COVID corruption commissioner

ElBurroSinNombre

ElBurroSinNombre

Well-known member
A Labour policy that I would wholeheartedly support. I am really pleased that someone cares enough about tax payers money to investigate what appears to have been blatant corruption. Why aren't the government so keen to investigate this fraudulent behaviour?

www.theguardian.com

‘Covid corruption commissioner’ would seek to recoup lost billions, says Labour

Exclusive: Rachel Reeves announces plans for powerful watchdog to recover taxpayer cash lost to waste and fraud
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Have you any evidence that Mr David Williams, or any other Accounting Officer, behaved corruptly?

Have you any evidence that the National Audit Office, whose job this "Commissioner" would duplicate, has failed to carry out its duties?
 
Last edited:
GJJW said:
Well, about 7 billion was fraudulent at least. Huge difference between fraud and corruption? Both awful if you ask me.
Click to expand...
So, do you have any evidence that Mr David Williams, or any other Accounting Officer, behaved corruptly?

Have you any evidence that the National Audit Office, whose job this "Commissioner" would duplicate, has failed to carry out its duties?
 
Lost Seasider said:
So, do you have any evidence that Mr David Williams, or any other Accounting Officer, behaved corruptly?

Have you any evidence that the National Audit Office, whose job this "Commissioner" would duplicate, has failed to carry out its duties?
Click to expand...
I'm just quoting the article as per the OP. Ask the the guy who wrote it maybe, as if he hasn't any evidence, then he could be in hot water!
 
GJJW said:
The article doesn't mention David Williams so not sure why you're mentioning him.
Have you even read it?
Click to expand...
No, but I have read the high court judgement that proves that DW was the person who approved all PPE contracts, so if you're alleging corruption then you are making that allegation against him personally.
 
Lost Seasider said:
No, but I have read the high court judgement that proves that DW was the person who approved all PPE contracts, so if you're alleging corruption then you are making that allegation against him personally.
Click to expand...
I haven't alleged anything. I'm commenting on an article that you haven't read written by a journalist who doesn't mention David Williams. Maybe read the article first eh.
 
GJJW said:
I haven't alleged anything. I'm commenting on an article that you haven't read written by a journalist who doesn't mention David Williams. Maybe read the article first eh.
Click to expand...
The title of the thread is "corruption", if you want to start a thread on another topic, please do that.

I notice that the OP hasn't responded to my comment.
 
Lost Seasider said:
No, but I have read the high court judgement that proves that DW was the person who approved all PPE contracts, so if you're alleging corruption then you are making that allegation against him personally.
Click to expand...
😂 Here we go again. The High Court judgment that only looked at three or four contracts. And included one paragraph in hundreds of paragraphs which Lost argues exonerates corrupt Tory politicians, when it does no such thing.

And when that doesn’t work he tries to blame civil servants.

Two words sum up how ridiculous he sounds - “Michelle Mone”.
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
The title of the thread is "corruption", if you want to start a thread on another topic, please do that.

I notice that the OP hasn't responded to my comment.
Click to expand...
I didn't write the OP. I am commenting on the article which is linked in it which you have not read. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth and admit your errors.
 
The more I think about it the more I think this will be a massive vote winner for Labour.

Frankly people are disgusted and sick to the back teeth at the wasted billions and the way friends of the Tory party filled their pockets at the expense of the taxpayers, while the rest of us were in lockdown. And also disgusted with the “nothing to see here” line taken by their apologists like Lost and their attempts to pass the buck to civil servants.

They are terrified by the idea of the appointment of an independent corruption commissioner and by the thought that the truth will finally come out.

WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK!!!!!!!!.
 
Lost Seasider said:
That would be a no, then.

Why do you support this policy?
Click to expand...
The new role will be called 'Covid corruption commissioner' from my understanding of the article, presumably we will hear more about it when the shadow chancellor speaks. You seem to have a problem with the word corruption, I would suggest that you take this up with Rachel Reeves who named the proposed role. The name is nothing to do with me.

I cannot understand why anybody would be against the state pursuing £10 billion that has been fraudulently obtained or seemingly corruptly awarded. This is public money that we desperately need at the moment. The whole cesspit needs a light shining on it so we can know what happened to the £10 billion that the treasury estimates. As much money as possible should be retrieved and used on things we need. Are you in favour of fraud and corruption? - it would appear that you are from your rather desperate attempts to close this issue down and sweep this scandal under the carpet. If there was no wrong-doing then the new commissioner won't find anything (if Labour are elected). The treasury estimates £10 billion is missing - of course we should pursue that money and use the full force of the law against anybody who has had their snout in the public trough. I support the policy because it is the right thing to do - I would support this 100% if Sunak proposed it - the fact that he hasn't is to his shame. It would seem that some people exploited a global crisis to make themselves shed loads of cash - of course there should be a reckoning.
 
GJJW said:
He's not even mentioned in the article!
Click to expand...
That's the point, he's not mentioned in the article, but it is a proven fact that he was the only person with the power to sign off the contracts, so by implying corruption, the article is implying that either he, or those working for him behaved corruptly.

