And we know that what Cabinet Office told the Public Accounts Committee was that the total value of contracts awarded through the VIP lane was £1.7bn (committees.parliament.uk/publications/4…).
We know civil servants complained that VIPs, largely introduced by Ministers says the NAO, inhibited their ability to source PPE.
The lives of doctors and nurses could well have been lost due to the politically connected wanting to make a quick buck out of human tragedy.
But how much did it cost us? Was it 'only' the £1.7bn Cabinet Office told the PAC?
The total value of the contracts won by the six was £1.172bn. If the six were representative of the 47 the total would be £9.18bn - a lot bigger than the £1.7bn figure given by Cabinet Office.
But however you do the maths it's hard to believe the £1.7bn figure can be right.
We may well never - barring a leak - learn the truth. Ministers don't want the embarrassment and won't tell you the names of their VIP friends who benefitted.
And there is now a suspicion, at least, that we have been misled about how deep was the trough.
This is really, really poor stuff.
And it isn't helped by rank dishonesty like this from Government's press statement yesterday (gov.uk/government/new…).
This too, in that self-same press statement, will, very soon, come back to bite Government. Early next week @GoodLawProject will send out (and this is no exaggeration) extraordinary unpublished materials to those on our free mailing list.
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...