Forum Topic

Matt Hancock acted "unlawfully" over pandemic contracts

Matt Hancock acted unlawfully when his department did not reveal details of contracts it had signed during the Covid pandemic, a court has ruled.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56125462Also, in The Independent:....He [Mr Justice Chamberlain] found that Mr Hancock should have complied with government transparency principles requiring the publication of details of contracts within 30 days. And he said in his ruling that the health secretary had spent £207,000 of taxpayers’ money fighting the case.....https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/matt-hancock-covid-contract-ruling-b1804667.html?fbclid=IwAR3wcWoYjNBTDutwM12JB7tFPlUznLPCRxpmYOPE2PCdJY3jhmYyLwi1VLUSo, what happens now?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1894d43 Comments

that was - perhaps you have not been reading the news but they left the royal family to live a FINANCIALLY independent life (in california).

Gregory Edelston ● 1889d

'Megan & Harry cost the UK taxpayer £00  leave them be.' According to Forensic Audit May 2020 they receive $53000.This comes from the the Sovereign Grant paid by government ie the British taxpayer

Barbara Shillabeer ● 1889d

Whereas Andrew is not only very dodgy but a coward too, refusing to go to the US to give evidence in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.

Richard Carter ● 1889d

"obviously it wasn't a satisfactory career"Why?

Richard Carter ● 1889d

exactly!!! no scandals around H&M

Gregory Edelston ● 1889d

Prince Andrew is still costing us a lot of money.  Not seen much of him recently but shouldn't the press be looking more at his doings than those of Harry & Meghan?

Jonathan Callaway ● 1889d

I'd definitely agree more royal should be self sufficient. I must admit these family arguments and the dubious company some royals seem to keep strengthens the case for a republic ... 

Michael Ixer ● 1889d

Gambiccini was arrested on 14 November 2013 as part of Operation Yewtree, a Metropolitan Police Operation, while Starmer left the CPS a couple of weeks earlier on 1st December 2013. Gambiccini sued the Met Police, although the CPS agreed an undisclosed settlement. One might think that the Met Police and Starmer's successor would take most of the blame for wrongful arrest and an unreasonable long bail period given his release without charges in October 14? Unless you have other references to evidence differently? (Dates obtained from Wikipedia.)

Michael Ixer ● 1889d

then explain exactly how harry and meghan currently cost us money? what, where and how? we don't even pay for their security detail anymore. the whole thing was for them to be totally financially independent. wish more royals were.

Gregory Edelston ● 1889d

Hatfield Peveral lovely place.  Bit insular of you

Barbara Shillabeer ● 1889d

Glad you're not my accountant!

Barbara Shillabeer ● 1889d

obviously it wasn't a satisfactory career

Barbara Shillabeer ● 1890d

"Meghan Markle and Prince Harry told they have 'no respect' for the Queen"Meanwhile Microsoft News quotes the Daily Express which quotes the Daily Mail which quotes the Daily Telegraph which quotes a reader's letter (from someone in Hatfield Peverel - a place apparently).And "Royal commentator Angela Levin after reading the letter tweeted: "Spot on!"".And, yes I admit it, this apparently is what we want, judging by sales (and votes).https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/spot-on-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-told-they-have-no-respect-for-the-queen/ar-BB1dWwmS?ocid=msedgntp

David Ainsworth ● 1890d

richard - you are absolutely spot on. that dysfunctional parasitic family didn't realize what an asset Princess Di was nor do they realize what an asset Meghan would have been. now that they are rightfully getting on with they own lives and cost UK taxpayers ZERO £s those haters are jealously screaming bullsh**t.

Gregory Edelston ● 1890d

meghan and harry cost the UK taxpayer £0.00 - leave them be. (ideally some of the other lesser parasitic royals will be inspired by their example).

Gregory Edelston ● 1890d

I'm no fan of any of the royals, but I had to laugh when I read one comment (on the Telegraph website, I think) that "Megan was so ungrateful to the family that made her."Made her? The truth is that she had a perfectly satisfactory career before she got mixed up in the dysfunctional Windsors.

Richard Carter ● 1890d

he clearly lacked the judgement required and i think gambaccini (and others) is a little more than upset and reflected in the enormous payouts to mr gambaccini and co SKS is not fit to lead the labour party, nor is he fit to be PM (god forbid) and in addition he makes ed milliband look like an excited iridescent adolescent

Gregory Edelston ● 1890d

Yes, David, interesting how a minor royal and his American, actress wife were top of the headlines while a minister of state had just been ruled to have acted unlawfully. 

