Bluff and bluster fails.

motorbiking said:
feel free to show me company accounts for PPE Medpro Limited, the company that was actually sued, that show this money you claim.
Click to expand...
Strawman




Official govt website says PPE Medpro was awarded 2 contracts: £81m and £122m

PPE Medpro was one of the private companies awarded valuable contracts having been referred through this High Priority Lane by Baroness Michelle Mone. PPE Medpro was set up on 12 May 2020. It was awarded its first contract, worth £81 million, a month later on 12 June to supply 210 million face masks. The Department awarded a second contract a couple of weeks later on 26 June, worth £122 million for sterile surgical gowns


If PPE Medpro weren’t paid that money why were they sued?
 
motorbiking said:
He's talking about Persons of Significant Control, (PSC) - there has already been a complaint filed by tax watch. But this is not the focus of the criminal investigation.
Click to expand...
In that case plod is ****ed because there were several intermediary companies, meddpro seems to have been the uk enabler end.
 
Notch7 said:
Strawman




Official govt website says PPE Medpro was awarded 2 contracts: £81m and £122m

PPE Medpro was one of the private companies awarded valuable contracts having been referred through this High Priority Lane by Baroness Michelle Mone. PPE Medpro was set up on 12 May 2020. It was awarded its first contract, worth £81 million, a month later on 12 June to supply 210 million face masks. The Department awarded a second contract a couple of weeks later on 26 June, worth £122 million for sterile surgical gowns


If PPE Medpro weren’t paid that money why were they sued?
Click to expand...
because they breached the contract.

Supply A, Supplied B. Simple.

Did they have to pay for B, yes, did they get B back no.

I don't know why this is so hard.
 
Last edited:
blup said:
In that case plod is ****ed because there were several intermediary companies, meddpro seems to have been the uk enabler end.
Click to expand...
they might be able to pin a crime on one of the minions. someone would have been aware the certificates were faked and benefited from the deception.
 
motorbiking said:
because they breached the contract.

Supply A, Supplied B. Simple.

Did they have to pay for B, yes, did they get B back no.

I don't know why this is so hard.
Click to expand...
so you admit that PPE Medpro Ltd got paid £81m and £122m govt contracts

therefore there mustve been more than £4m going through the companys business
 
motorbiking said:
they might be able to pin a crime on one of the minions. someone would have been aware the certificates were faked and benefited from the deception.
Click to expand...
it seems PPE medpro was a shell company.

it seems Michelle Mone took £60m in profit so are there no money laundering laws that the government can pursue to reclaim the money?
 
Maybe money laundering is an angle they could look at
 
motorbiking said:
you've no idea what I do.
Click to expand...
You're a high flying captain of industry.

A prominent lawyer of a better standard than those employed by the royal family.

And a sailor in your "spare time"

All that you have revealed before.

And on top of that you are on a DIY site offering no DIY help, and giving a very 1 sided view of laws.

Most people that are that qualified wouldn't be anywhere near a DIY site

I don't need to know any more, other than the fact I'm not the only 1 that thinks you are full of bluff and bluster.
 
Notch7 said:
so you admit that PPE Medpro Ltd got paid £81m and £122m govt contracts

therefore there mustve been more than £4m going through the companys business
Click to expand...
Notch7 said:
it seems PPE medpro was a shell company.

it seems Michelle Mone took £60m in profit so are there no money laundering laws that the government can pursue to reclaim the money?
Click to expand...
there is nothing for me to admit, I invite you to find the money. that you say "must have" existed.
 
A market trader was in the paper done for selling knocked off trainers. But trading standards would have no case against the meddpro lot. Doesn’t seem right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnD
A 46-year-old man.
2 3
Replies
38
Views
3K
diy_fun_uk
D
S
Trickle down Corruption? Hancock helped secure £180m PPE Deal
2 3
Replies
34
Views
4K
John the plumber
John the plumber
Back
Top