Selective Tunable TV

[Jeff Gaines]

Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another station
when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying for it as if
she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to brick the TV anyway.

[Davey]

On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
brick the TV anyway.

I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

[Java Jive]

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
brick the TV anyway.

FFS, grow up.

Post by Davey
I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout in the
trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
brick the TV anyway.

FFS, grow up.

Post by Davey
I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout in the
trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.

Not true if you actually consider the facts, which Kuenssberg clearly
didn't.

[Java Jive]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
brick the TV anyway.

FFS, grow up.

Post by Davey
I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout in
the trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.

Not true if you actually consider the facts, which Kuenssberg  clearly
didn't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67736860

The facts appear to be ...

"Michelle Mone has admitted that she stands to benefit from tens of
millions of pounds of profit from personal protective equipment (PPE)
sold to the UK government during the pandemic by a company led by her
husband, Doug Barrowman."

... so, given that she's been denying it all the time through the
interim, an admitted liar ...

"But a defiant Baroness Mone said: "I don't honestly see there is a case
to answer. I can't see what we have done wrong."]

... but doesn't see anything wrong in lying ...

"PPE Medpro is being sued by the UK government for £122m plus costs for
"breach of contract and unjust enrichment""

... so presumably sub-judice and we shouldn't pre-judge the verdict, but
it doesn't exactly look good for them that the government is suing its
own appointee to the HoL, nor for the government, for that matter ...

"She told the BBC her life had been "destroyed" by allegations about
their PPE profits, even though "we've only done one thing, which was lie
to the press to say we weren't involved".

... well, as the modern saying has it: 'duh' ...

"The couple confirmed to the BBC that they had been under investigation
by the National Crime Agency (NCA) "ongoing for two-and-a-half years",
and said that they had both only been interviewed once.

They also confirmed the investigation was into conspiracy to defraud,
fraud by false representation, and bribery."

... and ...

"He told the BBC that PPE Medpro had agreed two contracts, to a value of
£202m, making a 30% profit of around £60m, which he described as a "good
return"

... so a potentially fraudulent 30% profit out of a national crisis ...

"Baroness Mone said: "I should have said I am involved, straight away,
but I didn't want the press intrusion for my family. My family have gone
through hell with the media over my career, and I didn't want another
big hoo-ha.""

... emotive claptrap, if you want genuinely to protect your kids from
scandal, you don't thrust your snout deep in the trough in the first place.

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
brick the TV anyway.

FFS, grow up.

Post by Davey
I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout in the
trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.

Not true if you actually consider the facts, which Kuenssberg  clearly
didn't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67736860
The facts appear to be ...
"Michelle Mone has admitted that she stands to benefit from tens of
millions of pounds of profit from personal protective equipment (PPE) sold
to the UK government during the pandemic by a company led by her husband,
Doug Barrowman."

This isn't true, she has a POTENTIAL interest based on certain events
coming together but it hasn't yet crystallised.

Post by Java Jive
... so, given that she's been denying it all the time through the interim,
an admitted liar ...

No, she understands the law better than you.

Post by Java Jive
"But a defiant Baroness Mone said: "I don't honestly see there is a case
to answer. I can't see what we have done wrong."]
... but doesn't see anything wrong in lying ...

She didn't.

Post by Java Jive
"PPE Medpro is being sued by the UK government for £122m plus costs for
"breach of contract and unjust enrichment""
... so presumably sub-judice and we shouldn't pre-judge the verdict, but
it doesn't exactly look good for them that the government is suing its own
appointee to the HoL, nor for the government, for that matter ...

Nothing to do with her.

Post by Java Jive
"She told the BBC her life had been "destroyed" by allegations about their
PPE profits, even though "we've only done one thing, which was lie to the
press to say we weren't involved".
... well, as the modern saying has it: 'duh' ...

This is a confused mish-mash, you need to try and unravel it.

Post by Java Jive
"The couple confirmed to the BBC that they had been under investigation by
the National Crime Agency (NCA) "ongoing for two-and-a-half years", and
said that they had both only been interviewed once.
They also confirmed the investigation was into conspiracy to defraud,
fraud by false representation, and bribery."
... and ...
"He told the BBC that PPE Medpro had agreed two contracts, to a value of
£202m, making a 30% profit of around £60m, which he described as a "good
return"
... so a potentially fraudulent 30% profit out of a national crisis ...

Contract law is generally not concerned with how good a bargain has been
agreed by the parties so if they have struck a good deal o be it,
certainly doesn't make it fraud.

Post by Java Jive
"Baroness Mone said: "I should have said I am involved, straight away, but
I didn't want the press intrusion for my family. My family have gone
through hell with the media over my career, and I didn't want another big
hoo-ha.""
... emotive claptrap, if you want genuinely to protect your kids from
scandal, you don't thrust your snout deep in the trough in the first place.

Not sure exactly what you are saying she was or wasn't involved in but
from watching the interview she seems to have followed the rules.

[Java Jive]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
brick the TV anyway.

FFS, grow up.

Post by Davey
I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout
in  the trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.

Not true if you actually consider the facts, which Kuenssberg
clearly didn't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67736860
The facts appear to be ...
"Michelle Mone has admitted that she stands to benefit from tens of
millions of pounds of profit from personal protective equipment (PPE)
sold to the UK government during the pandemic by a company led by her
husband, Doug Barrowman."

This isn't true, she has a POTENTIAL interest based on certain events
coming together but it hasn't yet crystallised.

