Hicktonpen10
Well-known member
This case was a minor issue but as said above clearly sets a precedent for locus in the future
Just imagine if a Labour Health Minister had done it?
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.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?
Nothing it would appear. The prime minister should discipline him but he hasn't.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?
Just imagine if a Labour Health Minister had done it?
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.
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.
Think most fair minded people not driven by political bias would agree. The sourcing and procurement of PPE et al trumped nondescript transparency regs.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.
So you're happy that they give contracts worth millions to their mates?Think most fair minded people not driven by political bias would agree. The sourcing and procurement of PPE et al trumped nondescript transparency regs.
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?
This is the way to beat them, a drip feed if illegal activity.
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.So you're happy that they give contracts worth millions to their mates?
Hardly unsubstantiated - the facts are there, just that the Government has not addressed them.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.