You may remember Ayanda which won a £252m deal to supply facemasks of which £155m worth were unusable by the NHS.
And you may remember that civil servants were worried about not giving Ayanda a contract because of the political connections of Andrew Mills who worked for Ayanda as a consultant.
And that the Department of Health didn't consider a potential conflict of interest before giving Ayanda that £252m contract. nao.org.uk/press-release/…
And that Tim Horlick of Ayanda claimed he had just been approached by "a Chinese lady" who offered him a contract which enabled Ayanda to make £40m.
But we hadn't been able to work out what Andrew Mills had made from his consultancy arrangement because he had quite deliberately chosen to change the nature of his company to one that didn't need to publish its accounts.
Someone has helpfully leaked documents to Private Eye showing that Mills was paid £32.4m.
Private Eye also reveals that another Ayanda director made £11.6m commission on the deal.
Together these sums amount to, it seems from Private Eye's reporting, £84m of profits from your taxes going not to suppliers of facemasks but to middle-men who were lucky enough to have the right political connections.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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...