As the televised report made clear, there is a parliamentary, here the
House Of Lords, *REQUIREMENT* on every individual member to declare
*POTENTIAL* or *PERCEIVED* conflicts of interest, and this she did not
do ...

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive
... so, given that she's been denying it all the time through the
interim, an admitted liar ...

No, she understands the law better than you.

... continuing from above, subsequently over the intervening period she
lied about the potential and perceived conflict of interest to the
general public and the press, even employing lawyers in an attempt cover
it up, but finally has now admitted it, so your saying "No" and trying
to deny the fact of her lying is just pointlessly pissing in the wind,
and show a deep and untrustworthy level of bigotry.

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive
"But a defiant Baroness Mone said: "I don't honestly see there is a
case to answer. I can't see what we have done wrong."]
... but doesn't see anything wrong in lying ...

She didn't.

She has *ADMITTED* that she *LIED*, yet still denies doing anything wrong!

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive
"PPE Medpro is being sued by the UK government for £122m plus costs
for "breach of contract and unjust enrichment""
... so presumably sub-judice and we shouldn't pre-judge the verdict,
but it doesn't exactly look good for them that the government is suing
its own appointee to the HoL, nor for the government, for that matter ...

Nothing to do with her.

She was the go-between between the company, which was expressly set up
to handle the contract, and the government, and stands to gain
personally or through her family from the contract, so it has everything
to do with her - note that the £61m pounds profit has gone to the Isle
Of Man, a tax haven, and into the personal finances of the family.

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive
"She told the BBC her life had been "destroyed" by allegations about
their PPE profits, even though "we've only done one thing, which was
lie to the press to say we weren't involved".
... well, as the modern saying has it: 'duh' ...

This is a confused mish-mash, you need to try and unravel it.

On the contrary, it's transparently simple: consistently over the
interim period she lied to the press, employed lawyers to state the
denial and threaten legal action for libel against those who might
question it, but now has finally admitted the truth, yet complains about
the public consequences and claims to have done nothing wrong! "Duh"
indeed!

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive
"The couple confirmed to the BBC that they had been under
investigation by the National Crime Agency (NCA) "ongoing for
two-and-a-half years", and said that they had both only been
interviewed once.
They also confirmed the investigation was into conspiracy to defraud,
fraud by false representation, and bribery."
... and ...
"He told the BBC that PPE Medpro had agreed two contracts, to a value
of £202m, making a 30% profit of around £60m, which he described as a
"good return"
... so a potentially fraudulent 30% profit out of a national crisis ...

Contract law is generally not concerned with how good a bargain has been
agreed by the parties so if they have struck a good deal o be it,
certainly doesn't make it fraud.

While contract law may not be generally concerned with profit margins,
the public have a right to know where public money was/is being
(mis)spent. Further, I said specifically "we shouldn't pre-judge the
verdict" and "potentially fraudulent".

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive
"Baroness Mone said: "I should have said I am involved, straight away,
but I didn't want the press intrusion for my family. My family have
gone through hell with the media over my career, and I didn't want
another big hoo-ha.""
... emotive claptrap, if you want genuinely to protect your kids from
scandal, you don't thrust your snout deep in the trough in the first place.

Not sure exactly what you are saying she was or wasn't involved in but
from watching the interview she seems to have followed the rules.

I'm saying that her justification for lying to the public to protect her
family is merely a front, an attempt at emotional manipulation of public
opinion, because if she really cared about the consequences to her
family, she'd would have obeyed all the relevant parliamentary rules
from the start, or at least, if her failure to do so was a genuine
mistake, when she discovered that she hadn't, would have openly admitted
to the mistake, rather than employing lawyers in an attempt to cover it up.

The only part of the mostly truly nauseating interview that I felt might
actually have some truth was the allegation that she and her husband
were being made scapegoats. The Covid Inquiry has a heard a great deal
of evidence about the government's scientifically ignorant, haphazard,
panicked, and ultimately catastrophic, in terms of the number of
avoidable deaths, response to the pandemic, so it's not unnatural that
the government, being on the defensive, may wish to show that lessons
are being learnt, misspent money being pursued, and individuals and/or
companies being held responsible. But the government couldn't make them
scapegoats if they hadn't behaved the way they did in the first place,
so they don't deserve a sympathy vote on that count either.

They also make a very serious allegation about an attempt being made to
have them pay to avoid further enquiries - or some such euphemism, I'm
not going to relisten to the interview to copy down the exact wording
used. If this is true, it should be investigated fully and any
appropriate consequences to anyone involved should duly follow, however,
the allegation is being made by people with a known history of lying, so
my guess is that likely it will be quietly ignored.

But, to come back to topic, your siding with a snout in the trough
rather than a mainstream and relatively unbiased and well regarded
reporter honestly doing her job by exposing the snout in the trough
shows that you have a deep unconscious bigotry that you need to address.
I suggest that you begin by reading these:

Note the absence of the real controllers of the company from its stated
officials and the embarrassing number of resignations amid the 'front'
people nominally in control of it:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12597000/officers

Note also that there are now 3 sets of actions against her and/or her
husband and/or the company - HoL inquiry into standards, NCA
investigation, legal action by government - this may seem nothing
compared to, at the last count, the 91 against Trump, but, however you
look at it, it still doesn't look good:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmpubacc/1590/report.html

[pinnerite]

On 17 Dec 2023 19:05:02 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
brick the TV anyway.

FFS, grow up.