Michael Ixer ● 1890d

What offence did he commit, though, other than upsetting people on both the left and the right for being a) too lenient (Jimmy Saville) or b) too harsh (benefit claimants)?I think you'll find some of the cases you mention were not pursued under his watch. Check with Mr Google.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1890d

his role as director of public prosecutions was certainly criminal with regards to how he treated gambaccini, proctor, brammel, britton cliff richard ... maintaining cases when clearly there was nothing. so yes. jail is the right place to be.

Gregory Edelston ● 1890d

Contracts, what contracts? Look over there, it's Meghan and Harry!

David Ainsworth ● 1890d

Ed. I don't disagree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, the reality is that it is about politics - maybe that's because of the nature of people attracted to parliament - and looking at the way people vote I'm not convinced that many in the electorate really care about transparency. I feel we're often given the option of voting for the least worst option or wasting a vote on a party without a chance of winning a seat.I think we're agreed in the need to reform government - replace the HoL, PR, etc? I just don't think replacing the PM or opposition leader at the moment would help? (And I certainly am no supporter of the current PM!) 

Michael Ixer ● 1891d

"You'll be pleased to know .."Michael I have no interest in fractional or tribal politics. What I do care about is transparency and policies. I have little time for party leaders of all colours that put themselves (or their party) before country as in the case of Brexit. And no time for those that are absent in their duties at a time when we have one of the worse number of covid deaths in the world.In the absence of a proper government strategy the country has implemented several lockdowns requiring the citizens to forfeit some of their liberties which on the whole they have agreed. But this agreement relies on the government to be open and transparent. The government and the opposition should understand that. Neither appear to do so!Thos is not about politics or political parties.

Ed Robinson ● 1891d

Any particular crime involved or is that just an expression?

Jonathan Callaway ● 1891d

Ed. You'll be pleased to know that, according to my FB news feed, some on the left of the Labour party would like someone to make a challenge for the leadership (who was a little vague - and someone with spherical objects sounded a bit sexist to me). However, the last time Labour was led by someone from the left who'd held strong, solid principles since the 1970s it didn't end well: we ended up with an amoral Bullingdon boy who faffs and blusters around, and awards contracts and posts to all his cronies; plus an opposition immasculated by the electorate so it cannot effectively mount any challenge to the government. Perhaps the electorate gets the democracy it voted for and deserves? Perhaps it doesn't care about the government's deals, it's got its "sovereignty" and now it's getting vaccinated? Politics isn't always directs, sometimes it has to be a bit circuitous and devious. Perhaps the next election is more important than playing it straigh at the moment? After all, there's a lot of things the current PM wasn't straight about - no border in the Irish sea, Covid over by Christmas (true, he didn't say which one), ...

Michael Ixer ● 1891d

"If the government are hiding things to prevent accountability and the state paid opposition are saying that it is ok then we are effectively a one party state."In contrast, an interesting Tweet yesterday:-"In 2013, Keir Starmer proposed 10 year prison sentences for people who cheated £thousands in benefit fraud."One law for the rich ...

David Ainsworth ● 1891d

This is not about cats and mice or barristers. People have different political points of view but we only have one democracy. That democracy relies on the government being open and the opposition keeping the government in check. If the government are hiding things to prevent accountability and the state paid opposition are saying that it is ok then we are effectively a one party state.A one party state that seems to have got the worse covid deaths compared to other one party states!

Ed Robinson ● 1891d

Ivonne, I'd like to think that like the typical cat he's playing with the mouse which thinks it's going to escape ... but a nip on the neck would help in the meantime? Otherwise there's a danger someone might rescue the mouse ...

Michael Ixer ● 1891d

starmer is the worst of the lot. they all dreadful. but starmer should be in jail not at the dispatch box.

Gregory Edelston ● 1891d

I am still giving Starmer the benefit of the doubt. He is a barrister and is trained in the "cat and mouse" game.  I really at times do not understand it.Starmer is a very patient man and I wonder if his patience will not be rewarded, sooner than we expect.But I really hope he will become the cat much sooner than that!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1891d

just look how starmer treated gambaccini!

Gregory Edelston ● 1891d

Michael,"I don't believe that Starmer doesn't understand or believe in transparency"The issue of openness and transparency is even more crucial during this pandemic in which the government is asking citizens to give up their freedom.This should have been Starmer's point. As I said previously the subject of the cover up is irrelevant. The issue of unity is irrelevant. Transparency is needed in either case.I'm looking for evidence for your opening statement but the more I look I more I find of the opposite.The country needs an open and transparent government and an opposition that puts that above all else - that is their job!

