I notice Ayanda's website accuses me of "fabricating" claims that the FFP2 masks did not meet the required technical standards.
Here is what the Government’s own lawyers - does Ayanda accuse them of "fabricating" evidence too - say about the facemasks Ayanda supplied.
Ayanda's website links to a test report on mask samples. But that report is totally meaningless. Ayanda's own contract with Government says (and you may wonder why) that what Ayanda delivers to Governmeny does not have to match those samples (contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/Attachm…).
I won't sue for defamation. If I sued every self-serving, dissembling scumbag who saw in a crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands a chance to make millions in profits I wouldn't have time to expose others. The bare facts tell their own story about Ayanda.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Way back in April 2017, we announced we were going to take on HMRC's failure to assess Uber to VAT "tens or hundreds of millions of pounds every year" which corroded public trust in HMRC and the establishment generally. crowdjustice.com/case/uber/
It's been quite a scrap.
There have been lows - like us spending all the money we raised in the crowdfunder trying to get a protective costs order - and failing. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…
One of the contracts that Government finally published last week was this £168.5m contract with tiny pest control specialist Pestfix for three different types of facemasks. atamis-1928.cloudforce.com/sfc/p/#0O00000…
Now, you may have wondered whether it was wise to spend a third of a billion with such a company (with five contracts illegally remaining unpublished). And you may not find justifications like this ('the director's wife is a vet and has family in China') especially compelling.
I mean, if you put facemasks into the NHS or care homes and they were faulty, people could die, right?
So you would have been dismayed to see that in August Pestfix admitted supplying duff FFP3 facemasks, one of the types supplied to the NHS under the £168.5m contract.
Small quibbles aside (of which there are a number), I rather agree with this open letter. A study of 'cause lawyering' in the United States points to the dangers of elevating the power of judges above those of politicians. thetimes.co.uk/article/the-la…
Quibble 1. No one in the UK is (presently) asserting that the rule of law triumphs over Parliamentary Sovereignty. There are contexts in which we might have that discussion but the Internal Market Bill is not amongst them.
Quibble 2. That our constitution (usually) ranks Parliamentary Sovereignty above the rule of law does not mean the Internal Market Bill is a good idea. It just means that (generally) it's better for those with a democratic mandate to make choices rather than those without one.
The mytery of the ever shrinking testing targets...
Here's the Sunday Times carrying some Boris-boosterism about a million tests a day by Christmas (thetimes.co.uk/article/pm-put…).
The source it gives for that "million tests a day" a day claim isn't Boris. It's an unnamed scientist "involved in the testing programme" (likely, working for the company that is receiving vast sums for that testing. More to follow on this) thetimes.co.uk/article/scient….
And the "million tests a day by Christmas" claim (from a likely rather self-interested source) is itself a massive downgrading of what the Cabinet was being told in leaked "Moonshot" briefing papers: that there would be 3 million tests a day by December.
Back in April, the Government appointed ex Goldman Sachs banker Lord Deighton as "PPE Tsar". gov.uk/government/new…
Earlier this month, Government stated that on 20 April it had awarded a £300,000 contract, without any tendering process, to "Chanzo" (ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NO…).
In fact the contract was not awarded until 25 August (although sent under cover of a letter dated 20 August - figure that one out!) but related to services delivered from April (atamis-1928.cloudforce.com/sfc/p/#0O00000…).
You may remember Crisp Websites Limited, trading as Pestfix, the company with last reported net assets of £18,047. THREAD
And you may remember that, notwithstanding that Pestfix had substantially no net assets, Government agreed to pay 75% upfront for £32m of isolation suits.
And you may remember this thread in which I explain why I believe those isolation suits are unusable