Post by Davey
I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

Didn't see the interview, but Baroness Mone is just another snout in the
trough, and deserves pretty much anything that comes her way.

Not true if you actually consider the facts, which Kuenssberg clearly
didn't.

I watched the programme and although I didn't any preconceived ideas, I too disliked Ms Kuenssberg's approach. It left all querstions unanswered except that Baroness confessed to lying to the press.

But what about the facts?

1) Under UK tax law, if a set of steps are piut in place, the sole or main purpose of which is the avoidance of tax, the authorities can look through them as if they are transparent.
Does that apply here?

2) Under the sale of goods legislation, the product must be match the sample.
Was there a sample? Was it tested to see that it was up to the requirenents and if not which moron authorised the purchase? Should they remain in the same position?

3) Did the baroness know that the PPE was not up the spec required?
4) If not, what right did she have to offer it as such.

Nice looking woman though, I must admit.

Thats my two penuth.

[charles]

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
brick the TV anyway.

I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.

By "made up her mind" you really mean "did a lot of research".

[Davey]

On Sun, 17 Dec 23 19:08:07 UTC

Post by charles

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind
paying for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I
will have to brick the TV anyway.

I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my
feeling. She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone
before the interview started, and was not going to be diverted from
that.

By "made up her mind" you really mean "did a lot of research".

Questions that would have provided more information, but she did not
mention:
1. How much profit did the other companies that provided PPE under the
same scheme make? How did it compare with that made by Medpro? Was
Medpro any more profitable than any other company? We were not told.
2. In what way was the PPE provide by Medpro deficient, if in fact it
was? We were not told.

I have no interest in Baroness Mone or her husband or Medpro PPE, but
it seems that Kuenssberg only supplied information that supported her
viewpoint, and none that might have not supported it. I sympathise with
the Baroness when she says that she asked the Cabinet office what she
had to do regarding reporting her link to the company. It seems like a
perfectly reasonable thing to do in the circumstances, if they don't
know, who would?

[JMB99]

Post by Davey
Questions that would have provided more information, but she did not

I have never paid much attention to the case, just seemed to have been a
typical Labour smear campaign when they target an individual and she
made an idea target for them with being well off.

[Davey]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:15:21 +0000

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
Questions that would have provided more information, but she did not

I have never paid much attention to the case, just seemed to have
been a typical Labour smear campaign when they target an individual
and she made an idea target for them with being well off.

Nor did I pay much attention until the programme. But Kuenssberg's
usual attitude of 'I am always right, whatever the interviewee says' was
clearly to the fore on Sunday's programme.

[Java Jive]

Post by Davey
Questions that would have provided more information, but she did not
1. How much profit did the other companies that provided PPE under the
same scheme make? How did it compare with that made by Medpro?

Irrelevant - it's not a defence of a con to say that others would have
been more of a con.

Post by Davey
Was Medpro any more profitable than any other company?

Again irrelevant - they admit to a 30% profit, which, once all the
writs have flown and the dust settled, may yet turn out to have been
fraudulently earned.

Post by Davey
2. In what way was the PPE provide by Medpro deficient, if in fact it
was? We were not told.

Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even sterile,
rather a basic failure if true, but we should remember that this is
still sub-judice, and this in turn may explain the BBC's only mentioning
it in passing, to avoid possible Contempt of Court for prejudicing a
fair trial:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-government-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

Post by Davey
I have no interest in Baroness Mone or her husband or Medpro PPE, but
it seems that Kuenssberg only supplied information that supported her
viewpoint, and none that might have not supported it. I sympathise with
the Baroness when she says that she asked the Cabinet office what she
had to do regarding reporting her link to the company. It seems like a
perfectly reasonable thing to do in the circumstances, if they don't
know, who would?

*If*, as admitted liars, this allegation can be believed at all, then
the briefest of online searches found the following:

MPs:
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/faqs/

Lords:
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/house-of-lords-commissioner-for-standards-/house-of-lords-commissioner-for-standards-/

[JMB99]

Post by Java Jive
Fake news kills!

I think I will wait for a proper analysis, there are too many highly
politically motivated people and unreliable media involved, all out to
score points.

[Java Jive]

Post by JMB99

Post by Java Jive
Fake news kills!

I think I will wait for a proper analysis, there are too many highly
politically motivated people and unreliable media involved, all out to
score points.

I have no particular political motivations concerning this other than
debunking the bigotry of others in blaming the messenger, the BBC in
general and Kuenssberg in particular, for the message, that there's more
than a slight whiff of corruption concerning this. As I have said,
there are three separate investigations currently ongoing, we shall have
to wait and see what they find.

[JMB99]

Post by Java Jive
I have no particular political motivations concerning this other than
debunking the bigotry of others in blaming the messenger, the BBC in
general and Kuenssberg in particular, for the message, that there's more
than a slight whiff of corruption concerning this.  As I have said,
there are three separate investigations currently ongoing, we shall have
to wait and see what they find.

Lots of crazy things happened at that time. It was reported that the
French had a stockpile of PPE and burnt it all which then put pressure
on other countries to get stock - didn't the EU grab some on its way to
the UK?

[Java Jive]

Post by Java Jive
I have no particular political motivations concerning this other than
debunking the bigotry of others in blaming the messenger, the BBC in
general and Kuenssberg in particular, for the message, that there's
more than a slight whiff of corruption concerning this.  As I have
said, there are three separate investigations currently ongoing, we
shall have to wait and see what they find.

