FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Baroness Mone told to repay £122mill
Baroness Mone told to repay £122mill
Jump to: Newest in thread
In some ways they are a bit of a sacrificial lamb as the cost of dealing with the multiple others, many through the 'Vip' list or chums and friends of the last government are equally culpable..
It allows Labour to say we will go after corruption blah blah but how much will be recovered is another thing..
The Good Law Project (much maligned by some on here) has done some very good work on this particular practice.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *deepdiveMan 31 weeks ago
Canterbury and France (26) |
"In some ways they are a bit of a sacrificial lamb as the cost of dealing with the multiple others, many through the 'Vip' list or chums and friends of the last government are equally culpable..
It allows Labour to say we will go after corruption blah blah but how much will be recovered is another thing..
The Good Law Project (much maligned by some on here) has done some very good work on this particular practice.."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Baroness Mone hasn’t been ordered to repay anything. The proceedings weren’t against her.
"
And the company she was involved with has filed for administration so the chances of the money being paid are low. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good her and her partner should be behind bars to , putting all NHS staff at risk."
No one was put at risk. The stuff that was supplied was found by the court to be sterile and safe to use. They've lost their case because the stuff wasn't labelled properly.
They took a gamble that the lack of EU certification stamps would be overlooked in the rush, and they lost. That's business. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *apybarasCouple 31 weeks ago
High Lighthouse |
"Good her and her partner should be behind bars to , putting all NHS staff at risk.
No one was put at risk. The stuff that was supplied was found by the court to be sterile and safe to use. They've lost their case because the stuff wasn't labelled properly.
They took a gamble that the lack of EU certification stamps would be overlooked in the rush, and they lost. That's business.
"
A company setup for the sole purpose of defrauding the UK government is not what I would call business. Sounds more like a criminal enterprise to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a result of the defective PPC provided during civil. Justice?"
is being made to refund the customer due to goods being unfit for purpose justice. of course.
the criminal investigation is ongoing by the way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good her and her partner should be behind bars to , putting all NHS staff at risk."
"No one was put at risk. The stuff that was supplied was found by the court to be sterile and safe to use. They've lost their case because the stuff wasn't labelled properly.
They took a gamble that the lack of EU certification stamps would be overlooked in the rush, and they lost. That's business."
"A company setup for the sole purpose of defrauding the UK government is not what I would call business. Sounds more like a criminal enterprise to me."
There was no fraud, and nothing criminal in what has been ruled on so far. They signed a contract to supply some stuff, supplied stuff that didn't meet the contract, and so they been told to pay back the money.
Sleazy? Yes. Opportunistic? Yes. Profiteering? Yes. But no one was put at risk and no laws were broken.
Now if it turns out that all the money has gone and can't be properly accounted for, then you can say that they're criminals. There will be more to come on this story. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apparently they applied for administration a couple of days ago stating they only have c£660,000. Yet not long ago they offered to settle for £23 million, so where has that gone?"
Apparently there was a trust fund mentioned |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They also need to be going after the Hancock's of this world, who ignored legitimate PPE businesses in order to give multi million pound contracts to their mates. Opening "VIP lanes" to people he met in the pub ffs. Giving £100M to Mone and a company she set up a week earlier.
Mone and her husband are money grabbing scumbags for sure, but they're a symptom of the corruption, not the cause. If Hancock, that little gremlin who charged us £32Bn for a spreadsheet, and the rest of them are able to walk away scot free, it will be an absolute disgrace. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should also terminate the lease to HMRC offices in Newcastle, the Tory donor landlords, the Reuben brothers apparently lease the office to HMRC via an SPV based in British virgin isles."
How does that relate to Mone or CoViD? Why do you think the lease should be terminated? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Whilst Mone’s repayment of £122m is significant it’s equivalent to two weeks cost of migrant hotels, and the home office apparently spending £600,000 a day in empty hotel rooms ready for a small boat influx.
Trump didn’t pay the £14million owed in connection charges by Londons USA embassy and its diplomats, add another £10million owed by Japanese embassy. And what about £9.6 million spent on House of Lords entrance doors.
There’s a reported £39bn annual uncollected tax to plug Reeves black hole.
These successive governments convincing us UK is hard up while they waste all this taxpayers money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should also terminate the lease to HMRC offices in Newcastle, the Tory donor landlords, the Reuben brothers apparently lease the office to HMRC via an SPV based in British virgin isles.
