It was a reply to your comment in 253.
is your lack of understanding, which I have been trying to help you with for the last couple of pages.
What facts are you referring to? You clearly haven't read/understood what the judgement is about.
from memory, wasn't someone else arrested for the suspected fraud?
Looks like arrest on basis of conspiracy to commit fraud. What do you do in those circumstances, with a presumption of innocence to protect your rights? No comment or sing like a canary? Tough and stressful position to be in, almost like being stretched from both ends. Lets hope its judged on its facts and doesn't become a political prosecution.
www.theguardian.com
if he sang like a canary, there would have been further arrests. I don't recall any charges, they are possibly out of time now, but nothing stops them coming back. The problem with these types of cases is that it's called a supply chain for a reason, it may well be hard to trace the origin and even if there was a fraud. "I thought you'd got the approval, oh I thought you'd done it etc."Looks like arrest on basis of conspiracy to commit fraud. What do you do in those circumstances, with a presumption of innocence to protect your rights? No comment or sing like a canary? Tough and stressful position to be in, almost like being stretched from both ends. Lets hope its judged on its facts and doesn't become a political prosecution.
Man, 46, arrested in connection with criminal investigation into PPE Medpro
Suspect understood to have been arrested on suspicion of offences including conspiracy to commit fraud
Lots of regulations around company structures and disclosures of true ownership so maybe some leverage there. Public and political pressures definitely influence plod.
Except they didn't source correctky
Or deliberately mis reoresented
No lack of understanding here. As I've pointed out, it's you trying to create misrepresentation.
Let's hope if they are involved in any other government contracts they lose our on them
Not a crime
of which we have not seen any evidence
righto
cynically into liquidation.
Had they carried on trading, they would have broken the law.Bad business practice at the very least. And they didn't supply what was requested.
See above
You suggested something about business practice and I corrected you, with examples of my busibess
Not if they were profitable. Were they not profitable ?cynically into liquidation.
What bit of being insolvent do you need help with?
Do you want to read this back to yourself ?
It's not about being profitable it's about being unable to pay your debts. This is correct.
other than the company accounts which by law have to be, and have been published.
This does seem to be your weakness. Perhaps an example will help:
Try again. Profitable means ability to make a profit after expenses. Buy at a low price, sell at a higher price to cover all expenses. It's the basic part of any business
Yes, because this man supplies what he says he does, sources correctly with traceability and insurances in place.
You seem to think the judgement exonerates them from further investigation/prosecution, correct?
Don't forget they are big tory supporters.
Being profitable has no effect on your insolvency. I'm not sure how I can explain this to you in a way you understand. It's clear that you don't understand being profitable can still mean you are insolvent.
and none of this helps if a 3rd party let you down, or if a supplier to that 3rd party let him down
The obvious question you are failing to ask, is if they made a profit. How do you know that the £120M cost included substantial profits?