Lots of crazy things happened at that time.  It was reported that the
French had a stockpile of PPE and burnt it all which then put pressure
on other countries to get stock

Your memory is muddled, it was face-masks, not PPE:

https://theweek.com/coronavirus/107095/france-coronavirus-response-burning-masks

"“As coronavirus arrived in France this winter, staff at an army base in
the east of the country were dutifully burning hundreds of thousands of
facemasks,” The Times reports. “The incinerations were part of a
money-saving programme to run down the state’s stock of 1.7 billion
protective masks that had reached a peak in 2011.”

After false alarms with Sars and swine flu, ministers had decided they
would no longer hold protective equipment in reserve. So when the
coronavirus pandemic began, they were forced to try to buy masks on the
open market, but could secure only 14 million per week when 40 million
were needed."

Post by Java Jive
didn't the EU grab some on its way to the UK?

Not that I can find. Either that's a very revealing misremembering of
one or other of two possible candidate actual events where consciously
or unconsciously you've changed the story to make the EU look bad, or
else it was a fake news story at the time, but, if the latter, three
pages of search hits didn't find it.

1) There was an actual incident where US-made face-masks already
actually in-transit to Germany were very probably diverted back to the
US on the orders of Donald Trump, so nothing to do with the EU as an
organisation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52161995

"The US has been accused of redirecting 200,000 Germany-bound masks for
its own use, in a move condemned as "modern piracy".

The local government in Berlin said the shipment of US-made masks was
"confiscated" in Bangkok."

2) HMG declined, apparently on purely political grounds, to join an
EU-scheme to procure PPE in bulk:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/22/uk-government-accused-of-cover-up-over-eu-scheme-to-buy-ppe

"Ministers are being pressed to reveal the full details of how the
government missed out on four opportunities to join an EU medical
supplies consortium, in the wake of a U-turn by the top civil servant in
the Foreign Office over comments suggesting it was a “political decision”.

The Labour MP Chris Bryant, who sits on the foreign affairs select
committee, said on Wednesday that he “feared the government was involved
in a full-on cover-up” over how it came to miss out on four rounds of
procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilators and
laboratory supplies launched by the EU in late February and March.

UK officials failed to take up an invitation to join the steering
committee of participating countries that issues orders for medical
equipment until 19 March – after the bulk purchases had been made.

Bryant said he feared either Foreign Office ministers or the prime
minister decided not to be associated with any EU scheme for political
reasons “even though it was patently in the interests of the NHS and its
staff to explore every possible avenue to acquire masks, gowns and
ventilator equipment, as fast and most effectively as possible”.

His intervention came a day after the Foreign Office’s permanent
secretary, Sir Simon McDonald, told MPs that ministers had indeed taken
a political decision not to join the scheme."

[Brian Gregory]

Face-masks are a type of PPE.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying
for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to
brick the TV anyway.

I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my feeling.
She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone before the
interview started, and was not going to be diverted from that.
--
Davey.

Difficult isn't - when someone admits that they are a liar, do you believe them or suspect that they are lying?

[Davey]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 05:14:33 -0800 (PST)

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Davey
On 17 Dec 2023 17:53:09 GMT

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another
station when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind
paying for it as if she carries on like she is at the moment I
will have to brick the TV anyway.

I normally don't like her, and today made no difference to my
feeling. She had clearly made up her mind about Baroness Mone
before the interview started, and was not going to be diverted from
that.
--
Davey.

Difficult isn't - when someone admits that they are a liar, do you
believe them or suspect that they are lying?

Certainly a conundrum, about which riddles have been created. But as the
Baroness stated, lying to the press is not a crime. On the other hand,
the press would never lie to the public, would it?

When Piers Morgan says that he never instructed anybody to hack into
voicemails, and wouldn't know how to himself, he never actually says
that he did not use information that might have been obtained that way.
As discussed elsewhere, 'lying by omission'.

I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied by
Medpro.
And I still do not know how Medpro's 30% profit margin compares with
other suppliers' profit margins. If it is the same, or even less that
others', then a major plank of this action against it is nullified.

For once, I agree with Java Jive that we need to wait until this
information is published.

[JMB99]

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied by
Medpro.
And I still do not know how Medpro's 30% profit margin compares with
other suppliers' profit margins. If it is the same, or even less that
others', then a major plank of this action against it is nullified.

The attacks seem to be mainly from Labour who prefer attacking the
government to actually devising policies and also think all profit is
wrong (unless by a Labour crony!).

[Java Jive]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied by
Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted

Post by Java Jive
Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even sterile,
rather a basic failure if true, but we should remember that this is
still sub-judice, and this in turn may explain the BBC's only
mentioning it in passing, to avoid possible Contempt of Court for

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-government-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
And I still do not know how Medpro's 30% profit margin compares with
other suppliers' profit margins. If it is the same, or even less that
others', then a major plank of this action against it is nullified.

FFS! You are either terminally naive or extremely politically biased -
the fact that there is *ANY* profit margin at all, let alone one as
high as 30%, is exactly what nullifies their hypocritical claim in the
interview that in watching TV footage at the start of the pandemic they
felt inspired to 'help'. Think about BandAid & LiveAid - someone
whose prime motivation is a desire to help does something at cost, or
even donates funds to a cause, they don't take a 30% profit and then
squirrel away the resulting £61m (before tax, it should be said) in a
family trust based in a tax haven!

Post by Java Jive
The attacks seem to be mainly from Labour who prefer attacking the
government to actually devising policies and also think all profit is
wrong (unless by a Labour crony!).