How does that relate to Mone or CoViD? Why do you think the lease should be terminated?"
The Pilgrim Street offices were valued at £155M I’d expect iro £15M annual rent plus upward rent reviews on the 25 year lease, Iro half a billion of tax payers money washed into a bvi tax haven.
While The Times and GB news are reporting on a £20k donkey field |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It seems an especially just decision.
She should lose her House of Lords position.
They will, I'm sure, resist paying back this public money. I see the company called in administration yesterday, surprise, surprise  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good her and her partner should be behind bars to , putting all NHS staff at risk.
No one was put at risk. The stuff that was supplied was found by the court to be sterile and safe to use. They've lost their case because the stuff wasn't labelled properly.
They took a gamble that the lack of EU certification stamps would be overlooked in the rush, and they lost. That's business.
A company setup for the sole purpose of defrauding the UK government is not what I would call business. Sounds more like a criminal enterprise to me.
There was no fraud, and nothing criminal in what has been ruled on so far. They signed a contract to supply some stuff, supplied stuff that didn't meet the contract, and so they been told to pay back the money.
Sleazy? Yes. Opportunistic? Yes. Profiteering? Yes. But no one was put at risk and no laws were broken.
Now if it turns out that all the money has gone and can't be properly accounted for, then you can say that they're criminals. There will be more to come on this story."
'No one was put at risk' 
They supplied what had to be sterile surgical equipment - What was supplied was equipment that had fake accreditation for sterility. Thus millions of people could have been put at risk, including of death, if it had been used. A somewhat contrasting position to your evaluation. Would you be happy to have surgery undertaken on you, with equipment used that wasn't guaranteed to be sterile, to appropriate standards? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whilst Mone’s repayment of £122m is significant it’s equivalent to two weeks cost of migrant hotels, and the home office apparently spending £600,000 a day in empty hotel rooms ready for a small boat influx.
Trump didn’t pay the £14million owed in connection charges by Londons USA embassy and its diplomats, add another £10million owed by Japanese embassy. And what about £9.6 million spent on House of Lords entrance doors.
There’s a reported £39bn annual uncollected tax to plug Reeves black hole.
These successive governments convincing us UK is hard up while they waste all this taxpayers money. "
that's a crap arguement. it doesn't matter wether its 2p or 2 billion. the corruption gravy train has to be shown to be getting stopped. normal everyday people think that tackling the one rule for them shit is by far the most important issue of our time. far more imortant than a few people in a rubber dinghy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'No one was put at risk'
They supplied what had to be sterile surgical equipment - What was supplied was equipment that had fake accreditation for sterility. Thus millions of people could have been put at risk, including of death, if it had been used. A somewhat contrasting position to your evaluation. Would you be happy to have surgery undertaken on you, with equipment used that wasn't guaranteed to be sterile, to appropriate standards?"
That's not what the court decided. The court has ruled that the equipment supplied by PPE Medpro had been sterilised to the appropriate standard, but it did not have the mandated EU markings on the packaging, and PPE Medpro did not have the necessary documentary evidence at the time of delivery.
The equipment was safe and appropriate for use, but it didn't meet the contractual requirements, so it couldn't be used. No one was put at risk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
It's also about bad business practice in NHS procurement. There should have been staggered stage payments and quality checks along the way. A private company in the midst of a crisis would have had their own QA guy at the end of the production line. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's also about bad business practice in NHS procurement. There should have been staggered stage payments and quality checks along the way. A private company in the midst of a crisis would have had their own QA guy at the end of the production line. "
Is that you Captain Hindsight. They were dealing with a crisis brought on by WHO pant wetters like Gabri salasy or whatever his name is. I say this in Hindsight too. What a predictable fiasco that was. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 31 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"It's also about bad business practice in NHS procurement. There should have been staggered stage payments and quality checks along the way. A private company in the midst of a crisis would have had their own QA guy at the end of the production line. "
Agreed.
The chaos with PPE was down to the lack of a centralised procurement processes across the NHS. Trusts couldn’t even share or reallocate stock, so the government had no clear audit of what was available and ended up making blind deals with suppliers and over ordering. PPE requirements weren’t standardised either, which made failure a certainty. Years of poorly managed NHS practices were exposed in the crisis.
