Entirely comfortable…

[Derek Hardballs]

You don’t need to bother with extreme minority parties these days you just join the Conservative party.

[Protheroe]

You tried to change the subject from your bollocks about #LeastWorst being a necessity in every democracy to something completely unrelated. 

That government is a necessary evil is only "completed unrelated" in your opinion.

Just as we'll have to disagree that the far right and far left are marginalised by FPTP. I suppose again it depends on what you believe is far right and far left, and I doubt we'll agree on that either.

[Borin' Baggie]

Selectively quoting in an attempt to remove context doesn't work on a messageboard where the full comment in the same thread is visible to all.

[Protheroe]

And the hypocrisy of your whining about Sandwell Council Proth is spot on when you respond to this as you have.

I've only just spotted this.

False equivalence. 

In Sandwell's case individual councillors influenced or directly made decisions over several years which enriched themselves and their families personally - with the tacit support of officers. 

The, admittedly disgraceful and opportunistic behaviour by Mone took place during a period of acute procurement panic when governments around the world were desperate for supplies of PPE. She took advantage of the system and utilised her contacts to do so. As far as I am aware there have been no allegations that any of those involved in the procurement process have enriched themselves or their families.

Let's remember that at the time this happened otherwise intelligent people had emptied the supermarkets of toilet roll and canned tomatoes - and were demanding immediate action from the government to protect them and the NHS.

If you think that the government's behaviour in procuring supplies of PPE is equivalent to the former, then I'm afraid I have to disagree.

---

Selectively quoting in an attempt to remove context doesn't work on a messageboard where the full comment in the same thread is visible to all.

Then members can read for themselves and make their own minds up. 

Those that didn't make their own minds up about low social status opinions like mine 10 years ago, that is.

[baggy1]

And the hypocrisy of your whining about Sandwell Council Proth is spot on when you respond to this as you have.

I've only just spotted this.

False equivalence. 

In Sandwell's case individual councillors influenced or directly made decisions over several years which enriched themselves and their families personally - with the tacit support of officers. 

The, admittedly disgraceful and opportunistic behaviour by Mone took place during a period of acute procurement panic when governments around the world were desperate for supplies of PPE. She took advantage of the system and utilised her contacts to do so. As far as I am aware there have been no allegations that any of those involved in the procurement process have enriched themselves or their families.

Let's remember that at the time this happened otherwise intelligent people had emptied the supermarkets of toilet roll and canned tomatoes - and were demanding immediate action from the government to protect them and the NHS.

If you think that the government's behaviour in procuring supplies of PPE is equivalent to the former, then I'm afraid I have to disagree.

---

This is either absolute balls out gaslighting or a level of naivety from someone who has worked and socialised closely with members of the government not seen on this message board since LIQ last changed his username.

Do you think that the government ministers in question would be stupid enough to take direct payments form the suppliers that they had put forward, or do you think that there will be future roles in their companies, or funding for their campaigns through official routes?

You have to ask the purpose of the ‘VIP lane’ in the 1st place, I believe we all agree there was a need to procure PPE at the time (mainly because the government themselves had ignored warnings that the stock would not be sufficient in the case of exactly this), but the massive payments to companies set up weeks prior to (or in some cases after) the contracts being put up for bidding, whilst at the same time ignoring calls from companies who had been trading for years in the very field trying too be procured, is criminal. Abuse of position as a government minister is a criminal offence.

And you could argue that they didn’t have time to complete appropriate due diligence (in fact you have) due to the circumstances, but you either think that we didn’t live and work through the time period where, some of us, work in financial services and understand what is required in the way of due diligence. You suggest that because of the urgency decisions had to be made quickly, I can tell you that completing due diligence on a company set up weeks prior to the process would take minutes. And more importantly they would take away valuable minutes of being able to complete due diligence on companies who specialise in that field.

There is one reason that they won these contracts and that is because of the VIP lane being set up to serve this very purpose and the reference given by a person in authority - that is corruption. Some questions that need to be answered - How did we get people onto the VIP lane? Is it a coincidence that they appear to be heavily weighted in favour of donors to the Tory party or friends of Tory MPs (see Hancock and his local publican for example)? How much instruction by government members to reduce due diligence was given? How effective was any of the produce sourced through this route? How much benefit will the same government members get from the VIPs in the future?

You trying to rewrite history and give justification to this act is pitiful or gullible, you’d be better off just accepting that it’s been one big con and you gaslighting for them will just prolong the con.

[Protheroe]

I don't dispute that the procurement process was flawed and in the case of the VIP lane - unlawful. However given the febrile global context at the time the NAO sets out an objective commentary here https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload...tracts.pdf

What I do dispute is that anyone (apart from the suppliers) has been enriched by it. And until there is any evidence to support that contention that will remain my view.

[CarlosCorbewrong]

I don't dispute that the procurement process was flawed and in the case of the VIP lane - unlawful. However given the febrile global context at the time the NAO sets out an objective commentary here https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload...tracts.pdf

What I do dispute is that anyone (apart from the suppliers) has been enriched by it. And until there is any evidence to support that contention that will remain my view.

I've read this twice and can't reconcile how the evidence reviewed by the Guardian which indicates that the person (and her family) who recommended the company was put into the VIP Lane, received £29m as a result of the award of the contract hasn't been 'enriched by it'.

"Asked by the Guardian last year why Mone did not include PPE Medpro in her House of Lords register of financial interests, her lawyer replied: “Baroness Mone did not declare any interest as she did not benefit financially and was not connected to PPE Medpro in any capacity.”

The leaked documents, which were produced by the bank HSBC, appear to contradict that statement. They state that Mone’s husband, the Isle of Man-based financier Douglas Barrowman, was paid at least £65m in profits from PPE Medpro, and then distributed the funds through a series of offshore accounts, trusts and companies.

The ultimate recipients of the funds, the documents indicate, include the Isle of Man trust that was set up to benefit Mone, who was Barrowman’s fiancee at the time, and her children. In October 2020, the documents add, Barrowman transferred to the trust £28.8m originating from PPE Medpro profits."

[baggy1]

I think, in Proth’s defence (god help me, what has become of me) he means the MPs that put them forward through the VIP lane have not been enriched. It would be interesting to see where the past, present and, when it occurs, future current MPs income streams come from though and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a fair bit of funding, socialising, holidaying etc for Mr.Gove, his campaign team and his family at some point connected with Lady Mone (if she hadn’t become so toxic).

As part of Money Laundering law there is a very large focus on Politically Exposed Persons and their relations - it is a major area of bribery and corruption of which I didn’t think I’d ever see in the UK this blatantly.

[Protheroe]

I think, in Proth’s defence (god help me, what has become of me) he means the MPs that put them forward through the VIP lane have not been enriched. 

You will receive your reward in Heaven.

Yes, that was the point I was making.

As for Mone, if it wasn't for political patronage then I can't understand why people so completely unsuited to the House of Lords are elevated to it. She's by no means alone.

[CarlosCorbewrong]

Rishi is shocked AND appalled at the allegations about Mone.

Shocked: He was the chancellor who signed it off
Appalled: indicates the guilt of Mone