Divided England

[Toodles McGinty]

Is that grudging and tacit acceptance that I was right that NHS workers were involved or are you going to continue obfuscating sprinkled with some Angela Rayner style insults.

Again you demean NHS workers as all being some lowly sycophants frightened of, wait for it Matt Hancock.


Pathetic.

No. No acceptance, grudging or otherwise.

Where have I demeaned 'lowly NHS workers'?

Where have I said they are 'frightened of Matt Hancock'?

Toddler logic again. So if, as in the imaginary situation where an NHS worker opens a box of gloves, and doesn't question if a minister was involved in corruption somewhere along the procurement chain, it's because they are 'frightened of Matt Hancock'?

Right. Even a toddler could come up with something less tortuous than that.

If Angela Rayner ever says 'give it up, you boring ****', then yes, just like Rayner.

[local]

No. No acceptance, grudging or otherwise.

Where have I demeaned 'lowly NHS workers'?

Where have I said they are 'frightened of Matt Hancock'?

Toddler logic again. So if, as in the imaginary situation where an NHS worker opens a box of gloves, and doesn't question if a minister was involved in corruption somewhere along the procurement chain, it's because they are 'frightened of Matt Hancock'?

Right. Even a toddler could come up with something less tortuous than that.

If Angela Rayner ever says 'give it up, you boring ****', then yes, just like Rayner.

So are you now resiling from yours and others claims that NHS workers were not involved in PPE purchasing?

[local]

I had no intentions of replying to you again, but jeeze, your current attempt at proving the NHS buys PPE is pathetic.

Hospitals buy masses of different supplies. Is there any mention of PPE in the ad? Of course there isn't. Care to know why? Because North Bristol NHS Trust is still receiving free PPE push deliveries from the Parallel Supply Chain. PSC is no longer experiencing difficulty procuring PPE, and is continuing to push deliveries FOC until the end of March 2022.

Plus, as is par for the course, you've not taken into consideration that the information I obtained straight from the horse's mouth, was during the onset of Covid through the height of the first wave. Obtaining PPE was beyond difficult, which is why the DHSC's Parallel Supply Channel explored new channels. NHS participation in sourcing, verifying product standards, negotiating price and delivery schedules..... ZERO.

Trusts receiving free push deliveries. North Bristol NHS Trust is on the last line. Southport & Ormskirk Hospital is also on the list.

You could apologise as well ..........

[Desert Region]

I was defending NHS workers involved in the procurement of PPE.

Pointing out that if you claim the process was corrupt they would have had to be involved.

I was told they weren't involved but now it appears there is some retraction on that.

Oh and the usual potty-mouthed insults were spread liberally amongst it .

I'd posit that virtually everyone on the forum knows someone who works in the NHS. After all, it's the largest employer in the UK (and Europe, for that). You'll find that for a number of good reasons people don't like people attacking the character of NHS staff. For example, anti-vaxxers harassing hospital staff is a happening detested by everyone, save for anti-vaxxers.

It's certainly open to question if you're on 'team defence' or 'team attack' regards NHS staff. As I say, I haven't been closely following this thread, but you appear to be framing one of your positions as: you're defending the Government because if it's guilty of 'corruption' then you believe that NHS staff would thus be implicated by way of some form of secondary liability? (Which is an unusual application of the term regards corruption.)

it seems the Government stands accused of systematically favouring Conservative Party donors regards the awarding of PPE contracts.

I'm struggling to follow how NHS staff conspired in, encouraged or profited from that?

[Toodles McGinty]

So are you now resiling from yours and others claims that NHS workers were not involved in PPE purchasing?

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Everyone has made their point clearly.

Nobody believes or claims NHS staff are involved in corruption or cronyism. Nobody believes they are guilty of anything. Apart from whatever is swirling round in your head desperate to deflect from any wrongdoing by the government.

It's already been explained how NHS Supply Chain isn't actually the NHS, here. Written by senior lecturers at various UK universities:

"NHS Supply Chain is technically a part of the NHS, headed by the Secretary of State. But this status is merely a fig-leaf for a needlessly complex web of contracts with private companies which answer to shareholders first. Immediately upon its formation NHS Supply Chain outsourced two major contracts for IT and logistics, and then broke up and outsourced the whole procurement system, by delegating eleven supply areas to various contractors. The parcel-delivery company DHL was put in charge of finding wholesalers to supply ward based consumables, including PPE kits. Unipart was given control over supply chain logistics, including the delivery of PPE. "

NOT. THE. NHS.

