Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£15 billion spent on ppe apparently but millions of contracts seem to have been given out to companies who have yet to supply any actual equipment.avanda capital(£250m)uniserve (£186m) P14 medical Ltd (£114m)pest fix (£108m) etc etc Still I'm sure the likes of the mail will blow a gasket at this waste of taxpayers money." All governments have these problems the fault is the civil service why it needs reform. The NHS is the biggest money waster in the UK caused by bad management,deal with facys and not your biased opinions please | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've just checked PestFix contract, and as of June they had almost completed the contract, having supplied over 67 million items of PPE. Why are you suggesting they haven't supplied anything? If you want to raise a concerning issue (which there actually is) at least tell the truth and present it with facts. " The london economic has reported that the gmnt is facing a number of legal challenges after awarding contracts to obscure companies including ayanda capital | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£15 billion spent on ppe apparently but millions of contracts seem to have been given out to companies who have yet to supply any actual equipment.avanda capital(£250m)uniserve (£186m) P14 medical Ltd (£114m)pest fix (£108m) etc etc Still I'm sure the likes of the mail will blow a gasket at this waste of taxpayers money.All governments have these problems the fault is the civil service why it needs reform. The NHS is the biggest money waster in the UK caused by bad management,deal with facys and not your biased opinions please" The tories have been in charge for the last 10 years ??  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£15 billion spent on ppe apparently but millions of contracts seem to have been given out to companies who have yet to supply any actual equipment.avanda capital(£250m)uniserve (£186m) P14 medical Ltd (£114m)pest fix (£108m) etc etc Still I'm sure the likes of the mail will blow a gasket at this waste of taxpayers money.All governments have these problems the fault is the civil service why it needs reform. The NHS is the biggest money waster in the UK caused by bad management,deal with facys and not your biased opinions please" Fair enough. Back up your biggest waste of money claim with a source please. The civil service don't award contracts.Thats the job of the gmnt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've just checked PestFix contract, and as of June they had almost completed the contract, having supplied over 67 million items of PPE. Why are you suggesting they haven't supplied anything? If you want to raise a concerning issue (which there actually is) at least tell the truth and present it with facts. " Ive just googled pestfix and the gmnt are admitting they were given the contract in error? Source city am | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Luxe lifestyle ltd was awarded a £25 m contract despite having no employees.no assets and no turnover. Source byline times. Info taken from companies house" Do they also have a ferry company that has no ships? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£15 billion spent on ppe apparently but millions of contracts seem to have been given out to companies who have yet to supply any actual equipment.avanda capital(£250m)uniserve (£186m) P14 medical Ltd (£114m)pest fix (£108m) etc etc Still I'm sure the likes of the mail will blow a gasket at this waste of taxpayers money.All governments have these problems the fault is the civil service why it needs reform. The NHS is the biggest money waster in the UK caused by bad management,deal with facys and not your biased opinions please" What a great reply! You’ve got to admire some of our Tory fanatics. If their own mum was burgled by Boris Johnson, they’d still manage to find him an excuse. How much more shit do you need before waking up? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have absolutely no doubt whatever you are googling, and the results you are churning out from various news reports are there to be found and read. Whether or not they are factually correct, or if they are a journalists interpretation of - remains to be seen. There are issues to be answered as to why certain companies were awarded government contracts - I suspect when the pandemic started the normal processes for tender and awarding contracts were relaxed - in fact we already know this was the case. As to some of these contracts not being fulfilled, companies not supplying anything - the government procurement system, even in a state of relaxed procedure, would not authorise payments for non delivery of product. If deposits were paid and goods not supplied - payments would be returned. So what is your argument here - the allocation of contracts to companies who would not normally supply to government, or simply you think there is mass fraud going on and none of the companies have supplied any ppe? " Well it seems fairly certain there is at best competence issues there. At worst there is something more sinister going on with some of the companies having links to tories mps or donors. The fact that we were in the middle of a pandemic is a wafer thin exercuse and just lays bare the lack of readiness argument. Whichever way you dress it up the party which is seem as being 'safe 'with the economy has wasted a lot of money. If this was in the virus forum I'd be counting the seconds until someone mentioned Dianne Abbott. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for pestfix there is to be a judicial review as they were the only company allowed to apply for the contract source business insider" PHE invoked a procurement clause that allowed then to place orders, without the need for tendering. Think its called a "section 32". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Competence? Have these companies not been able to supply the required PPE, or are you questioning the competence of government to award contracts to companies who could quickly supply PPE? At worst something more sinister? - is the sinister aspect to this the awarding of contracts to companies who normally would not even have tendered for the contract? The only reason vast amounts of PPE were required, quickly, was due to the fact there was a pandemic - and the global market for PPE was under immense pressure. This isn't a convenient excuse being used by government to bring in some underhand dealings to fleece the country of money - PPE was needed quickly from any company able to supply it, or at least have suitable supply chain connections to be able to get it. Has the money been wasted? why do you think the money has been wasted if the companies have supplied PPE? " Well it appears to be a number of issues There was another company which had links to a high ranking Tory who were awarded a contract without it being put out to tender Apparently according to the gt only produced evidence of 80 of the companies involved and the judicial review Is to investigate if the money has been spent wisely? Why were contracts being given to companies with no workforce? Wasn't any diligence done? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for pestfix there is to be a judicial review as they were the only company allowed to apply for the contract source business insider PHE invoked a procurement clause that allowed then to place orders, without the need for tendering. Think its called a "section 32". " But it was challenged in the courts? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Competence? Have these companies not been able to supply the required PPE, or are you questioning the competence of government to award contracts to companies who could quickly supply PPE? At worst something more sinister? - is the sinister aspect to this the awarding of contracts to companies who normally would not even have tendered for the contract? The only reason vast amounts of PPE were required, quickly, was due to the fact there was a pandemic - and the global market for PPE was under immense pressure. This isn't a convenient excuse being used by government to bring in some underhand dealings to fleece the country of money - PPE was needed quickly from any company able to supply it, or at least have suitable supply chain connections to be able to get it. Has the money been wasted? why do you think the money has been wasted if the companies have supplied PPE? Well it appears to be a number of issues There was another company which had links to a high ranking Tory who were awarded a contract without it being put out to tender Apparently according to the gt only produced evidence of 80 of the companies involved and the judicial review Is to investigate if the money has been spent wisely? Why were contracts being given to companies with no workforce? Wasn't any diligence done? " Sometimes companies are just one person. It could be that he/she has the right contacts in the right place at the right time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bit like the company that was given a contract to run ferries after Brexit, who actually had no ferries at all. Sound like the tories looking after their buddies or supporters. " Good old Christopher grayling | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will be interesting to try and fight a claim that the money has not been spent wisely given the issues around sourcing and providing PPE, when it was needed as quickly as possible. The normal processes of tender were formally/legally released during the pandemic. To try and now fight a legal claim that the government didn't select a company in the normal way, to provide the desperately needed PPE, is a total waste of time. " You seriously suggesting there is nothing fishy about giving a juicy contract to a company with a tory advisor. So is that why they gave a contract to a company with no workforce,? Isn't it more a review than a legal claim?the legal claim was about the links to the tories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Competence? Have these companies not been able to supply the required PPE, or are you questioning the competence of government to award contracts to companies who could quickly supply PPE? At worst something more sinister? - is the sinister aspect to this the awarding of contracts to companies who normally would not even have tendered for the contract? The only reason vast amounts of PPE were required, quickly, was due to the fact there was a pandemic - and the global market for PPE was under immense pressure. This isn't a convenient excuse being used by government to bring in some underhand dealings to fleece the country of money - PPE was needed quickly from any company able to supply it, or at least have suitable supply chain connections to be able to get it. Has the money been wasted? why do you think the money has been wasted if the companies have supplied PPE? Well it appears to be a number of issues There was another company which had links to a high ranking Tory who were awarded a contract without it being put out to tender Apparently according to the gt only produced evidence of 80 of the companies involved and the judicial review Is to investigate if the money has been spent wisely? Why were contracts being given to companies with no workforce? Wasn't any diligence done? Sometimes companies are just one person. It could be that he/she has the right contacts in the right place at the right time. " Like a tory advisor? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£15 billion spent on ppe apparently but millions of contracts seem to have been given out to companies who have yet to supply any actual equipment.avanda capital(£250m)uniserve (£186m) P14 medical Ltd (£114m)pest fix (£108m) etc etc Still I'm sure the likes of the mail will blow a gasket at this waste of taxpayers money.All governments have these problems the fault is the civil service why it needs reform. The NHS is the biggest money waster in the UK caused by bad management,deal with facys and not your biased opinions please" The government and relevant minister are responsible for the signing off of all contracts. Ultimately, this means a front bencher isn't doing their job right, or reading the details. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will be interesting to try and fight a claim that the money has not been spent wisely given the issues around sourcing and providing PPE, when it was needed as quickly as possible. The normal processes of tender were formally/legally released during the pandemic. To try and now fight a legal claim that the government didn't select a company in the normal way, to provide the desperately needed PPE, is a total waste of time. " There's loosening up a process, and then there's not actually checking to see if a company has the assets/supply chains to supply PPE. Sounds like a bit of oversight to me, if it's deliberate, that's corruption, if it's accidental, then someone hasn't paid attention. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will be interesting to try and fight a claim that the money has not been spent wisely given the issues around sourcing and providing PPE, when it was needed as quickly as possible. The normal processes of tender were formally/legally released during the pandemic. To try and now fight a legal claim that the government didn't select a company in the normal way, to provide the desperately needed PPE, is a total waste of time. There's loosening up a process, and then there's not actually checking to see if a company has the assets/supply chains to supply PPE. Sounds like a bit of oversight to me, if it's deliberate, that's corruption, if it's accidental, then someone hasn't paid attention." If the PPE was supplied as required and there are no irregularities with the price quoted and price paid, what is there to complain about. It's not as if this is going to be the new normal for government tendering and purchasing...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find the answers in here so funny, I mean really if someone sitting at home can research and find information about MPs breaking the law, I'm sure the people who police the system must also know or are on the take. If they have done wrong they'll be sacked, not seen anything on the news lol " A journalist who breaks the story is on the take..rightio? It's in the guardian,the ft and the bbc website. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will be interesting to try and fight a claim that the money has not been spent wisely given the issues around sourcing and providing PPE, when it was needed as quickly as possible. The normal processes of tender were formally/legally released during the pandemic. To try and now fight a legal claim that the government didn't select a company in the normal way, to provide the desperately needed PPE, is a total waste of time. There's loosening up a process, and then there's not actually checking to see if a company has the assets/supply chains to supply PPE. Sounds like a bit of oversight to me, if it's deliberate, that's corruption, if it's accidental, then someone hasn't paid attention." Suppose that depends on your level of trust in boris and co.and your level of faith in disaster capitalism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will be interesting to try and fight a claim that the money has not been spent wisely given the issues around sourcing and providing PPE, when it was needed as quickly as possible. The normal processes of tender were formally/legally released during the pandemic. To try and now fight a legal claim that the government didn't select a company in the normal way, to provide the desperately needed PPE, is a total waste of time. There's loosening up a process, and then there's not actually checking to see if a company has the assets/supply chains to supply PPE. Sounds like a bit of oversight to me, if it's deliberate, that's corruption, if it's accidental, then someone hasn't paid attention. If the PPE was supplied as required and there are no irregularities with the price quoted and price paid, what is there to complain about. It's not as if this is going to be the new normal for government tendering and purchasing... "Yep clearly there are no irregularities here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will be interesting to try and fight a claim that the money has not been spent wisely given the issues around sourcing and providing PPE, when it was needed as quickly as possible. The normal processes of tender were formally/legally released during the pandemic. To try and now fight a legal claim that the government didn't select a company in the normal way, to provide the desperately needed PPE, is a total waste of time. There's loosening up a process, and then there's not actually checking to see if a company has the assets/supply chains to supply PPE. Sounds like a bit of oversight to me, if it's deliberate, that's corruption, if it's accidental, then someone hasn't paid attention. If the PPE was supplied as required and there are no irregularities with the price quoted and price paid, what is there to complain about. It's not as if this is going to be the new normal for government tendering and purchasing...
Yep clearly there are no irregularities here."So what are the irregularities with the supply? Not the requested items, difference in spec, short shipped, a difference in invoice price to quoted price, money paid but nothing shipped? Be specific... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will be interesting to try and fight a claim that the money has not been spent wisely given the issues around sourcing and providing PPE, when it was needed as quickly as possible. The normal processes of tender were formally/legally released during the pandemic. To try and now fight a legal claim that the government didn't select a company in the normal way, to provide the desperately needed PPE, is a total waste of time. There's loosening up a process, and then there's not actually checking to see if a company has the assets/supply chains to supply PPE. Sounds like a bit of oversight to me, if it's deliberate, that's corruption, if it's accidental, then someone hasn't paid attention. If the PPE was supplied as required and there are no irregularities with the price quoted and price paid, what is there to complain about. It's not as if this is going to be the new normal for government tendering and purchasing...