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this opinion stated as if it were a fact?

[Bob Latham]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE
supplied by Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted

Oh goody goody! Java Jive is calling anyone he disagrees with a bigot
again.

Can I be a bigot today please. Go on cheer me up on this dark, wet
night. Racist, Liar or any other of your lovely pejorative
descriptions in your normality would also help. Thanks. :-)

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive
Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even
sterile, rather a basic failure if true, but we should remember
that this is still sub-judice, and this in turn may explain the
BBC's only mentioning it in passing, to avoid possible Contempt

Deary, deary me. Not twigged yet then. The BBC isn't interested in
the truth. It's interested in influencing the population's thinking
to the woke left. Millions have realised this now which is why only
die-hard marxists and the very spoilt, privileged middle classes
watch the BBC news / current affairs.

Are Hamas terrorists JJ, did they commit genocide 7th October?

Post by Java Jive
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-govern> ment-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

The Guardian. Lol. Lol.

I normally like to use the JJs of this world as a guide, He confirms
the wrong path and thinking for me, very useful.

So I'm troubled to find myself largely agreeing with JJ on this one.
Most disconcerting I must have missed something.

Bob.

[Java Jive]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE
supplied by Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted

Oh goody goody! Java Jive is calling anyone he disagrees with a bigot
again.
Can I be a bigot today please. Go on cheer me up on this dark, wet
night. Racist, Liar or any other of your lovely pejorative
descriptions in your normality would also help. Thanks. :-)

Your obvious mental deficiencies have made you this ng's biggest pile of
steaming bigoted shite for years, what makes you think you actually have
a choice in the matter?

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive
Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even
sterile, rather a basic failure if true, but we should remember
that this is still sub-judice, and this in turn may explain the
BBC's only mentioning it in passing, to avoid possible Contempt

Deary, deary me. Not twigged yet then. The BBC isn't interested in
the truth. It's interested in influencing the population's thinking
to the woke left. Millions have realised this now which is why only
die-hard marxists and the very spoilt, privileged middle classes
watch the BBC news / current affairs.

Duh! You carp at the BBC when the report linked was to the Guardian!
See what I mean? Mentally deficient!

Post by Bob Latham
Are Hamas terrorists JJ, did they commit genocide 7th October?

They are certainly terrorists, not sure about genocide:

More to the point however, they are OT.

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-govern> ment-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

The Guardian. Lol. Lol.

Laugh like an idiot all you like, you not liking sources that happen to
contradict your world view doesn't make them any less true, all you
accomplish is confirming your own lack of mature intellect.

Post by Bob Latham
I normally like to use the JJs of this world as a guide, He confirms
the wrong path and thinking for me, very useful.
So I'm troubled to find myself largely agreeing with JJ on this one.
Most disconcerting I must have missed something.

You missed growing up sufficiently to be able argue like an adult.

[Bob Latham]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE
supplied by Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted

Oh goody goody! Java Jive is calling anyone he disagrees with a bigot
again.
Can I be a bigot today please. Go on cheer me up on this dark, wet
night. Racist, Liar or any other of your lovely pejorative
descriptions in your normality would also help. Thanks. :-)

Your obvious mental deficiencies have made you this ng's biggest
pile of steaming bigoted shite for years, what makes you think you
actually have a choice in the matter?

And there he shows himself in all his glory. Such intellect, such
maturity. Lol.

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive
Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't
even sterile, rather a basic failure if true, but we should
remember that this is still sub-judice, and this in turn may
explain the BBC's only mentioning it in passing, to avoid

Deary, deary me. Not twigged yet then. The BBC isn't interested
in the truth. It's interested in influencing the population's
thinking to the woke left. Millions have realised this now which
is why only die-hard marxists and the very spoilt, privileged
middle classes watch the BBC news / current affairs.

Duh! You carp at the BBC when the report linked was to the
Guardian! See what I mean? Mentally deficient!

"
If not being a lefty with the woke mind virus means I'm Mentally
deficient", I'm happy with that. Thanks.

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham
Are Hamas terrorists JJ, did they commit genocide 7th October?

They are certainly terrorists,

Wow, I'm impressed.
well almost.

[Snip]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-govern> ment-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

The Guardian. Lol. Lol.

Laugh like an idiot all you like, you not liking sources that
happen to contradict your world view doesn't make them any less
true, all you accomplish is confirming your own lack of mature
intellect.

If seeing the Guardian for the rubbish lefty rag it is makes me any
of those things, I'm a happy man. Thanks.

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham
I normally like to use the JJs of this world as a guide, He
confirms the wrong path and thinking for me, very useful.
So I'm troubled to find myself largely agreeing with JJ on this
one. Most disconcerting I must have missed something.

You missed growing up sufficiently to be able argue like an adult.

Irony. How's the counselling going?

Have a good christmas JJ.


Bob.

[Java Jive]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE
supplied by Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted

Oh goody goody! Java Jive is calling anyone he disagrees with a bigot
again.
Can I be a bigot today please. Go on cheer me up on this dark, wet
night. Racist, Liar or any other of your lovely pejorative
descriptions in your normality would also help. Thanks. :-)

Your obvious mental deficiencies have made you this ng's biggest
pile of steaming bigoted shite for years, what makes you think you
actually have a choice in the matter?

And there he shows himself in all his glory. Such intellect, such
maturity. Lol.

LOL indeed! Did you escape the straight-jacket today?