Seivad explained, here, with links to government publications, how procurement was changed during the early stages of the pandemic:

Leads that were considered more credible were those from government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and members of the House of Lords but it is not clear why this assumption was made. The priority lane did not include organisations with expertise in the health and social care sector that had existing relationships with suppliers through their members or directly and were well-placed to assess the credibility of potential PPE suppliers, such as the British Medical Association.

Nobody made any claims about NHS staff. YOU decided that it was 'inferred'. Despite nobody making any inference, as we implicitly stated, over and over, NHS staff weren't involved. You decided to distract from any government wrongdoing by attacking a stance that didn't exist: that we 'accused' NHS staff of corruption.

So your wild eyed, frothing obsession with defending your beloved and his boys to the hilt, to the point of continuing this bullshite from another thread, is making you look deranged. Infatuated and unhinged.

Get a grip.

[local]

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Everyone has made their point clearly.

Nobody believes or claims NHS staff are involved in corruption or cronyism. Nobody believes they are guilty of anything. Apart from whatever is swirling round in your head desperate to deflect from any wrongdoing by the government.

It's already been explained how NHS Supply Chain isn't actually the NHS, here. Written by senior lecturers at various UK universities:



"NHS Supply Chain is technically a part of the NHS, headed by the Secretary of State. But this status is merely a fig-leaf for a needlessly complex web of contracts with private companies which answer to shareholders first. Immediately upon its formation NHS Supply Chain outsourced two major contracts for IT and logistics, and then broke up and outsourced the whole procurement system, by delegating eleven supply areas to various contractors. The parcel-delivery company DHL was put in charge of finding wholesalers to supply ward based consumables, including PPE kits. Unipart was given control over supply chain logistics, including the delivery of PPE. "

NOT. THE. NHS.

Seivad explained, here, with links to government publications, how procurement was changed during the early stages of the pandemic:

Leads that were considered more credible were those from government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and members of the House of Lords but it is not clear why this assumption was made. The priority lane did not include organisations with expertise in the health and social care sector that had existing relationships with suppliers through their members or directly and were well-placed to assess the credibility of potential PPE suppliers, such as the British Medical Association.

Nobody made any claims about NHS staff. YOU decided that it was 'inferred'. Despite nobody making any inference, as we implicitly stated, over and over, NHS staff weren't involved. You decided to distract from any government wrongdoing by attacking a stance that didn't exist: that we 'accused' NHS staff of corruption.

So your wild eyed, frothing obsession with defending your beloved and his boys to the hilt, to the point of continuing this bullshite from another thread, is making you look deranged. Infatuated and unhinged.

Get a grip.

I have explained to you both with confirming links that the NHS was part of the procurement process just because you don't like to admit it that doesn't make it untrue.

Your somewhat pathetic attempts above to label it as somehow untrustworthy because it's from the government again must involves more innocent civil servants in your smears by default.

I reiterate if you fling accusations about the procurement of PPE being corrupt then you smear ALL those involved.

If and when any member of the government is found guilty of corruption I will join you in condemning them AND those who allowed it to happen.

Banging out accusations is it seems something forums are besieged with by short thinking people who have no outlet for their problems elsewhere.

Try and imagine any member of the procurement teams their families or even Hancocks children reading these frivolous allegations.

They worked very very long hours in very difficult circumstances to help us all.

The fact that some saw an opportunity to provide and yes make money does not make them necessarily dishonest, some greedy definitely.

[silver fox]

The fact that some saw an opportunity to provide and yes make money does not make them necessarily dishonest, some greedy definitely.

Yes the true Tory mantra, as long as the RIGHT people profit, the means and manner of obtaining that profit is of little relevance, sure no one expects services to run for free, but it is becoming more and more evident that more than a little profiteering occurred.

Please do not deny that contracts were handed out with little or no checks, or alternatively it was known that contracts were going to some with zero experience and capacity to fulfill the contract, take your pick.

[Toodles McGinty]

I have explained to you both with confirming links that the NHS was part of the procurement process just because you don't like to admit it that doesn't make it untrue.

Your somewhat pathetic attempts above to label it as somehow untrustworthy because it's from the government again must involves more innocent civil servants in your smears by default.

I reiterate if you fling accusations about the procurement of PPE being corrupt then you smear ALL those involved.

Bull.

If and when any member of the government is found guilty of corruption I will join you in condemning them AND those who allowed it to happen.

Complete and utter Bull. If Johnson murdered people on Downing Street in broad daylight in front of the world's press, you'd make an excuse, because you are a bigoted idiot, obsessed with the supremacy of Johnson and co to the point of having no single brain cell capable of critical thinking politically. You are completely besotted with a bunch of corrupt, vicious, self serving, Putin-controlled liars masquerading under the name 'Conservative Party' after removing any one-nation Tories with an ounce of decency that might have stood in their way.

