Hancock acted unlawfully in giving Tory cronies contracts

SmallTown

Well-known member
I have never and will never defend corruption of any kind. If I have missed something that proves corruption then I apologise but the NAO report that I have read in full makes it clear that Ministers acted appropriately by declaring possible conflicts, not being involved in awarding contracts or in their subsequent management. Can we just leave the personal attacks alone as we don't know each other and I would never presume to know or care about your character.
For someone who hasn’t defended corruption you seem to be using an awful lot of semantics and clever words to try and defend a government that has been known to spend a lot of taxpayers money on dodgy contracts given to Tory party friends and donors. My suspicions about your character haven’t been disproven.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
To be clear, I don't think Hancock should be asked to or even consider resigning over this particular judgement. He published reports late. The finding concluded that the failings were not systemic, meaning that there was no proof that it was a deliberate act. Whilst it probably was, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that. So no, he should not resign because of this.

The legislation waiting in the wings that is pertinent to this discussion is Operation Moonshot where 100 billion pounds of our money is being committed, and PPE Procurement.

It is difficult to draw any conclusions from the Moonshot case as the government are flat refusing to provide information. Perhaps you can draw a conclusion from their reticence, but that wouldn't be a legal conclusion. However on the PPE Fiasco there is plenty of evidence in the public domain to draw reasonable conclusions from. In this particular legislation, and Moonshot, which may be abandoned, the government are trying to price the GLP out of the litigation, which in itself is telling. Look at the evidence around procurement of PPE, the government are corrupt, of that there is very little doubt. The government will loose this litigation, and at that point anyone invoved should go, they won't but they should.

To argue that you are waiting for the evidence is a bit of a cop out, it's available in the public domain now. If the presiding Judge rules that the governemnt can spend what they like on legal fees, and claim reparement for those fees then the GLP will probably drop the litigation as they could not afford to loose.

So to conclude, the government, or parts of it, are irreparabley corrupt. The current ruling does not and should not force any resignations, but that does not mean the government are not corrupt, they clearly are, albeit there is no ruling yet. Go look at the current state of any of the GLP litigations, read witness testimony and draw your own conclusions.

Hickton is allowed to say what he wants, I don't know his motivations, nor do I care and I am not sure why anybody else would either, He is not the problem. We have a judicial system that is being stymied by a legal move from the government, THAT'S the problem.
 

Hicktonpen10

Well-known member
To be clear, I don't think Hancock should be asked to or even consider resigning over this particular judgement. He published reports late. The finding concluded that the failings were not systemic, meaning that there was no proof that it was a deliberate act. Whilst it probably was, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that. So no, he should not resign because of this.

The legislation waiting in the wings that is pertinent to this discussion is Operation Moonshot where 100 billion pounds of our money is being committed, and PPE Procurement.

It is difficult to draw any conclusions from the Moonshot case as the government are flat refusing to provide information. Perhaps you can draw a conclusion from their reticence, but that wouldn't be a legal conclusion. However on the PPE Fiasco there is plenty of evidence in the public domain to draw reasonable conclusions from. In this particular legislation, and Moonshot, which may be abandoned, the government are trying to price the GLP out of the litigation, which in itself is telling. Look at the evidence around procurement of PPE, the government are corrupt, of that there is very little doubt. The government will loose this litigation, and at that point anyone invoved should go, they won't but they should.

To argue that you are waiting for the evidence is a bit of a cop out, it's available in the public domain now. If the presiding Judge rules that the governemnt can spend what they like on legal fees, and claim reparement for those fees then the GLP will probably drop the litigation as they could not afford to loose.

So to conclude, the government, or parts of it, are irreparabley corrupt. The current ruling does not and should not force any resignations, but that does not mean the government are not corrupt, they clearly are, albeit there is no ruling yet. Go look at the current state of any of the GLP litigations, read witness testimony and draw your own conclusions.