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive
Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't
even sterile, rather a basic failure if true, but we should
remember that this is still sub-judice, and this in turn may
explain the BBC's only mentioning it in passing, to avoid

Deary, deary me. Not twigged yet then. The BBC isn't interested
in the truth. It's interested in influencing the population's
thinking to the woke left. Millions have realised this now which
is why only die-hard marxists and the very spoilt, privileged
middle classes watch the BBC news / current affairs.

Duh! You carp at the BBC when the report linked was to the
Guardian! See what I mean? Mentally deficient!
"

If not being a lefty with the woke mind virus means I'm Mentally
deficient", I'm happy with that. Thanks.

Nobody mentioned anything about leftiness or wokeness, so again you show
a complete inability to argue a rational point.

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham
Are Hamas terrorists JJ, did they commit genocide 7th October?

They are certainly terrorists,

Wow, I'm impressed.
well almost.
[Snip]

So yet again you miss the chance to learn something.

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-govern> ment-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

The Guardian. Lol. Lol.

Laugh like an idiot all you like, you not liking sources that
happen to contradict your world view doesn't make them any less
true, all you accomplish is confirming your own lack of mature
intellect.

If seeing the Guardian for the rubbish lefty rag it is makes me any
of those things, I'm a happy man. Thanks.

Your problem is that it's not a lefty rag, but a centrist newspaper, and
your thinking of it as a lefty rag merely reveals more about your own
hopeless bigotry than it reveals anything about the newspaper.

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham
I normally like to use the JJs of this world as a guide, He
confirms the wrong path and thinking for me, very useful.
So I'm troubled to find myself largely agreeing with JJ on this
one. Most disconcerting I must have missed something.

You missed growing up sufficiently to be able argue like an adult.

Irony. How's the counselling going?
Have a good christmas JJ.

Fuck off, childish loser.

[Bob Latham]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham
If seeing the Guardian for the rubbish lefty rag it is makes me
any of those things, I'm a happy man. Thanks.

Your problem is that it's not a lefty rag, but a centrist
newspaper,

Hang on, just fell off my chair laughing. How far left do you need to
be, to see the Guardian as centrist?

Post by Java Jive
and your thinking of it as a lefty rag merely reveals
more about your own hopeless bigotry

Yes !!! Got called a bigot by JJ. Thank you so much, confirms I'm on
the straight and narrow. From most people it would be an insult, from
you it's a complement. Thanks.

Post by Java Jive
than it reveals anything about the newspaper.

You mean the rag that the truth teller Cadwalladr writes for? Remind
me again what did the judge decide on costs etc. how much did she
have to pay? Lets see how good your leftist spin on that episode of
truth telling is.

Or that pillar of common sense Monbiot?

The home of stupidity where common sense and the truth goes to die.

I'm done. Can't argue with hate filled, foul-mouthed lefties, no
point.


Bob.

[Java Jive]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive

Post by Bob Latham
If seeing the Guardian for the rubbish lefty rag it is makes me
any of those things, I'm a happy man. Thanks.

Your problem is that it's not a lefty rag, but a centrist
newspaper,

Hang on, just fell off my chair laughing. How far left do you need to
be, to see the Guardian as centrist?

You need only to be centrist - your problem is that I don't subscribe
to any particular political dogma, I follow facts and hard information,
so cannot fairly be described as left-wing: I'm right-wing on a few
issues, centrist on most, left-wing on a few issues. You by contrast
are right-wing on everything, and follow every right-wing meme now
matter how obviously fake it is.

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive
and your thinking of it as a lefty rag merely reveals
more about your own hopeless bigotry

Yes !!! Got called a bigot by JJ. Thank you so much, confirms I'm on
the straight and narrow. From most people it would be an insult, from
you it's a complement. Thanks.

Again, childish idiocy: only a few posts ago you were saying that you
were tending to agree with me on the issue of the thread, but still
couldn't resist wasting everyone's time with a playground argument.

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Java Jive
than it reveals anything about the newspaper.

You mean the rag that the truth teller Cadwalladr writes for? Remind
me again what did the judge decide on costs etc. how much did she
have to pay? Lets see how good your leftist spin on that episode of
truth telling is.

One mistake, but otherwise a very successful career, and nothing
particularly left-wing there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Cadwalladr

"Journalism awards

British Journalism Awards' Technology Journalism Award in December
2017[35][36]
Specialist Journalist of the Year 2017 at the National Society of
Editors Press Awards[37][38]
Orwell Prize for Political Journalism in June 2018 (for her work
"on the impact of big data on the EU Referendum and the 2016 US
presidential election").[39]
Reporters without Borders "L'esprit de RSF" award in November 2018
(for her work on subversion of democratic processes).[40]
The 2018 Polk Award for National Reporting with reporters from the
New York Times.[41]
The 2018 Stieg Larsson Prize, an annual award of 200,000 krona for
people working in Stieg Larsson's spirit[42]
Political Studies Association Journalist of the Year in November
2018 (joint award with Amelia Gentleman) for her persistence and
resilience in pursuing "investigative journalism on subjects such as
personal data".[43]
Two 2018 British Journalism Awards for Technology reporting and
Investigation[44]
Technology journalist of the year in the 2018 Society of Editors
awards[45]
The 2019 Gerald Loeb Award for Investigative Reporting[46][47]
The annual Hay Festival's Medal for Journalism in May 2019, "for
the heroic and rigorous investigative journalism".[48]
Finalist, 2019 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, alongside The
New York Times reporters, for her coverage of the Cambridge Analytica
scandal.[49]
Winner, 2023 Quaker Truth & Integrity Award[50]"

Post by Bob Latham
Or that pillar of common sense Monbiot?