Banging out accusations is it seems something forums are besieged with by short thinking people who have no outlet for their problems elsewhere.

Weirdo. Because anyone criticises your beautiful boy they are 'short thinkers'? More bull.

Try and imagine any member of the procurement teams their families or even Hancocks children reading these frivolous allegations.

Oh stop clutching your pearls you fake old fool. I'm sure members of the procurement team will be more than happy to give evidence in any official inquiry if they've been directed to purchase PPE from sources close to Ministers, Lords or any of the 43 of 47 fast tracked contracts that appear dodgy.

As for Hancock's children, even if they had disobeyed their father's ban on social media, and somehow 8 and 10 year olds had chosen QLocal Southport's forum over, say, TikTok or YouTube, I doubt they'd really be shocked if anyone accused their philandering, absent, jobless father of doing something dishonest. So drop the fake concern over that particular piece of $h!t's kids.

The fact that some saw an opportunity to provide and yes make money does not make them necessarily dishonest, some greedy definitely.

Wrong. When £19bn of UK Covid-related contracts were awarded without seeking rival bids the “vast majority” of contracts awarded in the past year were probably illegal given the restrictive nature of the 2015 Public Contract regulations, which allow contracts to be awarded without any competition only when it is of strict necessity, or an extreme emergency due to “unforeseeable” events. Given evidence of the spread of coronavirus from China, Taiwan and Italy early last year, it was not clear that the pandemic in Britain was unforeseeable.

Transparency International UK identified £255m worth of contracts that went to 10 firms that were less than 60 days old. It said this raised “valid questions as to why these were treated as more qualified for the job, especially given the reported availability of other more established companies.”

In June the High Court deemed the awarding of the £560,000 arrangement to communications agency Public First, which has connections with cabinet minister Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings, was "unlawful".

There are thousands more pages I could link to, all saying the same. I'm bored of this discussion now, as it isn't an exchange of views, just an obsessed Johnson 'Stan' trying to justify your incapacity to criticise the Cabinet in any way by summoning some fake patriotism in 'think of the poor nurses' or 'think of the poor children' hogwash.

( EDITED BY ADMIN)

[millsey]

I've only read the last three or four posts of this thread. Toodles McGinty, your nastiness and belittling of others is bang out of order regardless of the topic of conversation.

[Desert Region]

If and when any member of the government is found guilty of corruption I will join you in condemning them AND those who allowed it to happen.

Any suspected 'undue' actions in the nebulous spider's web area of trading in influence, lobbying, cronyism etc are notoriously difficult to prove, and sometimes even difficult to classify as offences - so I doubt many are holding their breath regards eventual convictions of Government members (or others).

I will join you in condemning them AND those who allowed it to happen.

"Those who allowed it to happen" - I don't really know what that means. I'll guess that refers to a different strata of people than that including those who conspired in, encouraged or profited from the said alleged corruption? I infer from your phrasing that these people who are guilty of this undescribed 'allowed it to happen' will not have been convicted (or so much as prosecuted by the sounds of it) and instead will only be subject to some people's (deserved or otherwise) unelaborated moral condemnation?

[local]

Yes the true Tory mantra, as long as the RIGHT people profit, the means and manner of obtaining that profit is of little relevance, sure no one expects services to run for free, but it is becoming more and more evident that more than a little profiteering occurred.

Please do not deny that contracts were handed out with little or no checks, or alternatively it was known that contracts were going to some with zero experience and capacity to fulfill the contract, take your pick.

In no way am I defending anything until I KNOW what actually happened and as I have said IF anyone is found to have engaged in corrupt practices and any politician is on the make then fine Jail them.

As it is we have lurid newspaper allegations from newspapers without evidence of wrongdoing.

But if you think it's acceptable to fling accusations that necessarily have to include all those involved in procurement I strongly disagree.

I know NHS workers in various administrative positions who worked many long hours for the good of us all.

I do not know any of the NHS staff who joined the PPE team but they were there despite claims they were not.

Hiding behind your keyboard and thumping out foul invective to gain attention is not defensible.

[local]

Any suspected 'undue' actions in the nebulous spider's web area of trading in influence, lobbying, cronyism etc are notoriously difficult to prove, and sometimes even difficult to classify as offences - so I doubt many are holding their breath regards eventual convictions of Government members (or others).




