Here's a story for your Friday night. I've been wanting to get the documents to back it up but I don't think they're going to come so you'll just have to take from me that it comes from an impeccable source with no reason to lie.
I totally believe it's true - every word of it - and I'm putting it in the public domain because there might be just about enough for an actual, talented journalist to bottom it out. And bottoming it out is profoundly in the public interest.
So back in the very early days of the pandemic - February or March - a company (X) was given a very large PPE contract. X could reasonably claim to be a proper PPE supplier. The contract was signed and X started shipping the PPE to the UK.
Anyway, whilst the PPE was on the high seas the contract was 'cancelled' by Government. There was no right of cancellation and X considered suing but thought - well, moment of national crisis, fog of war. Let it lie.
But X then starts getting seriously brassed off because it can see that very similar contracts to those it had cancelled are going to other people, strange people.
(So far so good.

I have seven or eight similar stories in my inbox. Some very plausible, some more sketchy, of contractors whose offers are all but accepted, then put on ice, then they're told Govt has enough, then they see 'their' contract was granted to someone else...
... and sometimes they say 'their' manufacturer was approached by the PPE Buy Cell before 'their' contract was placed elsewhere. And sometimes they say it was with someone else who charged Government a higher price...
And I've seen enough of these with reasonably detailed evidence and sufficiently similar fact patterns that I believe this stuff was happening.

Why were they being taken from a and given to b at a higher price? I dunno, but it's not good right?)

Anyway, I digress. Back to X.
So what happens with X is a bit different. X is contacted by someone claiming to act for a NewCo (let's call him Y). And Y tells X 'look, you know that contract you had cancelled, I can get it back for you if you give me 10 percent of the profits you make.'
Y doesn't want anything up front; just a share of the profits. And X is thinking 'how on earth does Y even know that I had a contract cancelled'? And X is thinking, 'well, I've tied up an awful lot of capital in this thing and it would be quite nice to have the contract...'
and so X says to Y 'well, how do I know you can get the contract back for me' and Y sends X two things. The first is what purports to be an email conversation between Y and a SpAd in a relevant department (I know which department).
And the second is what purports to be an email conversation between Y and an official at No.10.

Now, X is sensibly thinking (and you should sensibly think to yourself) 'well, it's not that difficult, I guess, to fake email conversations'.
But there is some stuff X can't shake, like, 'how does Y even know I lost a contract' and 'if it's not real why does Y only want a share of the profits?' And so X 'umms' and 'ahhs' but eventually says 'no'.
Anyway, X is now utterly convinced - and X is a serious player and my source (which isn't X) is a very good source - that the contract taken from them and given to someone else and the beneficiary was a very high profile (and weird and large) winner of a PPE contract.
So I say to my contact, 'are you sure if it's ok if I put this in the public domain' and my contact says 'yep, because there will have been other approaches to other companies too'.
And someone else - a confirmed PPE supplier - has also (entirely independently) told me that "I have heard stories of, wait for it, back handers within NHS procurement teams."

(He told me he'd try and get me a screenshot but didn't.)
Anyway. It's quite a story, right? And I believe it. I've tried to tell it to you like I understand it - warts and all - but form your own judgment.

And if it's true it's unlikely to be an isolated incident so, you know, if you know more, don't be a stranger.

• • •

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

13 Dec
If you look at the evidence - including from the UK - it tells you that allowing gender incongruent children and teenagers to 'affirm' in their chosen gender reduces suicide risks. Strip away all the sound and the fury and what last week's judgment means is more cases like this.
Of course, any fair judicial process would have heard from trans children/young adults about the benefits of puberty blockers. But the Divisional Court, in a manner I am still shocked by today, declined to hear from any voice representing their interests.
Puberty blockers are used throughout the world. They are used because transgender teenagers overwhelmingly 'affirm' and unless you arrest their puberty you cruelly force them to live a life where their body - eg an adam's apple, a deep voice - is incongruent with their gender.
Read 5 tweets
13 Dec
A short history of @GoodLawProject's involvement with Brexit.

In late June 2016 we launched the case that eventually established that Parliamentary authorisation was needed to trigger Article 50. ft.com/content/52e562…
In December 2017 we launched the case that a year later established that the United Kingdom could unilaterally revoke Article 50 if it wanted, defeating the UK Government, the EU Council and the EU Commission.

Here's me writing about that case. ft.com/content/3a0238…
In July 2019, we brought litigation that ultimately led to the Supreme Court ruling Johnson's suspension of Parliament - perhaps the most shameful ever act of the modern British state - unlawful. theguardian.com/politics/2019/…
Read 5 tweets
12 Dec
Hard to avoid the conclusion that Johnson's £100bn Moonshot is a huge white elephant.
"They're putting in place an intervention that hasn't been evaluated, will possibly do more harm and will cost a lot of money."
"Media reports had claimed that as few as 4% of residents in poorer areas were coming forward, but the government said that it was too early to say for sure if that was the case."
Read 4 tweets
10 Dec
The purpose of the report, by Nigel Boardman, is "to prepare a defence of claims for Judicial Review relating to the award of two contracts": those judicial reviews are the Public First contract and the Hanbury contract, both of which @GoodLawProject is challenging by way of JR.
Our crowdfunder for those judicial review claims - together with much of the documentation - is here.
crowdjustice.com/case/a-river-t…
First postscript, back in the day when he was a very grand partner in the blue blood law firm of Slaughter & May I worked as a legal secretary to Nigel Boardman.
Read 4 tweets
10 Dec
Will any of the key figures who pushed Brexit - and now No Deal - be touched by higher food prices or job losses? Is there even one who will be affected by the reality of what they are visiting upon those they misled?
All very well banging on about sovereignty. But, to paraphrase Brecht, first give us bread.
Only for the elite does Maslow's hierarchy begin with sovereignty.
Read 4 tweets
10 Dec
Pleased to be on the front page of @FT talking about the regulatory arbitrage baked in to the business models of platform businesses.
These platforms, undoubtedly, produce real world efficiencies. But those efficiencies are insufficient to support the valuations attached to them - they are supercharged with the fruits of rule dodging or "regulatory arbitrage".
This rule dodging is not just about VAT. It's also about worker protection, corporation tax, product safety, employment taxes and so on. The business models of these platforms erode these public goods to enrich private investors.
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

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!