Yep clearly there are no irregularities here."Seems its more to do with who got the contracts rather than delivery i.e. companies with Tory links and that some did not have experience in ppe - one of them is a pest control company. On the BBC site it says P14 saved the government 55 million pounds on face shields contract and completed ahead of schedule so at least the contracts were successful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will be interesting to try and fight a claim that the money has not been spent wisely given the issues around sourcing and providing PPE, when it was needed as quickly as possible. The normal processes of tender were formally/legally released during the pandemic. To try and now fight a legal claim that the government didn't select a company in the normal way, to provide the desperately needed PPE, is a total waste of time. There's loosening up a process, and then there's not actually checking to see if a company has the assets/supply chains to supply PPE. Sounds like a bit of oversight to me, if it's deliberate, that's corruption, if it's accidental, then someone hasn't paid attention. If the PPE was supplied as required and there are no irregularities with the price quoted and price paid, what is there to complain about. It's not as if this is going to be the new normal for government tendering and purchasing...
Yep clearly there are no irregularities here.
Seems its more to do with who got the contracts rather than delivery i.e. companies with Tory links and that some did not have experience in ppe - one of them is a pest control company. On the BBC site it says P14 saved the government 55 million pounds on face shields contract and completed ahead of schedule so at least the contracts were successful"Well to use that famous quote.. they would say that wouldn't they? There are 2 ways of looking at it.It was an unprecedented situation and honest mistakes were made. A cynic however may question why were contracts awarded with no tendering process? Why did so many companies get awarded juicy contracts who had close links with the conservative party? How was a company with no actual workforce make loads of ppe? Didn't Reece moggs dad write a book on how to exploit an extreme situation? Just saying like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will be interesting to try and fight a claim that the money has not been spent wisely given the issues around sourcing and providing PPE, when it was needed as quickly as possible. The normal processes of tender were formally/legally released during the pandemic. To try and now fight a legal claim that the government didn't select a company in the normal way, to provide the desperately needed PPE, is a total waste of time. There's loosening up a process, and then there's not actually checking to see if a company has the assets/supply chains to supply PPE. Sounds like a bit of oversight to me, if it's deliberate, that's corruption, if it's accidental, then someone hasn't paid attention. If the PPE was supplied as required and there are no irregularities with the price quoted and price paid, what is there to complain about. It's not as if this is going to be the new normal for government tendering and purchasing...
Yep clearly there are no irregularities here.
Seems its more to do with who got the contracts rather than delivery i.e. companies with Tory links and that some did not have experience in ppe - one of them is a pest control company. On the BBC site it says P14 saved the government 55 million pounds on face shields contract and completed ahead of schedule so at least the contracts were successful
Well to use that famous quote.. they would say that wouldn't they?
There are 2 ways of looking at it.It was an unprecedented situation and honest mistakes were made.
A cynic however may question why were contracts awarded with no tendering process?
Why did so many companies get awarded juicy contracts who had close links with the conservative party?
How was a company with no actual workforce make loads of ppe?
Didn't Reece moggs dad write a book on how to exploit an extreme situation?
Just saying like."As I say its more to do with who got the contracts and not if they were full filled. I expect its the tip of the iceberg and we may never know the full extent. Having said that saving 50 million pounds and being ahead of schedule is a decent outcome and comes from one of the sources you mention | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£15 billion spent on ppe apparently but millions of contracts seem to have been given out to companies who have yet to supply any actual equipment.avanda capital(£250m)uniserve (£186m) P14 medical Ltd (£114m)pest fix (£108m) etc etc Still I'm sure the likes of the mail will blow a gasket at this waste of taxpayers money.All governments have these problems the fault is the civil service why it needs reform. The NHS is the biggest money waster in the UK caused by bad management,deal with facys and not your biased opinions please" There was at least 2 fact in the post you questioned. Also, no mention of the government. You really would defend this government whatever they do. I can only assume that you're the type of person who could never hold their hand up and say that they were wrong. cue "but imagine if corbyn...." comment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be very naive to think that someone somewhere hasn't made a nice little profit off this" Of course as that's what business do. Whoever got the contract would have done well out of it. At least with the example you highlight it was cheaper by 50 million pounds and completed early which is in the same report you first mentioned | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Competence? Have these companies not been able to supply the required PPE, or are you questioning the competence of government to award contracts to companies who could quickly supply PPE? At worst something more sinister? - is the sinister aspect to this the awarding of contracts to companies who normally would not even have tendered for the contract? The only reason vast amounts of PPE were required, quickly, was due to the fact there was a pandemic - and the global market for PPE was under immense pressure. This isn't a convenient excuse being used by government to bring in some underhand dealings to fleece the country of money - PPE was needed quickly from any company able to supply it, or at least have suitable supply chain connections to be able to get it. Has the money been wasted? why do you think the money has been wasted if the companies have supplied PPE? " Ahem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
