COVID corruption commissioner

foggy said:
So you have no idea what she is even accused of and why is currently under investigation by the National Crime Agency but yet you are ready to declare 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?
Click to expand...
Sounds like you've not being paying attention.

With corruption, it takes two to tango, her plus the official she has corrupted, you can accuse her of fraud if you like, but unless you wish to accuse Mr Williams as well, that is not corruption.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Sounds like you've not being paying attention.

With corruption, it takes two to tango, her plus the official she has corrupted, you can accuse her of fraud if you like, but unless you wish to accuse Mr Williams as well, that is not corruption.
Click to expand...
You don't even know what she is accused of and you are saying I've not been paying attention? Funny.

I can certainly see a scenario where Michelle Mone acted corruptly and Williams didn't. His could have been an error of misplaced trust, naivety, incompetence or ignorance etc. He might not have known about Mone's connections to the company, and I suspect he didnt. Either way, I really don't understand this whataboutism attempt. You said there is no evidence of any corruption from anyone. So why is Mone under investigation from the National Crime Agency?
 
Danny Ocean said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's quite possible to be a "pub landlord" and have other businesses at the same time.

What we do know is that this contract will ultimately have been approved by a Civil Servant.
 
foggy said:
You don't even know what she is accused of and you are saying I've not been paying attention? Funny.

I can certainly see a scenario where Michelle Mone acted corruptly and Williams didn't. His could have been an error of misplaced trust, naivety, incompetence etc. He might not have known about Mone's connections to the company. Either way, I really don't understand this whataboutism attempt. You said there is no evidence of any corruption from anyone. So why is Mone under investigation from the National Crime Agency?
Click to expand...
That is not corruption.
 
Is it corruption for a Government minister or a Conservative MP to place into the Covid Fast-track system for PPE supply one of their friend’s companies when they knew that it had no track record in supplying PPE and, in many cases, the company was incorporated only a few weeks before and had minimal or no assets whatsoever?

It doesn’t matter what the payback might have been, we will never know and, anyway, that’s how corrupt deals are done - in the dark. Shine a strong light on them.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
If you're referring to Mone she's a Tory Member of Parliament.
Click to expand...
foggy said:
You are joking right? She is a member of the House of Lords and had access to the corridors of power where she was apparently 'bullying and hectoring' people as she lobbied for these contracts.

You cannot possibly be playing this dumb.
Click to expand...
You don't understand what the word "power" means.

In legal terms, it is the authority to do something, such as issue parking tickets, police "powers", judicial powers, the power to approve PPE contracts, AFAIK members of the HoL do not have the power to do any of these.

So although she's rich and wealthy, she has no powers above any other subject, other than the right to vote in the HoL.


Oh, and by the way:

foggy said:
A person in a position of power abused her position to her own financial gain allegedly both dishonestly and criminally.

Corruption.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, she has yet to be charged, let alone convicted of any offence, so until that changes that statement is libellous (you really should know that) and defamatory, and you plus @avftt_admin are now on the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of damages.
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
You don't understand what the word "power" means.

In legal terms, it is the authority to do something, such as issue parking tickets, police "powers", court orders, or approve PPE contracts, AFAIK members of the HoL do not have the power to do any of these.

So although she's rich and wealthy, she has no powers above any other subject, other than the right to vote in the HoL.


Oh, and by the way:


AFAIK, she has yet to charged, let alone convicted of any offence, so until that changes that statement is libellous (you really should know that) and defamatory, and you plus @avftt_admin are now on the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of damages.
Click to expand...
You really are an arrogant, condescending gobshite.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You don't understand what the word "power" means.

In legal terms, it is the authority to do something, such as issue parking tickets, police "powers", judicial powers, the power to approve PPE contracts, AFAIK members of the HoL do not have the power to do any of these.

So although she's rich and wealthy, she has no powers above any other subject, other than the right to vote in the HoL.


Oh, and by the way:


AFAIK, she has yet to be charged, let alone convicted of any offence, so until that changes that statement is libellous (you really should know that) and defamatory, and you plus @avftt_admin are now on the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of damages
Click to expand...


Lol. I've said throughout the thread she is 'alleged' to have done this and is under investigation, calm down with your crying to mods about poor Baroness Mone.

If you are in a special position able to influence the people signing contracts then it would be corruption to use that position dishonestly for your own financial gain. Especially if you are in a position of power able to "bully and hector"
 
foggy said:
Lol. I've said throughout the thread she is 'alleged' to have done this and is under investigation, calm down with your crying to mods about poor Baroness Mone.

If you are in a special position able to influence the people signing contracts then it would be corruption to use that position dishonestly for your own financial gain. Especially if you are in a position of power able to "bully and hector"
Click to expand...
So we're back to you don't understand what the word "power" means, and I'm pretty sure that Mr Williams, or any permanent secretary, is not someone who you can bully and hector.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You don't understand what the word "power" means.

