Will Dominic Cummings be needing a new job soon?

Should Dominic Cummings resign over this scandal and violation of blatant lockdown advice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 51 21.8%
  • No

    Votes: 125 53.4%
  • Divided

    Votes: 8 3.4%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 50 21.4%

  • Total voters
    234
Dominic talking to his ghost writer.
FB_IMG_1622381348309.jpg
 
So Dominic Cummings HASN'T "failed to provide evidence to substantiate his allegations that senior cabinet ministers mishandled the coronavirus pandemic that he had promised to provide to a parliamentary inquiry."

I'll give that an "informative".
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Well, apparently he went from Satan Incarnate to Divine Angel if some are to be believed. I suppose it's back to Satan now.

And vice versa if you listen to others
 
Does that count as Government corruption?
I would say it looks very much like procurement fraud. Possibly S4 Fraud Act, Fraud by abuse of position.

Basically, by using your position to funnel Government work (aka taxpayers money) to benefit friends without tendering the work, you are disadvantaging other possible bidders, and directly benefitting one favoured player.
 
Does that count as Government corruption?
No.
I would say it looks very much like procurement fraud. Possibly S4 Fraud Act, Fraud by abuse of position.

Basically, by using your position to funnel Government work (aka taxpayers money) to benefit friends without tendering the work, you are disadvantaging other possible bidders, and directly benefitting one favoured player.
No.


166. That evidence has not been challenged. It is emphasised that the court is not concerned with any suggestion of actual bias. But, as explained above, the absence of actual bias is not in itself a defence to an allegation of apparent bias.

Conclusion
182. For the reasons set out above, the Claimant’s challenge to the Defendant’s decision to award a contract to Public First and the award of the Contract fails on Grounds 1 and 2 but succeeds on Ground 3.
183. The Claimant is entitled to a declaration that the Decision of 5 June 2020 to award the Contract to Public First gave rise to apparent bias and was unlawful.
184. Following hand down of this judgment, the hearing will be adjourned to a date to be fixed for the purpose of any consequential matters, including any applications for permission to appeal, and any time limits are extended until such hearing or further order.
 
No.

No.


166. That evidence has not been challenged. It is emphasised that the court is not concerned with any suggestion of actual bias. But, as explained above, the absence of actual bias is not in itself a defence to an allegation of apparent bias.

Conclusion
182. For the reasons set out above, the Claimant’s challenge to the Defendant’s decision to award a contract to Public First and the award of the Contract fails on Grounds 1 and 2 but succeeds on Ground 3.
183. The Claimant is entitled to a declaration that the Decision of 5 June 2020 to award the Contract to Public First gave rise to apparent bias and was unlawful.
184. Following hand down of this judgment, the hearing will be adjourned to a date to be fixed for the purpose of any consequential matters, including any applications for permission to appeal, and any time limits are extended until such hearing or further order.
The case was brought under civil law. The contract was found to be illegal.
The Fraud Act is criminal law.
Two very different things.
Although Cummings and Gove appear to have grossly abused their position to award these contracts to mates of Dom, (abuse of position) at this point it seems only the mates of Dom benefitted from taxpayers money being shovelled to them.
Proving criminal intent would be a much bigger thing. One might expect this to be a resigning issue, but, well, Brexit excuses all sins.
 
A further £0.5 million of Tax Payers money spaffed on defending this case. Shocking.

 
Just watched 1 o’clock news. No mention of the ventriloquist’s dummy - sorry Michael Gove - being involved but he is mentioned in the Gruniad article.
 
A further £0.5 million of Tax Payers money spaffed on defending this case. Shocking.

Another version might be £500k wasted in having to defend spurious case from actually biased lobbyist who pretends to be simply acting in the public interest but is in fact playing politics in lawfare.
 

Latest Threads

Top