It doesn’t have to be a con. Access for donkeys is not the same as a full blown highway access to a small residential development where visibility and highway safety require attention. The donkey land probably also had a covenant on restricting use. That would have to be bought out. Keir is a clever chap, he has a first in law.
Bluff and bluster fails.
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Our arcane laws probably hold a greater respect for for legged (equine) animals than they do non-horse drawn carriages. Sir Keir is indeed a very clever fellow.
That's borderline word salad, but I'll try my best to make sense of it. Are you saying he sold seven acres of residential building land in Surrey for £300,000.
But you’ve never made a post criticising her ripping off the taxpayer by £200m
Yet you post endlessly about Angela Rayner.
Pure tribalism
He obviously realised he wasn’t going to get planning for it plus his political career was taking off.
That makes sense now.
His intellectual deviousness might suit the court room but he is driving away supporters to the right (re form) and those to left (the greens are building a great momentum).
In a letter to Kemi Badenoch, Lady Mone accused the Tory leader of using “inflammatory language” against her and suggested she was leading the party to extinction. The Conservatives hit back with a statement saying Mone had in effect been barred from returning to the party having “fallen well short” of its standards.
What standards? Translation: She broke the 11th commandment.
What standards? Translation: She broke the 11th commandment.
He did a good job of de-Corbynising the party. But he is not a very good politician.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,200
- Reaction score
- 6,499
- Country
Anything less is like a fail
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,200
- Reaction score
- 6,499
- Country
The two jobs are very similar. Both require you to convince the other you are right.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,200
- Reaction score
- 6,499
- Country
I’ve read the judgement, you should too.
I've read most of it. It is extremely boring! But what it seems to come down to is that Medpro didn't really understand what was required to fulfil the contract specification. And then tried to blame the NHS for not explaining it better. The judge told them to take a hike, because MedPro had held themselves out to be a very experienced company with great expertise. Bascially, it was their own fault.
' Medpro’s submission that it was wholly reliant upon DHSC for advice is, on the facts, utterly unrealistic. Medpro was presenting itself to DHSC as a worthy entrant into the fast lane for approval as a supplier and aiming to land contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. It said repeatedly that it had experience. It claimed to be well established: Mr Barrowman’s years of experience were trumpeted, as was its track record “manufacturing large quantities for the Australian government” as well as Mr Page’s “We are certain that we are 100% compliant”. '
Last edited:
What I hadn't realised, until I read the judgment, is that originally MedPro had wanted to supply non-sterile gowns. But the NHS decided they didn't require any more of those. So, MedPro switched to saying they could provide the sterile "surgical" gowns, which the NHS desperately needed. And that seems to be how it all fell apart for MedPro. They just didn't have the understanding or expertise to correctly source this more technical product.
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 18,531
- Reaction score
- 11,593
- Country
Then they shouldn't have been supplying the stuff in the first place, complete scam.