In legal terms, it is the authority to do something, such as issue parking tickets, police "powers", judicial powers, the power to approve PPE contracts, AFAIK members of the HoL do not have the power to do any of these.

So although she's rich and wealthy, she has no powers above any other subject, other than the right to vote in the HoL.
Click to expand...
You've never heard of "soft" power, then? That which flows from being affiliated to, friends with or useful to others who do enjoy formal power?

I'm beginning to think you are an internet bot that has landed on planet AVFTT by accident. 😀
 
basilrobbie3 said:
You've never heard of "soft" power, then? That which flows from being affiliated to, friends with or useful to others who do enjoy formal power?

I'm beginning to think you are an internet bot that has landed on planet AVFTT by accident. 😀
Click to expand...
You've never heard of the law then?
 
Lost Seasider said:
Dumb? You're the one how doesn't understand basic legal concepts
Click to expand...

Let's say I want my company which doesn't exist yet to get hundreds of millions of pounds worth of PPE contracts. Is there any difference in the position I am in, and the position Baroness Michell Mone was in?
 
This is a great policy idea: there is a real need to join up the approach. One worries it won’t have enough teeth, and I wonder how much will materially be recovered. That said, exposing the corruption in the current administration even without clawing back the funds will be worthwhile.
 
We have one fool defending the indefensible and everyone else is calling it out for what it is... corruption. That’s going to be reflected in the vote share in the next general election. A great policy move by Labour. I expect the Lib Dem’s etc will join in. Everyone except the Tories who would look foolish investigating themselves again.
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...
No, its been made clear that no attempt will be made to recover the money, but order of Ministers. That's not a guess, its policy.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You don't understand what the word "power" means.

In legal terms, it is the authority to do something, such as issue parking tickets, police "powers", judicial powers, the power to approve PPE contracts, AFAIK members of the HoL do not have the power to do any of these.

So although she's rich and wealthy, she has no powers above any other subject, other than the right to vote in the HoL.


Oh, and by the way:


AFAIK, she has yet to be charged, let alone convicted of any offence, so until that changes that statement is libellous (you really should know that) and defamatory, and you plus @avftt_admin are now on the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of damages.
Click to expand...
She is out of the country and has been since it was brought to light 2 years ago. Coincidence I'm sure, and not evading anything.
 
foggy said:
Let's say I want my company which doesn't exist yet to get hundreds of millions of pounds worth of PPE contracts. Is there any difference in the position I am in, and the position Baroness Michell Mone was in?
Click to expand...
Not really, she might have a better chance of getting onto the fast-track (created by the Civil Service), although that's as much to do with her having a successful business career behind her as being a member of the HoL, but the bid would still have to go through the various Civil Service checks before being presented to Mr Williams for final approval.

In any event, to repeat my earlier point, none of this is "corruption".
 
cside said:
This is a great policy idea: there is a real need to join up the approach. One worries it won’t have enough teeth, and I wonder how much will materially be recovered. That said, exposing the corruption in the current administration even without clawing back the funds will be worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Archibald Knox said:
We have one fool defending the indefensible and everyone else’s calling it out for what it is... corruption. That’s going to be reflected in the vote share in the next general election. A great policy move by Labour. I expect the Lib Dem’s etc will join in. Everyone except the Tories who would look foolish investigating themselves again.
Click to expand...
Do either of you have evidence of corruption by either Mr Williams or any other official?
 
Lost Seasider said:
Not really, she might have a better chance of getting onto the fast-track (created by the Civil Service), although that's as much to do with her having a successful business career behind her as being a member of the HoL, but the bid would still have to go through the various Civil Service checks before being presented to Mr Williams for final approval.

In any event, to repeat my earlier point, none of this is "corruption".
Click to expand...
Ok so she does have a better chance, at least partially, due to her position.

That's called power and influence.

And sure there would still be various checks. But as we know the civil service was under enormous pressure to do this quickly, and mistakes were made. The entire fast lane itself was judged to be illegal. This is exactly the point I said earlier. That part of it could be down to incompetence or just the natural rushing and cutting corners in an urgent situation. Doesn't mean Mone didn't use her influence, which you just said she had, to help her bid. And if she did that dishonestly for financial gain...

That's called corruption.
 
foggy said:
Ok so she does have a better chance, at least partially, due to her position.

That's called power and influence.
Click to expand...

That's called knowing people, and having a successful business career behind her, which you do not.

Again, you fail to understand what the word "power" means in a legal sense, it does not mean that someone has a fair amount of money and an impressive title, it means they have a legal authority to do something that an ordinary member of the population does not.

So far as I'm aware, Baroness Mone does not have the legal power to issue a parking ticket, let alone approve DHSC procurement decisions, so for there to be "corruption" someone who did have that power would have to be involved, and even you shy away from making that allegation.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Again, you fail to understand what the word "power" means in a legal sense, it does not mean that someone has a fair amount of money and an impressive title, it means they have a legal authority to do something that an ordinary member of the population does not.
Click to expand...
Can you point me to the bit in the law which says that?
 