Nothing particularly left-wing there, either ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot

"Published works

Monbiot's first book was Poisoned Arrows (1989), concerning the
partially World Bank-funded transmigration program on the peoples and
tribes of West Papua. It was followed by Amazon Watershed (1991), which
documents the expulsions of Brazilian peasant farmers from their land.
His third book, No Man's Land: An Investigative Journey Through Kenya
and Tanzania (1994), documented the seizure of land and cattle from
nomadic people in Kenya and the Tanzania.

In 2000, he published Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain
in which Monbiot argues that corporate power in the United Kingdom is a
serious threat to democracy. His fifth book, The Age of Consent: A
Manifesto for a New World Order, was published in 2003. The book is an
attempt to set out a positive manifesto for change for the global
justice movement.[66]

Monbiot's next book, Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning, published in
2006, focused on the issue of climate change. Feral: Searching for
Enchantment on the Frontiers of Rewilding was published in 2013, and
focuses on the concept of rewilding the planet. In the book, Monbiot
criticises sheep farming.[67] The book received favourable reviews in
The Spectator[68] and The Daily Telegraph.[67] It won the Society of
Biology Book Award for general biology in 2014.[69] Monbiot's 2022 book
Regenesis focuses on the environmental impact of agriculture and
sustainable approaches.[70]

[...]

Awards

In 1995, Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500
Award for outstanding environmental achievement.[78] He won the Sir
Peter Kent award 1991 prize for his book Amazon Watershed. In November
2007, his book Heat was awarded the Premio Mazotti, an Italian book
prize, but he was denied the money given with the prize because he chose
not to travel to Venice to collect it in person, arguing that it was not
a good enough reason to justify flying. In 2017, he was a recipient of
the SEAL Environmental Journalism Award for his work at The Guardian.[79]

In 2022, Monbiot was awarded The Orwell Prize for Journalism.[80]"

Post by Bob Latham
The home of stupidity where common sense and the truth goes to die.
I'm done. Can't argue with hate filled, foul-mouthed lefties, no
point.

So fuck off, childish loser.

[JMB99]

Post by Bob Latham
Hang on, just fell off my chair laughing. How far left do you need to
be, to see the Guardian as centrist?

Some people even believe what they read in the Guardian!

Don't forget at the time of Levenson, they also got caught hacking but
claimed it was OK when they did it.

[Java Jive]

Post by JMB99
Some people even believe what they read in the Guardian!

Those who don't are certainly very ill-advised, and probably very
biased. No newspaper or other media ever gets it right 100% of the
time, but The Guardian, The Independent, & the BBC are better than most
others.

Post by JMB99
Don't forget at the time of Levenson, they also got caught hacking but
claimed it was OK when they did it.

'They', iow The Guardian, didn't 'get caught'; an individual Guardian
journalist David Leigh freely admitted to a single case of listening to
the voicemails of a corrupt arms-dealer who had inadvertently left his
PIN on a public document, which he thought was perfectly ethical on
public interest grounds:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/dec/04/mondaymediasection

"I've used some of those questionable methods myself over the years. I,
too, once listened to the mobile phone messages of a corrupt arms
company executive - the crime similar to that for which Goodman now
faces the prospect of jail. The trick was a simple one: the businessman
in question had inadvertently left his pin code on a print-out and all
that was needed was to dial straight into his voicemail.

There is certainly a voyeuristic thrill in hearing another person's
private messages. But unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless
tittle-tattle about the royal family. I was looking for evidence of
bribery and corruption. And unlike the News of the World, I was not
paying a private detective to routinely help me with
circulation-boosting snippets. That is my defence, when I try to explain
newspaper methods to my current university journalism students, and some
of whom are rather shocked. There are other techniques I have used,
along with the rest of Fleet Street. I did not turn up my nose when the
notorious Benjy the Binman emptied a bag of stinking rubbish on to my
carpet. He wanted to show me incriminating statements about Saudi arms
deals, which a City law firm had been too idle to shred before putting
out on the street for collection. I read the information with interest.
I did, however, refuse to pick up the other gossipy documents about
celebrities that Benjy was also peddling. And when he wanted large
amounts of cash for copies of those documents he had that were rather
more in the public interest, I sent him off to the Sunday Times."

The same reporter repeated this story in his evidence to the Leveson
Inquiry:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2011/dec/06/leveson-inquiry-leigh-atkins-harris-live

More widely however, The Guardian can take a great deal of credit for
the Leveson Inquiry ever taking place. Search the following for 'guardian':

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270939/0780_i.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270941/0780_ii.pdf

[Jeff Gaines]

Post by JMB99
Some people even believe what they read in the Guardian!

Those who don't are certainly very ill-advised, and probably very biased.
No newspaper or other media ever gets it right 100% of the time, but The
Guardian, The Independent, & the BBC are better than most others.

Wow, the three most left wing and biased sources of news in existence.

[Java Jive]

Post by Jeff Gaines

Post by Java Jive
No newspaper or other media ever gets it right 100% of the
time, but The Guardian, The Independent, & the BBC are better than
most others.

Wow, the three most left wing and biased sources of news in existence.

Says a well-known right-wing pigot (= parrot-bigot); you really do need
to learn to see yourself as others see you. Do you *REALLY* claim that
that they are more left wing than the Daily Mirror, Socialist Worker,
etc, etc?