What’s worse is that this government is repeating the same pattern as the last, blaming everything but the NHS itself. The previous government claimed they had no control over NHS procurement, while this one panders to those voters who wants blood from businesses who made from PPE. It is obviously easier to blame anything other than the NHS money pit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"It's also about bad business practice in NHS procurement. There should have been staggered stage payments and quality checks along the way. A private company in the midst of a crisis would have had their own QA guy at the end of the production line.
Is that you Captain Hindsight. They were dealing with a crisis brought on by WHO pant wetters like Gabri salasy or whatever his name is. I say this in Hindsight too. What a predictable fiasco that was."
No the opposite. I've seen this all too often in my business career, especially government procurement. So for example, as I understand, the PPE failed to comply with 'healthcare standards'. But that's pretty vague and subjective. So were the 'standards' correctly specified in the contract? Why did £122 mil. of PPE get manufactured without somebody doing some QA checks? In these disputes, the devil is in the detail, and not always the fault of the supplier. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good her and her partner should be behind bars to , putting all NHS staff at risk.
No one was put at risk. The stuff that was supplied was found by the court to be sterile and safe to use. They've lost their case because the stuff wasn't labelled properly.
They took a gamble that the lack of EU certification stamps would be overlooked in the rush, and they lost. That's business. "
Took a gamble and lost, but were still happy to hang on to billions of the taxpayers money after supplying goods that they knew could not be used. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 31 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Good her and her partner should be behind bars to , putting all NHS staff at risk.
No one was put at risk. The stuff that was supplied was found by the court to be sterile and safe to use. They've lost their case because the stuff wasn't labelled properly.
They took a gamble that the lack of EU certification stamps would be overlooked in the rush, and they lost. That's business.
Took a gamble and lost, but were still happy to hang on to billions of the taxpayers money after supplying goods that they knew could not be used. "
Think about what you are saying. Why would they have supplied anything that couldn't be used? They would know that a claw back would have happened, it wouldn't be worth the risk when the profits were already high.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They took a gamble that the lack of EU certification stamps would be overlooked in the rush, and they lost. That's business."
"Took a gamble and lost, but were still happy to hang on to billions of the taxpayers money after supplying goods that they knew could not be used. "
The goods could have been used, they were properly made, and sterilised to the correct standard. They didn't have the correct paperwork, but there was a crisis going on, and stuff was needed fast.
And it wasn't billions, it was £122m. Remember, the reason we're talking about paying it back is that the NHS originally accepted the shipment, and paid them in full. There's been no suggestion of PPE Medpro misleading anyone.
If you want to be angry at a Tory, wait till the rest of the details come out and we find out how much profit was made, and where it all went. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good her and her partner should be behind bars to , putting all NHS staff at risk.
No one was put at risk. The stuff that was supplied was found by the court to be sterile and safe to use. They've lost their case because the stuff wasn't labelled properly.
They took a gamble that the lack of EU certification stamps would be overlooked in the rush, and they lost. That's business.
Took a gamble and lost, but were still happy to hang on to billions of the taxpayers money after supplying goods that they knew could not be used.
Think about what you are saying. Why would they have supplied anything that couldn't be used? They would know that a claw back would have happened, it wouldn't be worth the risk when the profits were already high.
"
It was the guy I was replying to that said they couldn't be used because the didnt have CE labels on them and they gambled on that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *apybarasCouple 31 weeks ago
High Lighthouse |
"It's also about bad business practice in NHS procurement. There should have been staggered stage payments and quality checks along the way. A private company in the midst of a crisis would have had their own QA guy at the end of the production line.
Is that you Captain Hindsight. They were dealing with a crisis brought on by WHO pant wetters like Gabri salasy or whatever his name is. I say this in Hindsight too. What a predictable fiasco that was.
No the opposite. I've seen this all too often in my business career, especially government procurement. So for example, as I understand, the PPE failed to comply with 'healthcare standards'. But that's pretty vague and subjective. So were the 'standards' correctly specified in the contract? Why did £122 mil. of PPE get manufactured without somebody doing some QA checks? In these disputes, the devil is in the detail, and not always the fault of the supplier."
But if they had been a veteran supplier of this type of goods, they'd have spotted that.
However, as the company had only been in existence for a couple of months, they didn't.