I recall a Shefield company offering the gov it's stockpiled product, but has no answer was forthcoming they sold to China. The Conservatives then bought them from China.
 
GJJW said:
Wasn't commenting on the title of the thread and haven't. Have a look at the article in the OP! You know, the article the whole thread is about!
Click to expand...
That would be the one about the "Corruption Commissioner", hence the irrelevance of your post.

I do not deny that there was error and fraud during the pandemic, but I choose to use English correctly rather than throw around words like "corruption" without understanding their proper meaning.
 
Lost Seasider said:
AFAIK, it's a common law term that's centuries old, but if you google "meaning of legal power" or similar, or indeed consult a dictionary, you'll get the same basic results: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/legal power

noun (law) the right and power to interpret and apply the law
Click to expand...

So you don't have a source for what it means in a 'legal sense'. You have a link to an American dictionary definition.

Oh Lost. You had to know this one was a bit weak.
 
Lost Seasider said:
That would be the one about the "Corruption Commissioner", hence the irrelevance of your post.

I do not deny that there was error and fraud during the pandemic, but I choose to use English correctly rather than throw around words like "corruption" without understanding their proper meaning.
Click to expand...
The article does not accuse anyone of corruption. Neither have I. You really need to read the source data.
 
foggy said:
So you don't have a source for what it means in a 'legal sense'. You have a link to an American dictionary definition.

Oh Lost. You had to know this one was a bit weak.
Click to expand...
That's like asking for a source to prove that the sky is blue or grass is green, and then claiming the opposite is true if I don't link immediately to every source on the internet proving the same thing, but since you insist on disputing the meaning of basic words:
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1564
the right, authority and ability to take some action or accomplish something, including demanding action, executing documents, contracting, taking title, transferring, exercising legal rights and many other acts.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power#legalDictionary
authority or capacity to act that is delegated by law or constitution

I also went upstairs and got my 800-page-long university textbook on English Law to check, but then I realized that you don't have the same, or indeed any legal training, which is why you failed to understand that the US also has a common law legal system, written in English, where the concepts are essentially the same, and a US dictionary is as good as any.

You've wasted enough of my time now, why don't you try working out new meanings for the words red and green and see how that works out at a set of traffic lights.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Lost Seasider said:
That's like asking for a source to prove that the sky is blue or grass is green, and then claiming the opposite is true if I don't link immediately to every source on the internet proving the same thing, but since you insist on disputing the meaning of basic words:
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1564
the right, authority and ability to take some action or accomplish something, including demanding action, executing documents, contracting, taking title, transferring, exercising legal rights and many other acts.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power#legalDictionary
authority or capacity to act that is delegated by law or constitution

I also went upstairs and got my 800-page-long university textbook on English Law to check, but then I realized that you don't have the same, or indeed any legal training, which is why you failed to understand that the US also has a common law legal system, written in English, where the concepts are essentially the same, and a US dictionary is as good as any.

You've wasted enough of my time now, why don't you try working out new meanings for the words red and green and see how that works out at a set of traffic lights.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I like how you skipped the first definition on that second link there. Very funny. Wonder why you did that.

You see, I quite like Article 18 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption:

"The solicitation or acceptance by a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage for himself or herself or for another person in order that the public official or the person abuse his or her real or supposed influence with a view to obtaining from an administration or public authority of the State Party and undue advantage"

So in this case 'the acceptance of a public official (Mone) of an undue advantage for herself in order that she abuse her real or supposed influence with a view to obtaining from the government an undue advantage'

So - as per the terms of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, to which the United Kingdom is a signator - a public official only need to use her influence to obtain from government undue advantage, for it to be corruption. And that, Lost one, is what Michelle Mone is alleged to have done.

If you dare pretend that isnt good enough when you just tried to show me an American dictionary definition you should bury your head in shame.
 
Last edited:
I'd be delighted to volunteer (with no pay) to join a task force to try and track down some of the crooks who stole public money.
 
foggy said:
I like how you skipped the first definition on that second link there. Very funny. Wonder why you did that.

You see, I quite like Article 18 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption:

"The solicitation or acceptance by a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage for himself or herself or for another person in order that the public official or the person abuse his or her real or supposed influence with a view to obtaining from an administration or public authority of the State Party and undue advantage"

So in this case 'the acceptance of a public official (Mone) of an undue advantage for herself in order that she abuse her real or supposed influence with a view to obtaining from the government an undue advantage'

So - as per the terms of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, to which the United Kingdom is a signator - a public official only need to use her influence to obtain from government undue advantage, for it to be corruption. And that, Lost one, is what Michelle Mone is alleged to have done.

If you dare pretend that isnt good enough when you just tried to show me an American dictionary definition you should bury your head in shame.
Click to expand...
One small problem, AFAIK being a member of the HoL doesn't make her a public official, because that, in itself, is not an office.

I could be wrong, but unless you prove otherwise, that's another word you don't understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top