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45744-which-media-outlets-do-britons-trust-2023?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Fpolitics%2Farticles-reports%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2Fwhich-media-outlets-do-britons-trust-2023

The three sources I've named come out top or nearly so, depending on
exactly how you measure it. Other mainstream TV channels come out well,
but notably, wrt to newspapers, even i does better than The Telegraph,
given the latter's appalling coverage of the pandemic and climate
change, no-one should be surprised.

[alan_m]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied by
Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted

Post by Java Jive
Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even sterile,
rather a basic failure if true,

Did the face masks need to be sterile? Throughout the corona Virus
lock-down the masks given to people entering hospitals were dispensed
from open boxes where the masks were packed in batches of 50(ish). There
was no restriction at the hospitals on the type of mask that were
sourced on a personal basis.

[Java Jive]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied by
Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted
 >
 > Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even sterile,
 > rather a basic failure if true,

Did the face masks need to be sterile?  Throughout the corona Virus
lock-down the masks given to people entering hospitals were dispensed
from open boxes where the masks were packed in batches of 50(ish). There
was no restriction at the hospitals on the type of mask that were
sourced on a personal basis.

Again, someone who hasn't bothered to read information linked before
posting, despite that information being linked in the thread twice now,
and worse still has excluded it from the quoting in an apparent attempt
to bury it, so here it is again:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/ppe-medpro-uk-government-alleges-firm-supplied-defective-gowns-nhs

It was the second order for gowns that is the subject of the legal
action by the UK Government, one of the grounds for the legal action
being that they weren't sterile.

[JMB99]

Did the face masks need to be sterile?  Throughout the corona Virus
lock-down the masks given to people entering hospitals were dispensed
from open boxes where the masks were packed in batches of 50(ish). There
was no restriction at the hospitals on the type of mask that were
sourced on a personal basis.

I had to go to outpatients several times early in Lockdown. There was a
nurse at the door checking who you were but can't remember now whether
she handed out masks, I think she might have but can't sure. I usually
had one in my pocket so hardly sterile!

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied by
Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted

Post by Java Jive
Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even sterile,
rather a basic failure if true,

Did the face masks need to be sterile? Throughout the corona Virus
lock-down the masks given to people entering hospitals were dispensed
from open boxes where the masks were packed in batches of 50(ish). There
was no restriction at the hospitals on the type of mask that were
sourced on a personal basis.

The ones for medical staff needed to be rather more effective.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[charles]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Davey
I still do not know what was actually wrong with the PPE supplied
by Medpro.

That's because you seem determined to ignore anything that you've
already been told about the case that doesn't fit your bigoted

Post by Java Jive
Allegedly according to the legal documents, they weren't even
sterile, rather a basic failure if true,

Did the face masks need to be sterile? Throughout the corona Virus
lock-down the masks given to people entering hospitals were dispensed
from open boxes where the masks were packed in batches of 50(ish).
There was no restriction at the hospitals on the type of mask that
were sourced on a personal basis.

The ones for medical staff needed to be rather more effective.

to continue the mask theme: the daughter & son-in-law of a friend are both
hospital doctors. At the start of Covid, they were issued with one mask =
to be shared between them.

[Java Jive]

Post by JMB99

Post by Davey
And I still do not know how Medpro's 30% profit margin compares with
other suppliers' profit margins. If it is the same, or even less that
others', then a major plank of this action against it is nullified.

FFS!  You are either terminally naive or extremely politically biased  -
 the fact that there is *ANY* profit margin at all, let alone one as
high as 30%, is exactly what nullifies their hypocritical claim in the
interview that in watching TV footage at the start of the pandemic they
felt inspired to 'help'.  Think about BandAid & LiveAid  -  someone
whose prime motivation is a desire to help does something at cost, or
even donates funds to a cause, they don't take a 30% profit and then
squirrel away the resulting £61m (before tax, it should be said) in a
family trust based in a tax haven!

Post by JMB99
The attacks seem to be mainly from Labour who prefer attacking the
government to actually devising policies and also think all profit is
wrong (unless by a Labour crony!).

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this opinion stated as if it were a fact?

Those who continue to struggle to believe, against all the evidence
covered in this thread, that the couple are no more than just another
two particularly gluttonous snouts in the trough, may care to read the
following, which shows that they have been gorging themselves at
others', including HMRC's, expense since well before the PPE Medpro scandal:

Michelle Mone’s husband linked to tax firms whose clients submitted
misleading claims, documents suggest
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/18/michelle-mone-husband-douglas-barrowman

Much too much to quote individually, read all of it.

[Java Jive]

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another station
when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying for it as
if she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to brick the TV
anyway.

Rather than comments such as the above which reveal more about your own
immaturity than it does about the person you describe, why not get
involved with something rather more worthwhile and important, such as
curtailment of reasonable free-speech?

Russian trolls are again trying to game the system at YouTube to get
useful Pro-Ukraine sources deleted, their latest target is Warthog
Defence - complain about that instead; here's how:

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Jeff Gaines
Is there a TV available that will automatically tune to another station
when that cow Laura Kuenssberg comes on? I don't mind paying for it as if
she carries on like she is at the moment I will have to brick the TV anyway.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK

All you need is a TV permanently tuned to GB News, with possibly an option for Fox News if you want to catch up on Trump's latest pronouncements.

[Bob Latham]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
All you need is a TV permanently tuned to GB News,

Not a bad idea but then I'd miss "Plank Of The Week" on Talk TV
7.00pm Fridays. Usually some sensible people on there.

Bob.