So, so grim. Amazing work from the Guardian. But there will be dozens, if not hundreds, of contracts like this that we will never know about. theguardian.com/world/2020/nov…
Huge credit to @lawrencefelic. So difficult landing stories like this - amazing work.
You just know what the Guardian has been able to report is the tip of the iceberg. We will ask our lawyers to take a look and see if we can show you more. But much more difficult when it is a sub-contract.
Three days after @GoodLawProject broke the story of the $50m payable by a jeweller based in Florida to a Spanish businessman for poorly defined services in connection with a "lucrative" PPE deal granted by the Govt at your expense, the court proceedings in Miami were halted.
"How I was cancelled": read all about it in the Mail, the Telegraph, UnHerd, the Times, the Spectator...
What is indisputable fact is that the Guardian - which repeatedly covered the case brought by the anti-abortionist's and homophobe's lawyer of choice, Paul Conrathe - has not given one inch to @GoodLawProject's attempt to secure trans kids can secure a therapeutic assessment.
Moreover, it appears as though Comment is Free was blocked from carrying a piece in support of the Good Law Project litigation. This is not a comment on its younger staff, but I would say the editorial line of the Guardian is more transphobic than that of the Mail.
When the future history of the rise in England of hatecrime, antiscience and lietelling comes to be written the finger will be pointed squarely at the BBC for its failure to engage in a thoughtful way with what "impartiality" requires.
The BBC's intellectually flabby conflation of that which is properly contestable with that which is contested by marginal interests both confers legitimacy on the illegitimate and is antithetical to its charter obligation to "act in the public interest."
It shouldn't matter, right? We should be tackling the illegitimate ideas rather than the media that promotes them. However, the BBC's monopolistic voice makes it the only arbiter that matters of legitimacy. And it consistently arbitrates wrongly.
I've been on a journey on trans issues - and I have ended up a long way from some or even many in my tribe - and I wanted to set out some things I've learned along the way. THREAD
If you find yourself constantly at odds with younger generations (who as a rule are totally cool with being trans) the thing you swore would never happen probably has. Perhaps the process of becoming your parents - out-of-touch know-it-alls - is subtler than once you credited?
If you are a man and the reality of your engagement with equality issues is that you do little more than default to the views of a significant woman in your life that doesn't make you woke it makes you lazy.
On a case about the lawfulness of waiting lists approaching four years to access *triaging* for a time-sensitive treatment, the BBC chose to go, not to an expert doctor, but to the LGB Alliance. Goodness knows why, but here is some stuff you need to know about the LGB Alliance.
One of its founders says LGBT+ clubs – a safe space for many LGBT+ schoolchildren to accept their sexuality – shouldn’t exist because of “predatory gay teachers”. pinknews.co.uk/2020/01/23/lgb…
Another of its founder/activists - Gary Powell - has links with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative, anti-abortion think-tank in the US that opposes same-sex marriage. pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/03/lgb…
"Doctors and experts all over the world agree on the healthcare that I and other trans people need. But in this country, it is impossible to get access to this care." goodlawproject.org/update/nhs-dut…
I was really moved by this conversation I had with Susie, about how different her life would have been had she been able to access treatment that is available throughout the progressive world (except the United Kingdom). nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%…
Here is the interview with Reece - but without the dark money funded political hate groups the BBC chose to legitimate. bbc.co.uk/news/av/health…
We waited some weeks for the BBC to be ready to cover our legal action to protect the legal rights of trans children. And the piece is up and is quite extraordinary. I'm not going to link to it because it is inaccurate and gives space to a transphobic hate group.
First point. One of the real problems bedevilling trans teenagers is ignorance. So if you believe the media you're like some foie gras goose having pills forced down your throat and a crazed surgeon chopping away at six year olds.
However the stages of treatment are below. This case is about accessing psychological evaluation. That precedes fully reversible puberty blockers. You can't have partially reversible cross-sex hormones until you are sixteen and surgery until eighteen plus. gids.nhs.uk/puberty-and-ph…
Here is an extract from the leaked Govt document about Moonshot with that £100bn+ number.
We need to catch up with updating the media but I can confirm we have issued judicial review proceedings in relation to (sound familiar?) the Government's (1) choice of weird contractual counterparties and (2) failure to consult with its own expert advisory body.
We also have profound concerns - which we are pursuing with Government lawyers - about the fact that consent was never sought from Parliament for this absolutely mindblowing spend (the NAO report is about 'only' £18bn of spending.)
Lots of - quite proper - outrage at the PPE VIP Channel, largely filled with contacts of Ministers. Institutionalised cronyism.
Worth remembering that @GoodLawProject ran this story back in October - and the only newspaper to pick it up in a serious way was the Daily Mail.
The Mail under Geordie Grieg is a very different newspaper to what it was under Paul Dacre (and a very different newspaper to its sister Sunday Sewer edited by Ted Verity). It has the appetite to lead and not just follow public opinion.
Here's the story we ran about VIP channels goodlawproject.org/news/special-p… (which the Government never denied, by the way) but which even the Financial Times lacked the courage to run.
Yep, the National Audit Office report on PPE - well the first part of it - is out at midnight and it tackles Ayanda, Pestfix, VIP channels, Clandeboye, Public First, failures of transparency.... all those drums we've been banging, the whole timpani, for the last four months.
Tomorrow I'll be doing some detailed threads on different aspects of the report. It makes for striking reading - even after having been 'fact-checked' by Government. (Yes we have asked the High Court to order Government to supply the pre 'fact-checked' version.)
We're pleased the press is taking this stuff seriously now. The governance failures around the £15bn of PPE spend are dreadful. But they are as nothing compared to where Government is on its £100bn+ "Moonshot" project, still apparently run by Dominic Cummings, esq.
Lots of headscratching about Pestfix and its facemasks. It has at least one contract, for £168.5m, to supply facemasks to the NHS and the Health and Safety Executive says it rejected some Pestfix facemasks.
But this report, of Pestfix facemasks that failed a safety check, and that was in HSE files, seems to relate not to the facemasks the subject of the HSE email but facemasks that Pestfix sold privately.
Pestfix sold privately - and then either had to or chose to - recall three different types of faulty facemasks it had sold to the private sector.
Here's Saiger LLC and some of the contracts it won. None of these nine notices are clearly the same contract but we think there are probably five contracts.
All are unlawfully late. Weird of Govt to spread publication of the notices over two sites. Weird it has not published any of the actual contracts. Weird that for four of them it didn't even publish what type of PPE it bought. 🤔
This next stuff is from the court papers Saiger filed in a court in Miami against a Mr Andersson.
So Saiger wins "a number of lucrative contracts with the government of the United Kingdom."
Lots of chatter about Lord Faulks' forthcoming report on judicial review.
It's fine to ask - and of course we do - questions about the proper limits to the judicial role. But we need to talk enough about the political context in which we come to ask those questions. THREAD.
I can't think of another democracy that is as vulnerable as ours to autocratic power. We don't have in any meaningful sense a constitution. Instead we have a five-yearly event that gives unconstrained power to the Commons.
The power is unconstrained because we lack a second Chamber that can constrain the Commons. We lack staged intakes of MPs that might offer checks to the absolute power flowing from that five yearly event.