Makes you wonder why all the experienced suppliers were turned down, and only those "championed" by Tories won contracts through the "fast lane"... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 31 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"It's also about bad business practice in NHS procurement. There should have been staggered stage payments and quality checks along the way. A private company in the midst of a crisis would have had their own QA guy at the end of the production line.
Is that you Captain Hindsight. They were dealing with a crisis brought on by WHO pant wetters like Gabri salasy or whatever his name is. I say this in Hindsight too. What a predictable fiasco that was.
No the opposite. I've seen this all too often in my business career, especially government procurement. So for example, as I understand, the PPE failed to comply with 'healthcare standards'. But that's pretty vague and subjective. So were the 'standards' correctly specified in the contract? Why did £122 mil. of PPE get manufactured without somebody doing some QA checks? In these disputes, the devil is in the detail, and not always the fault of the supplier.
But if they had been a veteran supplier of this type of goods, they'd have spotted that.
However, as the company had only been in existence for a couple of months, they didn't.
Makes you wonder why all the experienced suppliers were turned down, and only those "championed" by Tories won contracts through the "fast lane"..."
That is different argument, the VIP lane was a shambles, it was unlawful but not illegal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"It's also about bad business practice in NHS procurement. There should have been staggered stage payments and quality checks along the way. A private company in the midst of a crisis would have had their own QA guy at the end of the production line.
Is that you Captain Hindsight. They were dealing with a crisis brought on by WHO pant wetters like Gabri salasy or whatever his name is. I say this in Hindsight too. What a predictable fiasco that was.
No the opposite. I've seen this all too often in my business career, especially government procurement. So for example, as I understand, the PPE failed to comply with 'healthcare standards'. But that's pretty vague and subjective. So were the 'standards' correctly specified in the contract? Why did £122 mil. of PPE get manufactured without somebody doing some QA checks? In these disputes, the devil is in the detail, and not always the fault of the supplier.
But if they had been a veteran supplier of this type of goods, they'd have spotted that.
However, as the company had only been in existence for a couple of months, they didn't.
Makes you wonder why all the experienced suppliers were turned down, and only those "championed" by Tories won contracts through the "fast lane"..."
Probably because the usual suppliers were full with orders from customers who reacted quicker. The Tories under Boris were slow to respond remember. There's nothing wrong with using alternative suppliers but commons sense tells you to get the specifications right and watch them closely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Probably because the usual suppliers were full with orders from customers who reacted quicker. The Tories under Boris were slow to respond remember. There's nothing wrong with using alternative suppliers but commons sense tells you to get the specifications right and watch them closely."
Yes I have a relation who works for the UK's largest supplier of certain PPE products, some 76% of that particular product market, and the Company was hopelessly overloaded with orders. However the Company offered to help provide expertise but this was rejected in favour of Tory donors put forward by Gove and others - Mone being a prime example.
Then Dildo Harding was bought in to manage Track and Trace. She spaffed £32bn on a useless spreadsheet.
They did however get the role out of the vaccine right by bringing in Ian Prosser the head of logistics for the British Army.
I guess 1 out of 3 isn't too bad for the useless Tories. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 30 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Only another lost £12b to find"
That is an easy one, don't spaff billions on unilateral deals with the unions, stop spending millions on initiatives and u-turning, doubling the cost. I could go on but that will be as meaningless as this governments pledges. Nov 26th will deliver the gift of Christmas.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Only another lost £12b to find
That is an easy one, don't spaff billions on unilateral deals with the unions, stop spending millions on initiatives and u-turning, doubling the cost. I could go on but that will be as meaningless as this governments pledges. Nov 26th will deliver the gift of Christmas...."
Labour are on the ropes. Can’t see Reeves has the neck to go further after Rayner, Siddiq, Mandelson, free clothes, farmers, pensioners, the disabled and more small boat arrivals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Only another lost £12b to find
That is an easy one, don't spaff billions on unilateral deals with the unions, stop spending millions on initiatives and u-turning, doubling the cost. I could go on but that will be as meaningless as this governments pledges. Nov 26th will deliver the gift of Christmas....
Labour are on the ropes. Can’t see Reeves has the neck to go further after Rayner, Siddiq, Mandelson, free clothes, farmers, pensioners, the disabled and more small boat arrivals. "
To say nothing of the Sword of Damoclese that is GB Energy and the idiot that is Ed Milliband. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
