Hancock acted unlawfully in giving Tory cronies contracts

So what happens next?

Does he, or rather his department, get fined?

A thick ear?

Told to go into the corner with this hands on his head?
 
So what happens next?

Does he, or rather his department, get fined?

A thick ear?

Told to go into the corner with this hands on his head?
They have already started to comply with the law on this one so no further action, but that wasn't the point of the litigation.
 
Just imagine if a Labour Health Minister had done it?

If you’re commenting on the duplicitous nature of the media then I entirely agree.

However, at the moment, all this case demonstrates is that the Department for Health has been too slow in publishing its data on contract awards. Hardly a resigning matter.

As has been already mentioned, there are further cases coming down the line which relate to how those contracts were awarded and to whom. That will be the real test of cronyism, not this judgment, and the information which comes out at those hearings may well lead to justified calls for Hancock’s resignation.
 
I think the government are essentially betting on people falling into three camps on this one:

A - Don't care or understand
B - Understand but can "oversee" it (i.e time of national emergency etc)
C - Understand and want action taken as a result

Providing the numbers in camp A and B outweigh C (which imo they probably do), nothing will happen.

The government have, quite skilfully, realised that the only actual accountability is at the ballot box and that providing you promise the world at that stage (despite any ability or desire to actually enact said change), that level of accountability is effectively removed as well.
 
I think the government are essentially betting on people falling into three camps on this one:

A - Don't care or understand
B - Understand but can "oversee" it (i.e time of national emergency etc)
C - Understand and want action taken as a result

Providing the numbers in camp A and B outweigh C (which imo they probably do), nothing will happen.

The government have, quite skilfully, realised that the only actual accountability is at the ballot box and that providing you promise the world at that stage (despite any ability or desire to actually enact said change), that level of accountability is effectively removed as well.
That may be the case with this litigation but there is much worse to come. Litigation that essentially accusess the government of stealing tax payers money. At that point you would expect it to get broad coverage and for people to care.
 
I think the government are essentially betting on people falling into three camps on this one:

A - Don't care or understand
B - Understand but can "oversee" it (i.e time of national emergency etc)
C - Understand and want action taken as a result

Providing the numbers in camp A and B outweigh C (which imo they probably do), nothing will happen.

The government have, quite skilfully, realised that the only actual accountability is at the ballot box and that providing you promise the world at that stage (despite any ability or desire to actually enact said change), that level of accountability is effectively removed as well.
Litigation that essentially accusess the government of stealing tax payers money. At that point you would expect it to get broad coverage and for people to care.

Through chats with colleagues, friends & family I am astounded at the number that fall into B. Even with the £m contract that went to a shell company that was worth 10p and the owner was a mate of Hancock and the ppe never turned up, their opinion is it was an emergency and required radical action to source ppe in rapid time.
 
Through chats with colleagues, friends & family I am astounded at the number that fall into B. Even with the £m contract that went to a shell company that was worth 10p and the owner was a mate of Hancock and the ppe never turned up, their opinion is it was an emergency and required radical action to source ppe in rapid time.
Think most fair minded people not driven by political bias would agree. The sourcing and procurement of PPE et al trumped nondescript transparency regs.
 
So you're happy that they give contracts worth millions to their mates?
He sounds almost brainwashed. Its scary to me that someone who has a vote has such low standards for the people he thinks should govern us. I honestly can't understand people defending corruption.
 
So you're happy that they give contracts worth millions to their mates?
I was referring to the findings of the recently published JR judgment. I will await reading the future judgments rather than unsubstantiated allegations on this message board.
 
Are some people still not reading the judgement or just not understanding what the judgement found. It was nothing to do with awarding of contracts and that is for a later date.
 
Back
Top