Jo Maugham Profile picture
Nov 17, 2020 13 tweets 4 min read Read on X
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. ImageImageImage
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." Image
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. Image
Then Saiger gets three new contracts with the UK Government and wants more help from Andersson. Image
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). Image
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. Image
But it just keeps getting odder and odder. Why was Government buying 10.2m gowns in June?

Here's the Government's data on the number of gowns distributed to the NHS during the pandemic (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…).
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?
Anyway. If you'd like to help us get to the bottom of it all you can do so here. crowdjustice.com/case/the-jewel…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jo Maugham

Jo Maugham Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JolyonMaugham

Apr 11
So dense he creates his own gravitational field, is Dan Hodges. Let me explain why in words so simple even he can understand them. 🧵
First, I am not a Government MP. This matters because the Government has also sorts of powers to bully and coerce that normal citizens do not. That's why its conduct is subject to special safeguards and scrutiny - not that Hodges' bottom rag would know anything about that. Image
My second point illustrates the first. I did go to Court because the Met initially refused to investigate Partygate. It's a form of scrutiny that public bodies, like the Met, are rightly subject to, because of their enormous power.
Read 8 tweets
Apr 9
A few points on the so-called tax gap, the difference between the tax HMRC actually collects and its estimate of the total tax due. 🧵
First, it does not even purport to calculate sums lost through what tax wonks call Base Erosion and Profit Shifting - broadly speaking, tax dodging by multinationals. Image
Second, as @RichardJMurphy has pointed out, there is a pretty big curiosity in that our economy is worth ~£2,300 bn; most estimates give the size of the shadow economy as ~10%+; but the tax gap for the shadow economy is washers. (Only some of that VAT gap is 'shadow'.)
Image
Image
Read 8 tweets
Apr 5
Eighteen months ago, with a group of MPs, we wrote to the @ChtyCommission about the so-called 'Global Warming Policy Foundation', a pro global heating organisation you are forced to match fund with tax subsidies because it is treated as a charity. 🧵goodlawproject.org/mps-call-for-i…
GWPF has been described by the London School of Economics as "the UK’s main club for climate change deniers" which accused it of "peddling false claims." lse.ac.uk/granthaminstit…
The idea its sinister activities are charitable, for the public good, so that we must subsidise them through our taxes is absurd. In our letter to @ChtyCommission we pointed out that every one of its outputs including celebrating burning fossil fuels was pro global heating.

Image
Image
Image
Read 11 tweets
Mar 29
If you want to know how power works in the UK contrast the press interest in (1) the £1,500 of capital gains tax Angela Rayner is said to have evaded with (2) the tens of millions Lord Ashcroft denies having evaded. 🧵
Lord Ashcroft set up the Bermuda based Punta Gordon trust. A financial statement in the leaked Paradise Papers reported it as holding assets of $450m. But the Paradise papers didn't just reveal the value of the trust.
They also revealed that Appleby, a firm of solicitors that was acting as trustee of the trust, complained vigorously about the fact that Lord Ashcroft dealt with some of the assets in the trust and then invited the trustees to rubber stamp his dealings.
Read 12 tweets
Mar 26
The Charity Commission has, with extraordinary haste, dismissed our complaint about the Institute for Economic Affairs. It said: "the Commission... will rarely intervene when allegations of political bias are made, from whatever angle" - a troubling gloss on Charity law which we are considering with our lawyers.
Imo, the Charity Commission cannot properly be understood as a regulator. Its purposes include the channelling of public money to organisations friendly to the Tory party. And the regulatory harassment of those whose activities are inconvenient to the Tory Party.
It is, in other words, exactly what Oliver Dowden said he wants the Charity Commission to be. goodlawproject.org/case/charity-c…
Read 5 tweets
Mar 21
Found myself debating @benhabib6 on BBC on whether Reform is Far Right. He didn't repeat @TiceRichard's threat to sue those who said so. But he did intimate I might hear from Farage's lawyers for saying I thought he was anti-semitic (cited by me as a reason Reform is Far Right).
The other reasons I gave: Reform's desire that the UK join Russia and Greece after a military coup in becoming only the third country ever to find intolerable the international human rights norms in the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The support by Reform UK candidates for the crankish, conspiracy theorists' Great Reset. theguardian.com/politics/2024/…
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(