How Government ran up almost £600,000 of costs *after* a one day judicial review was stayed - and how it estimates its total costs for that straight forward one day case to be more than £1.2m. glplive.org/bunzl-tw-0702
This is the worst - but by no means the first - example of awful conduct we've encountered. It's not easy to avoid concluding that they are using the depth of the public purse to restrict access to justice.
We are also seeing an approach to candour and truthfulness that I find pretty shocking. It's no surprise, I guess, that Government lawyers find the political pressure hard to resist. But what's happening is destructive of something incredibly important in our legal culture.
Back in 2019, during the heat of the prorogation hearing in Edinburgh, I tweeted this about how proud I was to be part of a legal culture where I *knew* the other side would tell the truth. It saddens me hugely for that culture now to feel imperilled.👇
We're not asking you to contribute to the Bunzl crowdfunder. We're still assessing what the recent cases - and the change in approach in the Supreme Court - means for our portfolio of procurement litigation. But, of course, you can support us here. goodlawproject.fundraise.tech
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Randox is every VIP. Civil servants were told by Ministers - explicitly or implicitly - to give them contracts or else. bylinetimes.com/2022/02/03/gov…
VIPs knew it. Baroness Mone was "incandescent with rage" and going to Michael Gove and Matt Hancock.
Civil servants knew it. Here is a civil servant worrying about Andrew Mills kicking off if he doesn't get a contract.
It is just staggering how wasteful (at best) Government's PPE buying was. On their own figures they spent £13bn on procurement, storage and transportation.
The value of its existing inventory was reduced by £8.7bn.
And the value of its future inventory is reduced by £1.2bn.
This, from a joint article by Johnson and Sunak, is a simple lie. The National Insurance Contributions rise will in fact fall least on those who can most afford it. It is a tax rise that lets the mega rich off the hook.
Most of us get by on wages. Most of us don't have huge amounts of interest income or dividends or rents or capital gains. It's the mega wealthy who have huge amounts of unearned income. The NICs rise on wages is high and on unearned income it is low or nil.
What I have said is true. Some economists will tell you the NICs rise is "progressive". If by "progressive" they mean it hits the middle class people more than the working class it's true. If by "progressive they mean it hits the top 0.1% harder than everyone else it's false.
So, earlier this week I was cleared by my professional regulator following a complaint. Complaints from people who don't like my politics are pretty commonplace* so I don't usually bother to tweet when I am cleared.
*E.g. I have actually been cleared on two complaints this week.
This complaint related to my work arguing for greater respect for trans people. But it was notable because it was made by a BBC journalist who wrote to my regulator from his BBC email address.
That journalist has written some of the many pieces the BBC chooses to carry that are hostile to the trans community. And he sought to bounce my regulator into issuing a statement condemning me for an interview I gave about the Bell case.
Widespread hate speech against trans people means we now rank - according to the world's leading international human rights organisation - alongside Hungary, Poland, the Russian Federation and Turkey. pace.coe.int/en/files/29418…
This state of affairs has come about, in large part, because our media elites come from a narrow, unrepresentative, pool of people who have largely homogenous (and hostile) attitudes towards trans people. vice.com/en/article/889…
That the Mail, The Times and the Sunday Times should have a high tolerance, if not enthusiasm, for hate-speech against a minority should surprise no-one. That that tendency should also be found at the BBC is really shocking.
Interesting question whether Cressida Dick will have to obtain and hand over Sue Gray's evidence pursuant to Ms Dick's duty of candour in Good Law Project's judicial review... theguardian.com/politics/2022/…
A non-Defendant department which holds relevant material is subject to analogous disclosure obligations to those of the Defendant department (extract from Govt guidance on the duty of candour). Can't immediately see why the situation should be different here...
If that's so, I think the only question is relevance and if we're saying (amongst other things) that the decision not to investigate is irrational that casts a wide net on relevance. Anyway: watch this space, I guess.