"Those who allowed it to happen" - I don't really know what that means. I'll guess that refers to a different strata of people than that including those who conspired in, encouraged or profited from the said alleged corruption? I infer from your phrasing that these people who are guilty of this undescribed 'allowed it to happen' will not have been convicted (or so much as prosecuted by the sounds of it) and instead will only be subject to some people's (deserved or otherwise) unelaborated moral condemnation?

Anyone who has facilitated wrongdoing in the procurement process is fair game for conviction.

Or does anyone believe that Hancock met some bloke in a car park, gave him some cash then drove away with his boot stuffed.
Then slipped some junk into a hospital store.

What then a nighttime visit to the accounts department for a cheque made out to D Duck?

These are frivolous allegations from the comfort of the keyboard casting a slur across the NHS and Civil Service without thought.

[Toodles McGinty]

I've only read the last three or four posts of this thread. Toodles McGinty, your nastiness and belittling of others is bang out of order regardless of the topic of conversation.

I'm not 'nasty' or 'belittling' until somebody does that to me first.

There are only two posters that try that on.

But if you can't understand that, there's an easy way to stop seeing my posts:

Click on my name, click on 'view profile', click on 'add to ignore list'.

Or report me if I've broken forum rules.

Simple.

[local]

It seems so long ago that first post;




Divided England
Following on from the comments on the 'David Amess' thread, I thought it might be better to has a separate thread to discuss the language of English (rather than British) politics, and how it has divided us.

The language used has evolved since the Brexit campaigns. In the past, traditional campaigning involved going door to door, manifestos, candidates putting forward their point of view.

Since the Trump and Leave campaigns utilised companies such as Cambridge Analytica, Palantir etc used illegal data mining (analysing people's character traits and targeting advertising that 'nudges' them down a particular path, convincing them they are right and the 'other' is an enemy), traditional campaigns seem to be a thing of the past. Now it's 3 word slogans and buzzwords to trigger an individual's prejudices.

The upshot of this is a massively divided country, politically, socially. Hate crime is up and rising, especially racial hate. People feel emboldened by the language of government. While Jo Cox was murdered, the attacker shouted 'Britain First'. Boris Johnson was branded a disgrace for dismissing pleas from Labour MPs to stop using inflammatory language in light of the murder of Jo Cox, telling one that it was “humbug” and another that the best way to honour her was to “get Brexit done”. He was called on to stop using language such as “surrender”, “traitor” and “betrayal” in relation to Brexit.

All carefully selected to appeal to certain voters.

Now Sajid Javid is calling on people to 'name and shame' GPs. They are already being physically attacked. How long before one is killed?

The anti-vaxxers are becoming increasingly violent. Believing they are 'pureblood' (LOL), again, led by geeks on laptops pushing buzzwords to appeal to their need to kick out at something or someone. How long before they kill a doctor, nurse or teacher?

Is the genie out of the bottle? Is there any way back, or do we become increasingly tribal and violent, nudged along by social media for their political ends?

(TL-DR - politicians talk $h!t and people will die because of it)

[seivad]

You really are making a fool of yourself with this,

desperately trying to claim that NHS staff are not involved in procuring for the NHS and in particular turning a blind eye to wrongdoing the whole pivot of this ridiculous succession of drivel when I pulled up our resident potty mouth for slagging off NHS staff by implication.

If you wish to still join in remember you are supporting someone who flung wild allegations without thinking( as usual) of who would have had to support the alleged corrupt practices.

Far from Zero an NHS procurement team was in the cross-government PPE sourcing unit.

You could apologise as well ......

If I was wrong, I could and would apologise. I'm not so insecure that I can't admit when I am wrong

I've mentioned this before, you are ignoring the timeline of the evidence (Jan. 10/May 4) that I provided from the NAO report dated Nov. 20, 2021. I'll repeat one key point. On May 1, 2021, the DHSC advised all Trusts that all PPE would now be procured at a national level. Your points are addressing actions taken by the DHSC beyond this date.

You can read the May 1 DHSC letter on the link below.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavir...1-may-2020.pdf

You will note that the DHSC letter states that in the future they would call upon NHS procurement staff to share their expertise with the national team. And indeed they did, but not until mid May when they realised that they were drowning. At this point they called upon 14 Procurement Directors to join their team. However, by this time, contracts awarded to dubious suppliers by the DHSC had already taken place. Ayanda Capital, Pestfix, Ocean Footprint for example. Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, so to speak.

Nobody has implied that NHS staff are complicit in the blatant cronyism exhibited in the initial government procurement team. In my opinion, I believe it's unfortunate that the DHSC didn't engage seasoned NHS professionals in the procurement process from day one.

From experience I know that it's futile to expect you to admit you're wrong, so this really is my last word on the subject.