- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,761
- Reaction score
- 5,337
- Country

No it was a claim for breach of contract against a now insolvent company.You seem to think the judgement exonerates them from further investigation/prosecution, correct?


No it was a claim for breach of contract against a now insolvent company.You seem to think the judgement exonerates them from further investigation/prosecution, correct?

How do you know they weren't profitable did you read their accounts?Don't forget they are big tory supporters.
And apparently couldn't run a profitable business

Turnover is vanity. Profit is sanity.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.
Irrelevant. Either they sources correctly, via a traceable paper trail, or they didn't. Which is it? Was it accidental or deliberate is the only question, but I think the judgement has been made in court.and none of this helps if a 3rd party let you down, or if a supplier to that 3rd party let him down
How much money has been transferred to trust funds etc, it's been all over the pressThe obvious question you are failing to ask, is if they made a profit. How do you know that the £120M cost included substantial profits?
Is that a yes or a no to my question?No it was a claim for breach of contract against a now insolvent company.

You are the one telling us they can't pay their debts, you tell usHow do you know they weren't profitable did you read their accounts?

Net Assets £600kYou are the one telling us they can't pay their debts, you tell us

No, that's the position on the day of judgementNet Assets £600k
new debt £120M
can you not work it out?

which they might have wonNo, that's the position on the day of judgement
paid suppliers etcWhere did the money go? The cynical part of this, they made sure there was no money left.
how much did they take? You've no clue - the accounts are public record. There was never more than about £4M floating about.In other words, they took the money and ran.
The bit you are obviously struggling with, is what their costs were in the transaction.In fairness not the 1st business to do it, but it's still cynical and poor business practice and ethics.
Hopefully this isn't the end of it

They lost, rememberwhich they might have won
Obviously you haven't. Have you ignored how much, and where, the money went?paid suppliers etc
how much did they take? You've no clue
Deflection. Look at how much money went elsewhereThe bit you are obviously struggling with, is what their costs were in the transaction.

its all in the accounts. How much did they take, where did it go?They lost, remember
Obviously you haven't. Have you ignored how much, and where, the money went?
how much was that?Deflection. Look at how much money went elsewhere

You obviously don't keep up with the news reports do you.its all in the accounts. How much did they take, where did it go?
how much was that?

Has the penny finally dropped that the company was insolvent and the directors had a duty to wind up?You obviously don't keep up with the news reports do you.
I think she initially said she didn't benefit at all, and then after a few news outlets digging,she changed her mind
But don't you worry about it, keep your head in the sand, it's safe there
How much was in the company accounts just after they banked the cheque from the government?There was never more than about £4M floating about.

Why don’t you have a look.How much was in the company accounts just after they banked the cheque from the government?
Medpro was only set up to create a British company so the govt could pay the money to them.How do you know they weren't profitable did you read their accounts?