In which @guyadams takes a long hard look at the men made incredibly wealthy by what look like sweetheart PPE deals granted by this Government. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8…
Lawyers acting for @GoodLawProject and @EveryDoctorUK wrote to ask @MattHancock whether Saiger went through the VIP channel but we haven't yet had any response.
Three days after @GoodLawProject broke the story of the $50m payable by a jeweller based in Florida to a Spanish businessman for poorly defined services in connection with a "lucrative" PPE deal granted by the Govt at your expense, the court proceedings in Miami were halted.
We think you're entitled to some transparency about the extremely odd PPE deals this Government is entering into which is why we are continuing with our court challenge. 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

27 Nov
Because Government Press Officers are claiming Ministers were exonerated by the National Audit Office report, let's take a look at what it actually says.

(1) we cannot give assurance that government applied appropriate commercial practices Image
(2) departments failed to document why particular suppliers were chosen or how conflicts of interest were managed Image
(3) no source was recorded for about half the VIP cases. So how could you manage conflicts of interest?

Where sources were recorded they were likely to be the private offices of Ministers.

Was Hancock's publican VIP laned? ImageImage
Read 8 tweets
26 Nov
So, so grim. Amazing work from the Guardian. But there will be dozens, if not hundreds, of contracts like this that we will never know about. theguardian.com/world/2020/nov…
Huge credit to @lawrencefelic. So difficult landing stories like this - amazing work.
You just know what the Guardian has been able to report is the tip of the iceberg. We will ask our lawyers to take a look and see if we can show you more. But much more difficult when it is a sub-contract.
Read 6 tweets
25 Nov
"How I was cancelled": read all about it in the Mail, the Telegraph, UnHerd, the Times, the Spectator...
What is indisputable fact is that the Guardian - which repeatedly covered the case brought by the anti-abortionist's and homophobe's lawyer of choice, Paul Conrathe - has not given one inch to @GoodLawProject's attempt to secure trans kids can secure a therapeutic assessment.
Moreover, it appears as though Comment is Free was blocked from carrying a piece in support of the Good Law Project litigation. This is not a comment on its younger staff, but I would say the editorial line of the Guardian is more transphobic than that of the Mail.
Read 6 tweets
25 Nov
Two utterly remarkable facts from Part II of the NAO Report.

PPE Prices went up by 500%...
... and we bought at those high prices more than twelve times as much PPE as we used in the whole of the first wave.
All of our warehouses are full and that PPE mountain is clogging up the port of Felixstowe. bbc.com/news/business-…
Read 8 tweets
24 Nov
We have good news - and rather a lot of it. rebrand.ly/good-news-ppe
We have permission in three of our twelve procurement judicial reviews (and are very likely to get permission in the other nine).
We also have issued a further five judicial review challenges to the Government's favourite VIP PPE supplier, the tiny Pestfix.
Read 5 tweets
24 Nov
When the future history of the rise in England of hatecrime, antiscience and lietelling comes to be written the finger will be pointed squarely at the BBC for its failure to engage in a thoughtful way with what "impartiality" requires.
The BBC's intellectually flabby conflation of that which is properly contestable with that which is contested by marginal interests both confers legitimacy on the illegitimate and is antithetical to its charter obligation to "act in the public interest."
It shouldn't matter, right? We should be tackling the illegitimate ideas rather than the media that promotes them. However, the BBC's monopolistic voice makes it the only arbiter that matters of legitimacy. And it consistently arbitrates wrongly.
Read 4 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!