Ed Robinson ● 1891d

Ed. I don't believe that Starmer doesn't understand or believe in transparency - he seems to be avoiding being accused of making political capital out of the pandemic in the same way the the government's cronies are being accused of making financial capital out of it. Its a fine balance - there's obviously some conflicting expert advice which gives the government some wriggle room but it's also obvious the government has been throwing around money without any checks on appropriateness of suppliers. That could be justified on the vaccine advanced purhases as it can be seen as a risk based approach to research and Pfizer, Astrozeneca, Oxford University, etc do have demonstrable track records; however, with PPE it's a standard product with a specification that can be defined with rigour so there should be no reason to accept sub standard goods and pay a premium for them. OK, perhaps pay a premium for accepts goods but reject substandard ones without payment - unfortunately it sound like some of the specifications were substandard and the taxpayer is footing that bill.Taking a risk on the vaccine front has paid off (so far) but that seems to be because it's mainly been left to the experts that understand it, whereas PPE purchases seems to have been an expensive debacle by administrators when it should have been easier if left to those who understand it?Anyway, getting back to your original point, I agree with democracy needing transparency. Given the government's majority if Johnson and Hancock decide to brazen it out I'm not sure there's much the opposition can do about it, and I'm not sure a change in opposition will help, but perhaps I'm getting too cynical about politics, and perhaps all the electorate will remember is a successful vaccine rollout? (Except the antivaxers ...)

Michael Ixer ● 1892d

Michael,It doesn't really matter what the actually issue was - it is about the cover up.Did the Minister try and prevent the public knowing what they were legally entitled to know?That's it!Everything else is irrelevant. Without openness and transparency we simply have no democracy.It is evident that Starmer does understand or disagrees with the above concept. In either case he can not be heading the opposition IMO and we certainly should not have a minister who doesn't either!

Ed Robinson ● 1892d

Starmer seems to get the upper hand of Johnson in PMQs most of the time from a factual, intellectual point of view but doesn't seem to take advantage of this government's failings outside of the HoC. It's disappointing that he hasn't capitalised on the area where there's obvious failing - both in the implementation of these contracts and the illegal way these contracts were awarded with no apparent due diligence and oversight - as has now been confirmed by the courts.He seems to be trying to play a game of national unity when the government just seems to be laughing at him as they look after their donors and friends (for example, from what I can see Baroness Harding is repeating all the mistakes she made at Talk Talk with the way she's managed test and trace only this time it's taxpayers not shareholder's money that's at risk); Starmer needs to remember he's not a barrister trying to show a strong case to an even handed judge but playing against those who have a vested interest in looking after their and their friends' wealth.We'll have to see how this develops next week ... 

Michael Ixer ● 1892d

Starmer has more or less backed Matt Hancock.A blow to open government and transparency whatever your political colour.Both of them should now go IMO.The job of the opposition is to shine a light on the executive.If we are to have a one party state then I would prefer a more efficient one at least!

Ed Robinson ● 1892d

"I wonder if they will actually be forced to now reveal some details?"I hope so Matt.  This is a potential huge scandal that won't go away, and nor should it.

Sue Hammond ● 1893d

Excellent work by Jolyon Maugham of the Good Law Project in forcing this disclosure - and utterly shameful of the government to spend - waste - around £200,000 on trying to keep the details secret. Of course,  this sum is piffling in comparison with the £22 billion (billion!) thrown away on Harding's failed Test and Trace racket, the main effect of which has been the enrichment of various consultants and ministers' cronies. And that's real corruption.

Richard Carter ● 1893d

Opposition was missing during most of this whole pandemic with the Tooting MP being an exception. Piers Morgan should receive last year's official opposition salary IMO.There should have been lessons learnt after the first lockdown, perhaps even before it ended.Vaccines are good but they can't bring back the dead or those that have been damaged.The whole system is simply not fit for purpose!

Ed Robinson ● 1893d

And so far the Perseverance rover seems to be working ... two pics already and an amazing automated landing with great graphics - but that's off topic: just wait for the government fudge 🙁 And what's happened to Baroness Harding since she expressed surprise that the virus was mutating?

Michael Ixer ● 1893d

Scary.  There were companies here offering to make PPE that were just ignored and then there were groups like the one in Putney and others in offices and schools supporting our NHS staff doing this.There are calls from the BMA and RCN at the moment for better masks for medical staff who are in close contact and who have greater exposure to the virus than many other people...  Has there been an official reply?

Philippa Bond ● 1893d

Probably find a carpet to brush it under.  The £22bn spent on the ineffective test and trace system might be more difficult to ignore - after all that is more than seven times what NASA spent getting that rover on to Mars.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1893d

I wonder if they will actually be forced to now reveal some details?

Matt Palmer ● 1893d