So it's the same lie that Labour and The Guardian have been pedalling for the last 3+ years, they're claiming that it was ministers who were handing out the PPE contracts, when it was Civil Servants, in the guise of Mr Williams and his team, and Civil Servants alone who were awarding the contracts.

This is a point that I have made many times before, the OP knows it, the poster you're responding to knows it, but they both choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit their agenda.


Edit:
PS,

For the avoidance of doubt, the sworn evidence of the Civil Servants, to the High Court, applied to all PPE contracts and not just the few that some have claimed.
 
Lost Seasider said:
That's the point, he's not mentioned in the article, but it is a proven fact that he was the only person with the power to sign off the contracts, so by implying corruption, the article is implying that either he, or those working for him behaved corruptly.

So it's the same lie that Labour and The Guardian has been pedalling for the last 3+ years, they're claiming that it was ministers who were handing out the PPE contracts, when it was Civil Servants, in the guise of Mr Williams and his team, and Civil Servants alone who were awarding the contracts.

This is a point that I have made many times before, the OP knows it, the poster you're responding to knows it, but they both choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit their agenda.
Click to expand...
You are seeing way too much into it and I suggest you read the article.
You are literally putting words in the author's mouth. Good job he's not an Oyston as you'd be sued by now!
 
Lost Seasider wildly flailing around in the wind desperately hurling out random statements in defence of his Lords and Masters.

I think that by announcement made by announcing the policy Rachel Reeves might just have an inkling as to what has gone one.
 
I don’t think I know any private companies that didn’t take the piss with Furlough or some of the other grants the confetti squad gave out?

All those limited companies that popped up overnight, took the money and ran. All those individuals who took the business loans and bought a house.

All of that before you even get anywhere near the joke of Michelle Mone and the Pub landlord guy. Those major deals may not be classed as corruption in the purest terms so may just come under gross incompetence by ministers and civil servants at that time? With the correct resources, there will be some very interesting WhatsApp trails if they can open that up?
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The new role will be called 'Covid corruption commissioner' from my understanding of the article, presumably we will hear more about it when the shadow chancellor speaks. You seem to have a problem with the word corruption, I would suggest that you take this up with Rachel Reeves who named the proposed role. The name is nothing to do with me.
Click to expand...
My problem is the implication that it was the government that was behaving corruptly, and whether that claim is made explicitly or not by Reeves, it is a claim that has been made many times, both on here, and elsewhere.


ElBurroSinNombre said:
I would support this 100% if Sunak proposed it - the fact that he hasn't is to his shame.
Click to expand...
Could it be that the DHSC and other departments have been working on recovering as much as possible for the last three and a half years, and the proposal is simply a political stunt that will be forgotten the day after the election?

My guess is, if they do get into power, no appointment will ever be made.
 
Maybe not incompetent - maybe just totally ineptly and grossly inadequately from an oversight and leadership point of view?
 
Chunkylad said:
Maybe not incompetent - maybe just totally ineptly and grossly inadequately from an oversight and leadership point of view?
Click to expand...
Civil Servants do have form for that, although the true explanation is that it was a national emergency, and they were prepared to take risks that would never otherwise have been acceptable in a normal environment.

One of the more interesting ones was Pestfix, and the question was "why is a pest control company getting a PPE contract"? It turns out they're actually suppliers of PPE to the pest control industry, and they were exactly the sort of alternative supplier that Labour were calling on them to find.
 
Chunkylad said:
Could well be just civil servants Lost, as you say?

I didn’t realise CS had so much power and say in policy in our country, so excuse my nativity? I assumed that they were given clear direction by ministers and oversight too?
Click to expand...
Read the court judgement, it really is a fascinating insight into how the system really worked.
 
Lost Seasider said:
So it's the same lie that Labour and The Guardian have been pedalling for the last 3+ years, they're claiming that it was ministers who were handing out the PPE contracts, when it was Civil Servants, in the guise of Mr Williams and his team, and Civil Servants alone who were awarding the contracts.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have the faintest idea of how the senior echelons of Government work.

Civil Servants give effect to the policy wishes of the Ministers of the day. It is the latter who set the parameters and ultimately it is they who are accountable.

What is unusual about the current Government is how willing it is to blame Civil Servants for its own inability to act with propriety. The notion that officials set out to frustrate the wishes of their political masters is just a convenient fig leaf for Ministers who wish to cover up their own lack of respect for - amongst other things - the rule of law.

It is far more accurate to say that we have, over a very long period, set up a system of checks and balances that affect the behaviour of the Executive.. The COVID enquiry is an example of one of the components of that system. And as a result of the rigour with which it is being pursued, a number of chickens are coming home to roost.
 
