Yet more Tory sleaze….

[Ian H]

Liars and bastards.

You couldn't make it up.

Gaol surely?

Vain hope.

 

[Xipe Totec]

Gaol surely?

Doubt it. No consequences for this pack of filth, but somehow I wouldn't be particularly surprised if Jolyon Maugham suffered an unfortunate and tragic 'accident' at some point. Crime syndicates don't like scrutiny.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Doubt it. No consequences for this pack of filth, but somehow I wouldn't be particularly surprised if Jolyon Maugham suffered an unfortunate and tragic 'accident' at some point. Crime syndicates don't like scrutiny.

The government is trying to get Maugham's Good Law Project bankrupted. This from a GLP email on 30 November:

​

​

Government has hit us with a shock legal bill in our challenge with Runnymede over their appointment of Conservative Peer Dido Harding and her ex-colleague Mike Coupe to run the disastrous Test and Trace programme - without open competition.​

​

Legal action is expensive, so we don’t take it lightly. That’s why, back in March, we asked for Government’s costs estimate for defending this case. We said plainly and clearly that we were asking so we knew whether to apply for a costs cap (a Court order that would have ‘capped’ how much we’d have to pay Government if we don’t win). Government replied with reassurance that their costs ‘would be in the region of £35,000 to £50,000’ and, in reliance on that, we did not seek a costs cap.​

​

A couple of months later, they wrote to say their expected costs would actually be closer to £150,000. While this was an alarming three times more than their initial estimate, it felt just about manageable so we pressed on.​

​

But now, out of nowhere and with only weeks until our High Court hearing, they have increased their estimated costs again - to a whopping £360,000 - with a barely credible explanation. By way of comparison, our lawyers’ bill is estimated at £70,000 if we lose, and £175,000 if we win.​

​

Government’s approach feels very much like a ‘bait and switch’. It’s now too late for us to apply for a costs cap, and we’re facing an enormous potential bill if we do not win in Court - seven times higher than Government’s original estimate. This means we’re still more than £200,000 off the sum needed to cover our adverse costs risk in this case. But we aren’t prepared to down tools. Will you help us carry the load?​

​

​ Donate​

This Government’s approach to public appointments discriminates against those who aren’t born with a silver spoon in their mouths. The principle at stake - that Government must appoint the best candidate, not its best friend - is incredibly important. If we don’t defend this, we don’t see who else can.​

​

The hearing is due to take place in the High Court on 14 and 15 December.​

​

Thank you for your support.​

 

[matticus]

So how does that work? Is the £360,000 being funded by us taxpayers? (assuming they don't "win" the costs from the other side in court).

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

So how does that work? Is the £360,000 being funded by us taxpayers? (assuming they don't "win" the costs from the other side in court).

It looks like it's an exaggerated figure drawn up to inflict the maximum damage on GLP. Till now, the GLP have had a successful record, so the taxpayer has had to pay the costs of trying to stop the law being upheld. On the other side, GLP is largely crowdfunded by people paying to see the law upheld.

 

[Pale Rider]

Tactics, as ever.

The Good Law Project has been out manoeuvred by the government on the costs cap.

It's a bit like me trying to set up a team to beat one managed by Guardiola, but it shouldn't be.

If the Good Law Project want to play in the Premier League they need to up their game.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Tactics, as ever.

The Good Law Project has been out manoeuvred by the government on the costs cap.

It's a bit like me trying to set up a team to beat one managed by Guardiola, but it shouldn't be.

If the Good Law Project want to play in the Premier League they need to up their game.

Your defence of manipulative, dishonest tactics make me want to donate some more beyond my monthly donation. You've just earned them £100. Their track record has been pretty good so far; judges tend to be conservative with a small c and prefer the rule of law to the rule of cheating scum.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

£372,350 pledged against the defenders of corruption so far. And against the likes of @pile raider too.

 

[Unkraut]

GLP are Robin Hood to the government's Sheriff of Nottingham in this instance.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Tactics, as ever.

The Good Law Project has been out manoeuvred by the government on the costs cap.

I suspect cock up rather than conspiracy on the government side.

There's another point. If they've run up costs at that level on the taxpayer's tab what if they lose and pay GLP's costs too?

Or GLP folds and the costs go unpaid?

 

[spen666]

Gaol surely?

Is it illegal to have a photograph of a pub on your office wall?

 

[Mugshot]

Is it illegal to have a photograph of a pub on your office wall?

We should certainly be considering charges if it's a Wetherspoons.

 

[newfhouse]

We should certainly be considering charges if it's a Wetherspoons.

It’s not technically a Wetherspoons, it’s been subcontracted.

 

[Pale Rider]

I suspect cock up rather than conspiracy on the government side.

There's another point. If they've run up costs at that level on the taxpayer's tab what if they lose and pay GLP's costs too?

Or GLP folds and the costs go unpaid?

Fairly handy cock up given it's put the opposing side in difficulty even before the case gets properly underway - another good tactic if you can pull it off.

One good thing about going against the government is you can be sure any costs order you win will be paid.

 

[BoldonLad]

£372,350 pledged against the defenders of corruption so far. And against the likes of @pile raider too.

Music to the Law Professionals ears