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 ...
>> ... 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.
>> "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!
>> "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.
>> "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!
>> "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".
>> "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