Frances Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 Well Doug Barrowman just had a 10 min slot on R4's PM re his avoidance at being named as the controlling person behind Medpro - so someone appears to be gunning for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Frances said: someone appears to be gunning for him Dan Neidle. Edited January 1 by La Colombe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 (edited) I don't think Twitter X is the place to sort out legal affairs. She'd be better getting a good lawyer. Edited January 2 by Moghrey Mie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, Moghrey Mie said: I don't think Twitter X is the place to sort out legal affairs. She's be better getting a good lawyer. The statement has typos, it's a mess. I have no idea who is advising them, but they need sacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 7 hours ago, NoTailT said: The statement has typos, it's a mess. I have no idea who is advising them, but they need sacking. Just needs to pay the money back and the whole thing will go away 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weliveinhope Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 I cant help but think that the Government are making a scapegoat out of them, while trying to protect those in the inner circle. I guess theyre an easier target given their complete lack of any sort of humility. There seem to be two sides to this, one side about how the business was set up and how the contracts were 'won' and the other at how totally inept and corrupt the UK government were in the procurement process. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, Weliveinhope said: I cant help but think that the Government are making a scapegoat out of them, while trying to protect those in the inner circle. I guess theyre an easier target given their complete lack of any sort of humility. There seem to be two sides to this, one side about how the business was set up and how the contracts were 'won' and the other at how totally inept and corrupt the UK government were in the procurement process. An echo of the MEA debacle here I suspect, where one side walks away unscathed because of what they knew about the other side ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 So, without sifting through the whole thread, have I go this right? Because Michelle isn't named on Doug's Trust Company, she doesn't need to declare any interest. ....but, because the PPE equipment was not up to spec, Medpro are in breach of contract, so should pay the monies back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, cheesypeas said: So, without sifting through the whole thread, have I go this right? Because Michelle isn't named on Doug's Trust Company, she doesn't need to declare any interest. ....but, because the PPE equipment was not up to spec, Medpro are in breach of contract, so should pay the monies back? From what I've read, the conflict is that Medpro were not to be paid until DHSC approved the goods. DHSC approved the goods, paid Medpro and then DHSC had responsibility to transport them to the UK and then a long time later the goods were found not to be suitable, so not used. Edited January 2 by NoTailT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 12 minutes ago, NoTailT said: From what I've read, the conflict is that Medpro were not to be paid until DHSC approved the goods. DHSC approved the goods, paid Medpro and then DHSC had responsibility to transport them to the UK and then a long time later the goods were found not to be suitable, so not used. But according to published sources the goods were inspected and certified(?) as meeting the terms of supply by UKG's own appointed inspection company whilst the goods were still in China! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevster Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 There are three sides to every story like this - your version, their version, and the truth 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, kevster said: There are three sides to every story like this - your version, their version, and the truth you can't handle the truth . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 I doubt the whole story will ever be told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, Fred the shred said: I doubt the whole story will ever be told. Nor justice be done. Money talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 18 hours ago, cheesypeas said: So, without sifting through the whole thread, have I go this right? Because Michelle isn't named on Doug's Trust Company, she doesn't need to declare any interest. ....but, because the PPE equipment was not up to spec, Medpro are in breach of contract, so should pay the monies back? Pretty much. She's not named as a benificiary of his Trust. So means that she has no right to claim any benefit. Of course she's married to him, so could in-directly benefit. It's kinda like saying, does my wife (with her own job) benefit from my salary? Or more accurately, from a one-off job I did for a contact/introduction of hers. However there is some muddying of the waters, as there is the whole House of Lords VIP lane abuse issue, but really this is how business is often done. Many of us will ask friends for recommendations if we need a job done. It's just that as they are the HOL/Govt, they should probably be more accountable in such instances. Also I saw a comment somewhere from them that Mone also had contacts in the garment manufacturing industry in China. The PPE itself was inspected and deemed up to spec prior to shipment/acceptance. However my understanding is that the packaging was supposed to be 'triple bagged' and it wasn't. But again this is a contractual thing. Does it make it any less sterile really? Edited January 3 by The Phantom 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.