David Cameron and the Greenhill scandal

Polarbear2

I do think, whatever colour your vote, you must admit this lot are the worst ever for corruption. There’s nothing wrong with admitting it and let’s be fair, if he goes it’ll be the Tory members who give us a new PM. We need them to get as angry as the rest of us.

With a very few honourable exceptions, the right of centre posters on here (and people outside of GN) will just use the excuse that everyone’s at it , nothing to see here, move along. However, should a story emerge involving someone from the shadow cabinet, there will be much huffing and puffing. What’s also sad is that clearly some posters don’t even realise that some rules ( albeit not as good as they should be) already exist. I suppose you can’t be shocked at rule breaking if you didn’t know there was a rule in the first place.

I feel sorry for Conservatives like Dominic Grieve who must be distraught to see what his party has become.Such a thoroughly decent, honourable man. No wonder he ended up being thrown out of the party. Even though we’re Lib/Dem/Labour we contributed to his crowdfunding.

Too much ‘old boy’ network still in existence. As far as I’ve read and understand it Cameron didn’t break the rules - BUT on a technicality only as he knew what the rule said and how to get round it legally by a whisper. Obviously never thought he would come unstuck. Such arrogance. Too much sleaze across all parties over the years.

Bywire News

The Health Secretary Matt Hancock has been handed a 15% stake in a firm called Topwood Limited.

In March this year, Topwood Limited were awarded two NHS contracts worth a total of £300k.

Topwood Limited also just happen to be owned by Mr Hancock's sister.

Truly astonishing.

If it was a stockbroker one whiff of insider trading and the FCA would be down on them like a ton of bricks.

Whitewavemark2

Bywire News

The Health Secretary Matt Hancock has been handed a 15% stake in a firm called Topwood Limited.

In March this year, Topwood Limited were awarded two NHS contracts worth a total of £300k.

Topwood Limited also just happen to be owned by Mr Hancock's sister.

Truly astonishing.

Tip of the iceberg - my guess is that much has been known about for ages but Gove ( and his dark forces) have been biding their time

And it continues
“Matt Hancock’s former pub landlord WhatsApped him & later secured a £30m Covid contract.

David Cameron lobbied Rishi Sunak on behalf of Greensill.

Reports that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman lobbied Boris Johnson over the sale of Newcastle United.”

I assume that is the bin Salman that had the reporter chopped up?

Pigs in the trough!

“Cameron's vow to clean up lobbying turned into a loophole-ridden sham”

Headline in the I today:

"UK lobbying watchdog is ... lobbyist

"Senior member of committee advertises his own access to ministers

"He runs lobbying firm that operates in Houses of Parliament and words as "a link between the leaders of UK industry and the Conservative Party Cabinet"

Public official who was appointed to oversee employment of ex-ministers sells what he calls "the very best government relations advice and support"

"Cabinet Secretary orders all Whitehall civil servants to declare any outside earnings by the end of this week - amid new revelations on moonlighting and double jobs by leading government officials"

As the saying goes, you couldn't make it up.

Years ago as a civil servant, we were asked on a yearly basis to declare any other outside earnings. The job I did meant visiting companies on a daily basis and I was frequently offered lunch etc. Always had to be declared, along with any gifts etc.

Civil servants also had ask permission to visit certain countries.

Gone to the dogs it seems to me!

I had no idea that Hancock has kept the fact that he part owns a company that has benefited enormously from an NHS contract.

He failed to declare it as he should have done.

Move along - nothing to see here - say the nodding donkeys.

Whitewavemark2

I had no idea that Hancock has kept the fact that he part owns a company that has benefited enormously from an NHS contract.

He failed to declare it as he should have done.

Move along - nothing to see here - say the nodding donkeys.

Oink, Oink!!

People are more consumed with the minute detail of the DoE funeral arrangements for some reason.
The press have cottoned on to the Hancock story now, so the ducks are lining up for a proper inquiry, and pursuing it will be a strong suit for Starmer, he definitely out-manoevred the PM in Question Time this week, and got good press coverage for doing so. I’m watching with interest.

Casdon imo the ship has sailed re a proper all embracing enquiry. There are now 7 different ones set up, including Johnson’s whitewash one. I don’t think this will now be recast into one and the aim might now be death by boredom with multiple enquiries. I’m actually more interested in who gains from this? I’ve still got by beady eye on Gove.

I thought that Hancock had declared his interest but failed to mention the connections with his sister?

I understand Hancock did declare his own interest in Topwood but did not declare his sister’s bigger part in that firm and he is required to do that for close relatives.
He was ‘gifted’ shares! I bet we could all do with a bit of that!

Sorry Algegrias1 crossed post.

The link is to an NHS health journal

Matt Hancock has omitted to declare his connection to a company owned by his close family, despite it winning a place on a framework to provide services to the English NHS in 2019, as well as...
hsj.co.uk

You may be right suziewoosie, but the more that comes into public view now the more the pressure will mount for it to be dealt with in a comprehensive way. As the direct threat from COVID is reduced at the moment, there are less opportunities for smokescreens being put up.

The Acuri scandal is still in the air, not likely to go away.

Alegrias1

I thought that Hancock had declared his interest but failed to mention the connections with his sister?

At one stage I was in a position where I had to be party to judging declarations of interests and whether conflicts of interests arose ( public bodies).People forget ( or don’t understand or don’t want to understand ) that it isn’t just about whether someone declared an interest or not but what that interest means in terms of an actual conflict of interest OR ( very important) perceived conflict of interests. In other words the optics. My favourite case was a particular executive member of the board who owned a company ( as a sideline to the day job) which was putting in a bid for a contract we were offering. We ruled he could not be party to any decision making re the awarding of this contract. He was most put out complained that we didn’t trust him to act in the public interest and not his own ( too darn right we didn’t) . He came to the next Board meeting and told us he had solved the problem - he had transferred ownership of the company to his wife. ???

The deeper you dig the more is unearthed. What a self-serving bunch of fraudsters we have running this country.

Casdon as you may have noticed, I am beyond cynical in expecting the right thing to be done as those with the power have a vested interest in the wrong thing being donee. ??