I thought Lost would welcome this development.
Assuming that no wrong-doing has occurred, as he/she/they does, then this is surely an opportunity to put the matter to bed once and for all, to stop all of the horrible whispering about Michelle Mone and her yacht, Matt Hancock's pub landlord and the one time chairman of Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party. We will all be able to see that it was perfectly justified and that we should be grateful that they were able to take hard earned tax payers money in return for who knows what. We will be forced to finally accept that Govey and the boys were acting completely in the public's best interest and that no vested interests were ever involved. Lost should be celebrating this rather sensible announcement.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Only what I put in my earlier post.
Click to expand...
And if isn't a stunt?
If your prejudiced opinion turns out to be wrong?
Do you think that the government trying to retrieve money that has either been awarded in a corrupt way or fraudulently obtained is a bad thing?
Tax payers everywhere will welcome this.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
And if isn't a stunt?
If your prejudiced opinion turns out to be wrong?
Do you think that the government trying to retrieve money that has either been awarded in a corrupt way or fraudulently obtained is a bad thing?
Tax payers everywhere will welcome this.
Click to expand...
Do you think the government has not been working on that for the last 3 years?

The position is redundant today, after five years it'll be even more redundant, Reeves knows that, therefore it's a stunt.
 
From the BBC;

Covid fraud​

Labour has also proposed establishing an anti-corruption commissioner aimed at recovering money lost as a result of fraud and waste during the pandemic, which would bring together HMRC, the Serious Fraud Office and the National Crime Agency.
Covid fraud has cost the taxpayer £7.2bn, Ms Reeves will say.
She will tell the conference in Liverpool that just 2% of fraudulent Covid grants - "with every one of those cheques signed by Rishi Sunak as chancellor" - have been recouped.
She will promise to appoint a Covid corruption commissioner with full powers to take cases to court and "claw back every penny of taxpayers' money that they can".
"That money belongs in our NHS, it belongs in our schools, it belongs in our police - we want that money back," she will say.

It looks like an approach that hasn't been tried before, bringing together the different arms of the state and perhaps it would yield more than the risable 2% that has been recouped so far.
It looks like the government hasn't been trying hard enough.
I can't believe that you are arguing in favour of letting fraudsters get away with it.
 
Sounds like a perfectly good idea to me to have a `Covid corruption commissioner`, and find it odd that anyone would choose not to want to support an initiative to potentially recoup large amounts of taxpayer`s money that have gone awry.

Whichever party is suggesting it.

Not surprised that Lost Seasider chose not to respond to BBR`s informed post; a tacit admittance of defeat on this thread I would suggest...:)
 
I see the trick that both you and Reeves are trying to play here, you're conflating fraud and corruption as if they were the same thing, when the fact is they really are not.

Corruption is an abuse of office or power for one's own gain, it can involve fraud, but not always. In the case of PPE, which is I think what most have in mind when we talk about corruption, it can only mean that Mr Williams, or someone working for him, abused their powers to award a contract that should not properly have been granted.

So far as I'm aware, no evidence of any official, in any department, at any level, behaving corruptly has ever emerged.

Fraud on the other hand involves deception, but lacks the crucial abuse of power necessary for it to be corruption, and I'm sure there was a fair amount of that during the pandemic.

So, if Reeves had called for a Covid fraud commissioner, that would have been honest, but by titling it "corruption" she is implying that officials behaved corruptly, and that is dishonest.

In terms of whether it's a good idea, most of the fraud would've been perpetrated against either HMRC or DWP, both of which have very powerful investigation and prosecution powers already, in HMRC's case actually more powerful than the police, so five years after the event, a commissioner that brings nothing new to the table is going to have exactly zero impact whatsoever.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I don't think you have the faintest idea of how the senior echelons of Government work.

Civil Servants give effect to the policy wishes of the Ministers of the day. It is the latter who set the parameters and ultimately it is they who are accountable.

What is unusual about the current Government is how willing it is to blame Civil Servants for its own inability to act with propriety. The notion that officials set out to frustrate the wishes of their political masters is just a convenient fig leaf for Ministers who wish to cover up their own lack of respect for - amongst other things - the rule of law.

It is far more accurate to say that we have, over a very long period, set up a system of checks and balances that affect the behaviour of the Executive.. The COVID enquiry is an example of one of the components of that system. And as a result of the rigour with which it is being pursued, a number of chickens are coming home to roost.
Click to expand...
spudgun said:
Not surprised that Lost Seasider chose not to respond to BBR`s informed post; a tacit admittance of defeat on this thread I would suggest...:)
Click to expand...
Have you read the High Court judgement?
 
Lost Seasider said:
I've no idea what she's accused of other than it relates to PPE, but whatever the truth, it's not corruption unless you wish to accuse Mr Williams as well.
Click to expand...
So you have no idea what she is even accused of and why is currently under investigation by the National Crime Agency but you are declaring there is no evidence of any corruption from anyone and the Guardian and Reeves are lying to suggest so? Sounds a bit like you've been burying your head in the sand?
 
The thing with Michelle Mone, she will have already had manufacturing relationships through her lingerie business, and the staff working for her
will have the logistics experience of moving goods in a hurry from China, etc. So it would be reasonable to assume that her company will
have the capability to supply PPE in a crisis. How the landlord at Matt Hancock's pub is able to have these resources and be competent to
supply PPE I am not as sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top