SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:02 pm
There is a lot of forgetting the sheer panic across the world at that point. If they had said we will wait for the right price they would have been lynched.
Completely agree.
They were getting lynched every day in April 2020 for not having enough PPE, ventilators etc.
Did anyone bother to ask what the profit margin was or as suspected an open cheque book for those connected enough to access the VIP fast lane?
There was an open cheque book for nearly everything that might be deemed helpful.
Quibbling about money while thousands were dying was not the done thing. Letting people get in the way of keeping the NHS afloat was strictly verboten.
smuts wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 9:52 pm
You know what...**** it, I'm out.
65m swindled while people were dying and you defend it.
I get the impression you think the process was like ordering a box of biros for the council on a mundane Monday morning and that everyone had time to dither and delay as though nothing much was happening.
Yes. People were dying. Lots of them. Hospitals, community nursing teams were shouting in people's ears about lack of staff due to sickness/isolation rules, bed pressures etc. Care providers were scared for their staff. Families were scared for their relatives.
That's why procurement (and many other things) was being rushed. The kitchen sink was being thrown at things in the hope of saving people's lives and stopping the NHS from falling over.
I make allowance for that.
If big industry weren't being invited to fill the huge gap in PPE manufacturing, ventilators etc who do you imagine was going to pick it up and do it?
It's more that you think 65m profit (29m of which seems to have appeared in Mone's off shore account when she claimed to have nothing to do with the deal) on some crappy gowns that the government are trying to get their money back on is somehow justified.
bubbles1966 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:11 pm
I make allowance for that.
… Bubbles, everyone knows that you wouldn’t be doing that had this been Labourites with their noses in the trough taking advantage of a global pandemic. Not that it matters what you say - what you say doesn’t wash with people and doesn’t convince them. Stuff like this just further shreds the credibility of those trying to push such ridiculous ‘defences’.
They aren’t a political party anymore. Just a loose collection of right wing* chancers held together by their ambition and what the Whips have on them.
There will always be disagreement in any broad church, but the constant airing of it in the press shows it is about the individuals rather than the issues.
Are the other side any better? I imagine we will find out soon enough.
smuts wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:30 pm
It's more that you think 65m profit (29m of which seems to have appeared in Mone's off shore account when she claimed to have nothing to do with the deal) on some crappy gowns that the government are trying to get their money back on is somehow justified.
In hindsight it looks really bad, but I do think Bubbs has a bit of a point. I think we all forget the panic at the time. Countries seizing stock meant for shipping to other countries, countries being gazumped while stuff was in transit etc etc.
Of course excessive profits will be made in that scenario. The inexcusable bit is the “who” not the “what”.
MB wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:19 am
In hindsight it looks really bad, but I do think Bubbs has a bit of a point. I think we all forget the panic at the time. Countries seizing stock meant for shipping to other countries, countries being gazumped while stuff was in transit etc etc.
Of course excessive profits will be made in that scenario. The inexcusable bit is the “who” not the “what”.
I think we all agree we didn't expect watertight procurement exercises, (however a simple clause asking to see transparent profit margins is not particularly onerous)
However it's not the civil servants etc who I'm pissed off about or even to be fair some of the MPs involved in setting up this PPE fast lane as I'm sure lots of people stepped up to the plate to help out.
It's the people who used a global pandemic to swindle fortunes which we've all got to pay back. Make a profit by all means and fair play but there's no justification whatsoever for someone allegedly trousering 65m on a 200m contract.
smuts wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:52 am
It's the people who used a global pandemic to swindle fortunes which we've all got to pay back. Make a profit by all means and fair play but there's no justification whatsoever for someone allegedly trousering 65m on a 200m contract.
I completely agree that more could/should have been done before almost seemingly give in to any monetary demand for PPE (corruption of who the contracts went to aside, which is obviously a big deal).
The profit looks to be around a 32.5% margin. The firm I work for (Financial Services) generally go for a 30-35% margin on what we do for the Management Companies.
I have no idea what the standard margin is on PPE, but I would have thought there would be uproar if we didn't procure what was needed because of a 10% or so premium on the goods (guesswork here so happy to be corrected with pre-pandemic margin figures).
I believe some are missing the point with regards the PPE story.
It isn't about how big the margins were for suppliers- and believe me loads of companies did well out of the pandemic - the story is about how those suppliers were selected.
A fast lane? Why was Mones company selected ahead of other manufacturers?
That's where the corruption is.
The incompetence in basic procurement is another matter altogehter.
the pink palermo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 9:55 am
I believe some are missing the point with regards the PPE story.
It isn't about how big the margins were for suppliers- and believe me loads of companies did well out of the pandemic - the story is about how those suppliers were selected.
A fast lane? Why was Mones company selected ahead of other manufacturers?
That's where the corruption is.
The incompetence in basic procurement is another matter altogehter.
Indeed, the Cons first thought wasn't "how can we deal with this crisis as effectively as possible without wasting public money?" it was "how can we deal with this crisis as profitably as possible?".
There's a YT clip of a conversation with James O'Brian and the bloke Hancock was alleged to have unfairly given a PPE contract to (the pub landlord dude).
I'm not a fan of JOB usually but he was quite fair and it gave a bit more insight to what the press were reporting.
Whether he was telling the truth or not I have no idea, but for a couple of minutes was worth the watch at the time.
A guy I grew up with, Alfa, went on to become a doctor/specialist/run a health board. He came out of retirement to help on a ward. He was one of many health professionals at all levels (as well as other key workers) who contracted Covid 19 in the early weeks, and died. His and thousands of others, first reaction was to do anything they could to save peoples lives.
Others first reaction, it would seem, was to see just how much, by any means possible, they could screw out of the government. These people are The Mob in the 21st Century. They seek, by whatever means, corrupt or otherwise... [it doesn't matter... they seem to make the rules.] . to profit from the misery of the rest of us.
We are looking at no more, no less, than a Ratking.
Shame on them.... and shame on anyone who attempts to justify their behaviour.
(Just to be clear, no issue with people being out of work and needing help, it's the way the numbers are obscured until someone digs past the headlines)
