wrong decision.

If I accept one action, I have to accept them all? No. That's not how it works.
I dare say. But in this particular instance, this court ruling clears him of favourtism and bias.

You're right there is a normal procedure for acquiring PPE, and it doesn't involve the Minister. There is (or was) a semi-autonomous body called Public Health England that has that job, and it doesn't report to the minister. Some of those 4,000 employees should have been moving heaven and earth to get their regular suppliers busy with everything they could provide. Why weren't they? Was it because Hancock specifically told them not to - or was it because those 4,000 people did follow proper procedures?
 


Baker lite

Banned
Mar 16, 2017
6,309
in my house
I completely understand your reluctance to engage. Just look at this thread; even after the court ruled their was no evidence of political appointments or nepotism, the untrue claims are repeated yet again.

Perhaps in the future, the government should be looking to social media for all their appointments as it appears to be awash with self-proclaimed experts on every topic who seem to think they have all the answers ... [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

Don’t let the truth get in way of a good story [emoji849]
Wait till the Met report on cake gate gets published, there will be mass faintings from the wokerati on here.
 


Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
11,378
Crawley
I completely understand your reluctance to engage. Just look at this thread; even after the court ruled their was no evidence of political appointments or nepotism, the untrue claims are repeated yet again.

Perhaps in the future, the government should be looking to social media for all their appointments as it appears to be awash with self-proclaimed experts on every topic who seem to think they have all the answers ... [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

Edit, not complete.
 




Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
11,378
Crawley
I completely understand your reluctance to engage. Just look at this thread; even after the court ruled their was no evidence of political appointments or nepotism, the untrue claims are repeated yet again.

Perhaps in the future, the government should be looking to social media for all their appointments as it appears to be awash with self-proclaimed experts on every topic who seem to think they have all the answers ... [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

The Judgement can be found here https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...e-Trust-v-1-Prime-Minister-SSHSC-judgment.pdf

Essentially, the Government argued that none of the claims were correct, but also that none of the appointees are still in role, so the case is academic and should not be determined by the court, and that the claims have been brought too late, and that the claimants lack the standing to make the complaints, i.e., they are just busybodies, it didn't affect them personally, so it's none of their business.

The court made decisions on the various claims in different ways, some they agreed were made out of time, or that the complainant did not have the standing to make the complaint, or that the complaint that there was a pattern to these appointments was disproved by the evidence that the processes were slightly different, that the Claimants evidence did not meet the standard required, that the urgency required a less than fully open process.

The court ruling includes evidence from the defendants, On the 4th of May Johnson and Mark Sedwill discussed and decided they needed someone to head NHSTT, on the 5th of May a job description had been knocked up and handed to recruitment consultants, Dido Harding was on a list of 21 produced by the Recruitment Consultants, by the end of the same morning . By the afternoon, this was whittled down to a shortlist of 6 produced by Civil Servants including the Cabinet Secretary with Dido Harding named by the Cabinet Secretary as his preferred candidate, Matt Hancock put 3 of these to Johnson with Dido Harding named as his preferred candidate, on the 6th Johnson accepted the recommendation and she was announced in the role on the 7th. Essentially, Craig David would have been at the taking her for a drink stage, when Johnson appointed her.
The appointment processes were slightly different for the other roles, for instance, Mike Coupe was not a candidate for head of testing at NHSTT until Dido Harding had a shortlist of 3 handed to her and added him as a fourth, she conducted the final interviews of all 4 and surprisingly ended up appointing her mate Mike.

I feel the court was more than fair with the Government, in fact making it's excuses for it here and there, my personal favourite, on the complaint of bias in Dido Harding appointing Mike Coupe, and the fact that she put his name forward on top of the shortlist she had, "That sort of approach is not uncommon in the context of recruitment to senior positions." Well, that is rather the point the complainants were making, all too common. And then the court states "Baroness Harding and Mr Coupe had not worked in the same organisation since 2010" Well, perhaps she stayed in touch, you know, like friends do.

The court decided there was not a Policy of nepotism proven in the complaint. All in all it is clear the courts came to the correct decision in law, but reading what it was allowed to consider legally, the complaints were never all going to stand for one reason or another.
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
25,092
West is BEST
I dare say. But in this particular instance, this court ruling clears him of favourtism and bias.

You're right there is a normal procedure for acquiring PPE, and it doesn't involve the Minister. There is (or was) a semi-autonomous body called Public Health England that has that job, and it doesn't report to the minister. Some of those 4,000 employees should have been moving heaven and earth to get their regular suppliers busy with everything they could provide. Why weren't they? Was it because Hancock specifically told them not to - or was it because those 4,000 people did follow proper procedures?

I’m sure you’re right. This government did a bang up job. Nobody could have done it better AND made their pals so much money at the same time. Well done all.
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,270
I’m sure you’re right. This government did a bang up job. Nobody could have done it better AND made their pals so much money at the same time. Well done all.
Is there really any point in inventing a random statement, bearing no relation to what people have said, just so you can be sarcastic about it?
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
25,092
West is BEST
Is there really any point in inventing a random statement, bearing no relation to what people have said, just so you can be sarcastic about it?

Inventing a random statement? Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
There’s not much point to any debate with you. Every one of your arguments has been taken apart and you still insist the Tory’s did nothing wrong in their method of procurement. Sadly, there are far too many people with this opinion. This is why the country is in the toilet, an international laughing stock.
 




JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
Is there really any point in inventing a random statement, bearing no relation to what people have said, just so you can be sarcastic about it?
Classic Clampy ... make an absurd hyperbolic post hoping to provoke a reaction, followed by a series of silly strawman replies after his point has been demolished ...ending with a 'you're not worth debating with' sign off. Rinse and repeat.



Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here