Here's Saiger LLC and some of the contracts it won. None of these nine notices are clearly the same contract but we think there are probably five contracts.
All are unlawfully late. Weird of Govt to spread publication of the notices over two sites. Weird it has not published any of the actual contracts. Weird that for four of them it didn't even publish what type of PPE it bought. 🤔
This next stuff is from the court papers Saiger filed in a court in Miami against a Mr Andersson.
So Saiger wins "a number of lucrative contracts with the government of the United Kingdom."
And Saiger needs Mr Andersson's help sourcing PPE (so much for Saiger's vaunted experience in China!). And for the first two contracts Saiger pays Andersson more than $28m.
Then Saiger gets three new contracts with the UK Government and wants more help from Andersson.
And they negotiate and Saiger agrees to pay more than $21m more for help with Andersson's gloves and gowns contract (we bought 10.2m gowns).
So that's about $50m in total for Mr Andersson "for services performed". But remember those 10.2m gowns. I'll come back to them later this evening - for now I have to go deliver a seminar to Cambridge University Law students.
Now where was I.
So the gowns contract on tenders electronic daily is for $83.33m which we think is the same contract as the £70.52m contract on contract finder (see pics attached to first tweet).
That suggests we paid Mr Saiger a unit price for gowns of £6.91 - rather more than the £4.60 average Govt's leaked benchmarking doc shows we paid everyone else.
10.2m times the difference equals a cool £23,650,000 profit for Mr Saiger - less, of course, Mr Andersson's $16m cut.
But it just keeps getting odder and odder. Why was Government buying 10.2m gowns in June?
And what it shows is that between 25 February 2020 and 4 June (the contract date) 3.08 million gowns were distributed by the DHSC to the NHS in England. And between 4 June and 8 November 2020 only 7.58 million gowns were distributed by the DHSC to the NHS in England.
Between 25 Feb and 8 Nov, therefore, a total of 10.7 million gowns were distributed to the NHS in England.
So why were we buying 10.2m gowns in June from a single supplier - a jeweller in Florida - without any competition - and at an apparent overvalue?
The Minister who introduced the Gender Recognition Bill in the House of Lords in 2003 made it clear that "a transsexual person would have protection under the Sex Discrimination Act [the predecessor to the Equality Act] as a person of the acquired sex or gender."
This was reflected in the Explanatory Notes to the Gender Recognition Act when it was published.
The Supreme Court dismissed the explanatory notes as not indicating Parliament's intention.
But it seems entirely unaware of the speech of the Minister introducing the Bill, who made it perfectly clear that it was intended to extend the protections beyond biological sex.
I've been reflecting some more overnight on the For Some Women Scotland case. 🧵
In this piece, which I am proud of and I stand by every word, I make two serious criticisms of the procedure that the Supreme Court adopted. goodlawproject.org/the-supreme-co…
The first is that in a case which is fundamentally about the rights of trans people with gender recognition certificates the Supreme Court excluded all trans voices and added in the voices of those opposed to the right and dignities of trans people.
Good Law Project holds a copy of new NHS Guidance published yesterday and it is clear that Wes Streeting is continuing his war on trans people.
Remarkably the national health service is now directing GPs to cause harm to the community. 🧵
Background: the UK is a serious international outlier in how it approaches healthcare for young trans people. All over the world Governments are declining to follow the policy based evidence making of the Cass report. I believe we now have the most hostile regime anywhere.
Families in the UK who want to follow best medical practice - rather than pleasing Wes Streeting's true electorate (right wing media barons) - obtain puberty blockers (criminalised in the UK) from regulated prescribers in eg France or Netherlands or Switzerland.
One or both were marked “private and confidential - not for publication”.
We have long (👇) deplored the practice of making threats which you say are confidential to try and stop your critics from telling the world you are trying to silence them. goodlawproject.org/they-want-to-s…
Neither letter pretends to be a formal letter under the pre-action protocol for defamation claims - a necessary precondition to suing. Yet each is pregnant with threat.
To intimate you have a legal claim which you don’t actually have also feels to us like a misuse of the law.
New article in the New England Journal of Medicine, founded in 1812 and amongst the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals. Its 2023 impact factor was 96.2, ranking it 2nd out of 168 journals in the category "Medicine, General & Internal".
I will share some extracts from it but tl;dr it is highly critical. It "transgresses medical law, policy and practice... deviates from pharmaceutical regulatory standards in the UK. And if it had been published in the United States... it would have violated federal law."
It calls for "evidentiary standards... that are not applied elsewhere in pediatric medicine... [and] are not applied to cisgender young people receiving gender-affirming care."
Labour caving to some of the richest people in the country - whilst raising the tax burden on employing the low paid - has been described as the "lobbying coup of the decade."
But how bad is it? 🧵
Well, we know that Labour promised to raise £565m per annum from taxing private equity properly. But, after lobbying, agreed only to raise 14% of that or £80m.
But in fact, it's worse that that (or better, if you are amongst that mega rich class).
For a particular type of carried interest Labour actually proposes to *cut* tax rates...