Hickton is allowed to say what he wants, I don't know his motivations, nor do I care and I am not sure why anybody else would either, He is not the problem. We have a judicial system that is being stymied by a legal move from the government, THAT'S the problem.
Thanks, I think. I have absolutely no motivations but prefer to see litigation run it's course and then form a view. Agree with you about the cost cap but thought there was a decision due on that soon.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Thanks, I think. I have absolutely no motivations but prefer to see litigation run it's course and then form a view. Agree with you about the cost cap but thought there was a decision due on that soon.
I don't know if the ruling has been made yet Hickton, I did look this morning but couldn't find it on the GLP website.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
Do you not think people like @Hicktonpen10 are part of the problem? He'll defend cronyism and corruption and you have to wonder why? Maybe he has some skin in the game, or maybe he's ignorant of the facts? If it's the latter how do we educate them?
I would sue you if you said that about me. Where is your evidence 'he has some skin in the game? If do you think the Weasley word 'maybe' is your get out card.
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
I would sue you if you said that about me. Where is your evidence 'he has some skin in the game? If do you think the Weasley word 'maybe' is your get out card.
That’s why it was a supposition. I was trying to justify seemingly nasty behaviour. That’s why the word maybe was in there. At least you can comprehend English
 

Hicktonpen10

Well-known member
I would sue you if you said that about me. Where is your evidence 'he has some skin in the game? If do you think the Weasley word 'maybe' is your get out card.
Cheers. The guy can't help himself. I've asked him to tone down the personal vitriol but he wouldn't recognise an olive branch if he was staring at one. Fortunately the vast majority of the board can listen to an alternative view without resorting to unfounded smears
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
Cheers. The guy can't help himself. I've asked him to tone down the personal vitriol but he wouldn't recognise an olive branch if he was staring at one. Fortunately the vast majority of the board can listen to an alternative view without resorting to unfounded smears
Once again: I'm happy for you to have an alternative view. When that view goes out of its way to try and ignore or justify government corruption I'm more than happy to call you up on it.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
That’s why it was a supposition. I was trying to justify seemingly nasty behaviour. That’s why the word maybe was in there. At least you can comprehend English
A supposition , cowardly words, you accused him.

My knowledge of the law is not what it was years ago but I am sure the word 'maybe' is no answer defense in law.
 

Cooper671

Well-known member
Once again: I'm happy for you to have an alternative view. When that view goes out of its way to try and ignore or justify government corruption I'm more than happy to call you up on it.

Maybe he's happy to call you out on voting tory or making stupid one shoe analogies about the vaccine but when someone mentions that to you it's bullying. Absolute hypocrite
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
A supposition , cowardly words, you accused him.
If I'm honest people like him disgust me. They use semantics and strict language to try and justify the behaviour of others. They chose their words carefully so they can repeatedly post things that leap to the defence of government corruption without actually explicitly stating it. That way when they get called out they can turn round and say "oh I didn't say that" and pretend to be all upset about it. Whilst still continuing to defend corruption. It's spineless in my eyes. If you're pro a corrupt government at least have the balls to come out and say it. Rather than defending them as much as possible then getting all fake upset when you're pulled up on it. I have no time for people who know that defending things like corruption is wrong but do it anyway, in a way that means they can't be pulled up on it. So I chose to express how I feel about that accordingly.
 

TommyPlus

Active member
Once again: I'm happy for you to have an alternative view. When that view goes out of its way to try and ignore or justify government corruption I'm more than happy to call you up on it.
As you so often resort to critiquing other people's grasp of the English language, I feel duty bound to point out that the correct phrase is 'call you out on it'. Unless you're actually making a telephone call, in which case I offer abundant apologies.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
If I'm honest people like him disgust me. They use semantics and strict language to try and justify the behaviour of others. They chose their words carefully so they can repeatedly post things that leap to the defence of government corruption without actually explicitly stating it. That way when they get called out they can turn round and say "oh I didn't say that" and pretend to be all upset about it. Whilst still continuing to defend corruption. It's spineless in my eyes. If you're pro a corrupt government at least have the balls to come out and say it. Rather than defending them as much as possible then getting all fake upset when you're pulled up on it. I have no time for people who know that defending things like corruption is wrong but do it anyway, in a way that means they can't be pulled up on it. So I chose to express how I feel about that accordingly.
I didn't accuse a lad I don't know of 'skin in the game' the fact I disgust you I take with a badge of honour.
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
As you so often resort to critiquing other people's grasp of the English language, I feel duty bound to point out that the correct phrase is 'call you out on it'. Unless you're actually making a telephone call, in which case I offer abundant apologies.
Fair point.
 

HolgateCorner

Well-known member
Typical Tory stuff on this thread I’m afraid.

Carefully dragging the debate down to the lowest common denominator so the original, rather serious issue, is forgotten in a mud of denial, confusion and whitewash.

We all know corruption is notoriously difficult to prove.

There has obviously been some instructions from Tory HQ sent out to the cult on what line to take on Matt Hancock and you see some of it above, these aren’t just posters putting a bit of comment on a football message board, these are propoganda merchants at work defending the party line.
 
Top
X