Jump to content

salmonbuddie

Saints
  • Content Count

    4,148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

salmonbuddie last won the day on May 1 2020

salmonbuddie had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About salmonbuddie

  • Rank
    Panel Pundit on SKY
  • Birthday January 13

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Elderslie, then Paisley, now Renfrew...I'm gonnae end up in Weegie-ville if I'm no' careful!

Recent Profile Visitors

7,022 profile views
  1. Told her about my dilemma before the game started so she knew it was win-win for me no matter the result. Tbh I would probably prefer Rangers out at this stage for the fun I could have but seeing the look on that fekkers face is pretty good compensation.
  2. I'm in a quandary here, missus is a Rangers supporter so the Cup game's on and they're 4-0 up. Is it okay to be happy with that for the look on Hartley's face? [emoji846]
  3. You've seen who posted it and expect sense? [emoji846]
  4. Tbh I was thinking of the way they've been lining each others' pockets but now you come to mention it...
  5. Is it a "bribe"? - I don't think so but each to their own, if that's your thinking it's your thinking. Is it timed to tie in with the upcoming election? Very probably, it has been policy for a while but politicians are politicians no matter their party. One thing it certainly is, though, is a much better use of public money - yours and mine - with a much better aim than the spending exhibited by WM during the pandemic.
  6. Aye, that's true, my brother's 3 years younger than me and says he remembers the jail in County Square, I have no memory of it at all. I remember the piazza being built but nothing of what was there beforehand.
  7. The current 50-50 is a move from 45-55 in the 7 years, though. I think it will only get bigger over the coming months (ever the optimist, me). [emoji846]
  8. I think lots of people in Scotland do care about and there's always Indyref2 in September... [emoji846] The guy I'm quoting is actually trying to do something about it before then, more power to his elbow.
  9. How long will we tolerate this? More pertinently, how much longer will England? "This week’s Panorama gave us the extraordinary tale of a dog food supplier turned PPE broker bagging herself millions acting as a ‘bridge’ for a Hong Kong supplier. Details of the largest contract - worth £178m - came to light only after the BBC’s probing prompted the Government to publish. "It sought to explain its failure as an “admin error.” But even if true - which we doubt - this doesn’t justify a further breach of the law on transparency. Despite the High Court ruling in our favour last month that Matt Hancock had broken the law in failing to publish pandemic contracts, the failures continue. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson and his Minister mislead Parliament about the scale of the breaches. And refuse to come clean about the beneficiaries of its ‘VIP’ lane. "In his judgment, Judge Chamberlain said “The Secretary of State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded.” We agree. And so we have written to Matt Hancock launching new legal proceedings for his continuing failures to comply with the law. "Our grounds focus on two key issues: First, the Secretary of State’s failure to comply with his obligations to publish Contracts Finder notices (CFNs) within the requisite 90 days. In relation to contracts entered into on or before 7 October 2020, he had failed to do so in well over 50% of cases. Second, the Secretary of State’s decision to obscure the key provisions in contracts. Many contracts are being published in heavily redacted form - one example from December shows the quantity, unit price, size and colour of gowns being redacted; another contract entered into almost a year ago but published only this month is so heavily redacted that no information whatsoever is visible regarding what was even purchased. Publication in this form isn’t transparency; it is advertising the lack of it. "“One unfortunate consequence of non-compliance with the transparency obligations…is that people can start to harbour suspicions of improper conduct...” said Judge Chamberlain in last month’s judgment. "We agree. If they have nothing to hide why won’t they publish? Jolyon Maugham Director of Good Law Project"
  10. From the actual Gov.UK site (ignore the made up header) "The number and nature of suspected adverse reactions reported so far are not unusual in comparison to other types of routinely used vaccines " The overall safety experience with both vaccines is so far as expected from the clinical trials "Based on current experience, the expected benefits of both COVID-19 vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and its serious complications far outweigh any known side effects" I'm still going for mine on Monday.
  11. I wouldn't count on it if those carrying it out have read your stuff... [emoji846]
  12. Not going to hold my breath waiting for DRoss calling for a vote of no confidence in BoJos for misleading Westminster. "3 days after the High Court ruled Government had acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts, Boris Johnson stood up in the House of Commons and reassured MPs and the public that all Covid-related contracts were “on the record”. However, the final Order handed down by the Judge today shows that what the Prime Minister told the House was not true. "The Judge confirmed: “The Defendant has published 608 out of 708 relevant contracts for supplies and services relating to COVID-19 awarded on or before 7 October 2020. In some or all of these cases, the Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to publish the contracts within the period set out in the Crown Commercial Service’s Publication of Central Government Tenders and Contracts: Central Government Transparency Guidance Note (November 2017).” "Remarkably, the Judge’s Order is based on Government’s own figures – so at the same time as Johnson was falsely reassuring MPs, Government lawyers were preparing a statement contradicting him – revealing 100 contracts and dozens of Contract Award Notices were missing from the public record. You can read the final Court Order here and consequential judgment in full here. "Over the course of the judicial review, Government made no less than four attempts to provide an accurate witness statement setting out the number of contracts and Contract Award Notices that had been published late – and they kept getting it wrong. As late as the hearing itself, they said they had published 28% of Contract Award Notices within the 30 day legal limit. "But when asked by the Judge to follow up with evidence of the figures so he could make his final Order, it transpired that Government had actually only published 3% of CANs in the legal timeframe. " Government has not only misled Parliament and placed inaccurate information before the Court, it has misled the country. " Unless contract details are published they cannot be properly scrutinised – there’s no way of knowing where taxpayers’ money is going and why. Billions have been spent with those linked to the Conservative Party and vast sums wasted on PPE that isn’t fit for purpose. "We have a Government, and a Prime Minister, contemptuous of transparency and apparently allergic to accountability. The very least that the public deserves now is the truth." From Jolyon Maugham, Director of Good Law Project
  13. Our definitions of "whataboutery" appear to be polar opposites so let's leave it there.
  14. Difficult to reply coherently (insert comment here) on the phone when you comment in my quoted post like that but I'll try. "Of people NOT in the same job and in different organisations, unlike McLeish...? Ta." Of people who are UK government ministers just like the FM, the UK that Scotland is still (for now) a part of so answerable to. Or do you mean that different standards should apply in the two governments? " So only relevant to the Sturgeon case in that he resigned due to allegations of apparently minor form-filling misdemeanours? Is that right? Was he ever shown to be guilty or did he just resign as he believed that to be the honourable thing to do? I'll look for Officegate on the internet, but if you'd offered a link...?" I have no idea if he was guilty or not but he obviously felt he needed to go, fair play to him for that. The FM has clearly and lucidly explained that she is not guilty of any misdemeanour - 8 hours - so doesn't feel any need to resign. Nor do the reported 7,000 new members or the existing members. And May's election will show whether or not the majority verdict is the same (spoiler - it will be). [emoji846]
×
×
  • Create New...