So, just before Christmas, Government what it called a "response" to this New York Times account of cronyism in pandemic spending.

From time to time, indeed quite a lot, I receive letters from Pestfix's lawyers who boast of acting for the world's leading tech companies (and a pest control specialist with last reported net assets of £18k but now engorged with profits from £350m of PPE contracts).

Sometimes I have to send those letters off to lawyers acting for @GoodLawProject who charge quite a lot of money (we might now be well into five figures) to advise me on the various ways to tell Pestfix's lawyers to sling their hook.

What I find especially crappy about this is that Pestfix doesn't like its actions being in the public domain. Their letters are marked "private and confidential" to try and stop me telling you they are using profits from public contracts to muzzle my work.

And if I do tell you, they complain to the court that it is my actions that lead to public opprobrium being heaped upon them. For my part, I tend to think it is mostly their actions.

Anyway. I mention this by way of precusor to observing that the NAO has quietly made some changes to their report about, inter alia, the £350m in PPE contracts won by a small pest control specialist in Littlehampton that got into the VIP channel for reasons no one can explain.

The High Court gave us 'permission' to bring some of our judicial review arguments in relation to the Government's odd PPE contracts. We are today asking again for permission to bring the others. You can read our (remarkable) Skeleton and Statement here.

We chose these three contracts (Clandeboye/Ayanda/Pestfix) in June/July when we had much less understanding than we do now about what was going on. Once you appreciate that fact, what we have already uncovered (before disclosure) about those three is all the more remarkable.

Let me just focus on one aspect of those contracts: the quality of the product supplied by those companies (respectively, a confectionery wholesaler, a 'family office', and a pest control specialist).

And, rather than me editorialising, let me quote the words of those companies themselves, or Government, or Government agencies.

This is what Government says about what we bought from Clandeboye (we spent a total of £108m on gowns).

But how can they not be cleared for use as gowns? And yet be "authorised for distribution... as part of the PPE ensemble"? It doesn't sound like what we got was gowns.

We at @GoodLawProject have a paralegal attending the case management hearing in the Tavistock's appeal in the Bell case on behalf of our trans defence fund. Occasional updates from them as the hearing progresses...

The 'stay' - effectively a suspension of the legal effect of the first instance decision - will continue. That has been agreed between the parties.

Judge doesn't want oral submissions from any of the would-be intervenors at the case management hearing. (I wouldn't read anything in to that.)

Tavistock supports the intervention by @stonewalluk, @BrookCharity, @TheEndoSociety and @Genderintell, is neutral on those from @libertyhq and @TheBMA and opposes those from Transgender Trend and Dr Bell and a 'parents' group'.

Counsel for Bell opposes - I hope I have that right - the joint intervention.

[thread] on a suggestion of a speech at the last

and how to vote for this deal on 30th December 2020

Mr Speaker

May I congratulate Boris Johnson

Truly

He is our Lion King as Robert Halfon calls him

Our herd leader with his massive success of coronavirus where as Priti Patel says we have always been ahead of the curve.

A Prime Minister whose achievements will go down in the annals of British history in infamy.

The focus of my speech shall be three pillars.

How did you win?

What did you win?

Where do we go from here?

But first I want to change tack and go to what I know is a favourite topic of the Prime Minister's: American Presidents.

I Know the Prime Minister has a deep ancestral hatred - sorry respect - for American Presidents.

As an Islington inhabitant once upon a time I know that his respect for America birthed out of a deep love for that nation and out of a deep desire to avoid his tax obligations to the Internal Revenue Service.

I am bemused by those who demand that we repay the UK government’s debt. It makes me wonder, do they know what it is? And how do they think it can be repaid? And do they appreciate the consequences? A thread is coming on......bear with me, because I think you need to know this.

First, what is the UK government’s debt? I’ve immersed myself in this issue and can confidently say the Office for National Statistics’s figures are wrong, most especially because they claim that the UK government is in debt by owing money to itself. That’s not possible.

Whatever the Office for National Statistics like to claim, money you owe yourself is not debt, and so quantitative easing cancels about £800 billion of UK national debt right now. There are other mistakes in their numbers, but I’ll just stick with this one for the moment.

So, if the ONS claim the national debt is around £2.1 trillion at present, it isn’t. Allowing for the UK government owning around £800 billion of its own debt the figure reduces to maybe £1.3 trillion, give or take a bit. But that, I hasten to add, is not the end of the story.

It’s important to understand that the ONS includes some things few would think of as debt in their figures. For example, around £200 billion (£0.2 trillion) of National Savings balances are included in the national debt. Whoever knew Premium Bond holders were such a burden?

The crisis in the NHS is overwhelming this week. It has reminded me of conversations I had with my late father on how to manage within the state sector. I think they're worth sharing.

My father worked for the nationalised electricity industry from the late 1940s to late 1980s. He spent much of that time as a fairly senior engineer. He was committed to what he did. He believed electricity supply was a human right. And he sought to delver it.

He left the industry and retired when he realised that privatisation challenged what the believed in. The priority was no longer supply. It was, instead, profit. He had a clear example of the difference this made. It was about emergency management.

In his day the state electricity boards ensured that they had all the capacity they needed to manage emergencies to keep supply going as well as possible, come what may. It meant there was excess capacity. But it wasn't wasted - maintenance and training was done instead.

Privatisation saw that excess as waste, and it went. It was assumed contracts could buy in support when needed. My father believed that was dangerous - because when demand was strongest the most inexperienced people would be put to work on the job.

This NYT interview with Dr. Fauci blows the biggest hole possible in @Ken_Rosenthal's reporting from 10 days ago.

In his article, @Ken_Rosenthal wrote, "The union, by scheduling its own discussion with the same officials for a later date, avoided hearing what the government representatives suggested to MLB, according to sources: a one-month delay, with the idea of getting players..." 2/

"in time to start the season."

Within a day or two the Union had its own meeting with government officials. That was already reported, although perhaps not as widely as the original pieces claiming the Union didn't want to talk to government officials. In a previous thread 3/

I explained that the Union did not want to be on the same call with management because it would lead to the parties posturing on the call, rather than having an honest discussion with the experts, including Fauci. The Union never avoided the discussion, it just wanted 4/

a separate discussion, not a negotiation in front of COVID experts.

But, this interview undermines the original reporting further.

Fauci told the NYT:

The only thing I said was that, from a public health standpoint, it looks like the cases — if you look at the plotting of 5/