Remember the story of Matt Hancock and Alex Bourne, the publican turned medical equipmemt supplier, a photo of whose pub Mr Hancock kept on his office wall?
Well yesterday, Mr Hancock went on the attack. He said Alex Bourne "never got a contract from the Government" and that it was a "fabrication pushed by the Labour Party" and "a load of rubbish".
Well, in a funny sort of way Hancock is telling the truth. If you look for contracts that Bourne's company, Hinpack, won you won't find any.
But in another sort of way, he isn't telling the truth. And the truth is far, far worse.
Another company, called Alpha Laboratories, did win a contract with Matt Hancock's Department.
And if you look at the Alpha Laboratories contract you will see it says this: Alpha Laboratories agrees to sub-contract the manufacturing of the Goods to an entity which we can't know because it was blanked out before publishing.
But a small bird gave me a copy of the contract in its original form and it said this: the contract between the Government and Alpha Laboratories stipulated the manufacturing had to be by Alex Bourne's Hinpack.
Of course, had a contract worth tens of millions been given directly by the Government to a Minister's pal we would know (partly because @GoodLawProject successfully sued and forced Government to publish contracts).
So, instead, the Government gave the contract to their pal via Alpha Laboratories in such a way that you were supposed never to find out.
Ooft. Matt Hancock asked by @AnnelieseDodds to return to the Commons and explain why he misled Parliament.
Well, Matt Hancock has returned to Parliament to answer @AnnelieseDodds and he's now told a straight lie. He says "the Department of Health does not have a say in sub-contracting arrangements" but...
... in the contract that the Department of Health entered into *it specified* that the sub-contractor would be Alex Bourne's company Hinpack Limited.
Indeed, that is exactly the thing that the thread points out - that Bourne's involvement was shielded behind Alpha Laboratories.
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...