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

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.

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.

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.

(1 of 2) Paul Manafort—a longtime associate of Howard Liebengood Sr.—is an exec at Event Strategies, which planned the 1/6 rally that ended with a breach of security at the Capitol, where Howard Liebengood Jr. worked security (USCP). 2 days later Liebengood Jr. committed suicide.

(2 of 2) I believe this is a coincidence. That said, because I don't think Manafort aiding and abetting a rally that ended in insurrection is coincidence, I have to assume that—out of an abundance of caution—law enforcement will investigate any possible Manafort-Liebengood link.

(PS) It is vital that no one presume connections where there may be none. My point is that as a criminal investigative matter, Manafort will be investigated for any role he had in the Save America March, and Liebengood's suicide would naturally be investigated due to its context.

(PS2) I'm sure there'll be those who say that a Donald Trump event giving tons of money to a company that enriches Paul Manafort at a time when Trump continues to need Manafort to stay quiet and Manafort is having money problems is a mere coincidence.

*That* I do not agree with.

(PS3) By the same token, as a federal criminal investigative matter, when you are about to have numerous investigations into whether security at a government building had been pre-compromised and someone who worked security at that building commits suicide, it gets investigated.

Why is Johnson's speech at the Munich conference hailed in some quarters, even by some journalists that should know better, as "a major policy speech" with "substance"? I went to read it expecting for once to be pleasantly surprised. Alas! Thread

It is full of the usual misplaced optimism not backed by any serious analysis, jingoism & digs at other EU leaders with transparent, nearly servile efforts to regain favour with the new US administration. A few examples:

The speech starts with the trademark rethorical device beloved of the UK right (whether to attack "woke' culture or pro-EU sentiments): A wildly exaggerated overblown simplistic statement that you then go on to "disprove"

So a dig aimed at Macron for saying NATO needs to adapt to changing circumstances and flattery towards America : "As you’ve seen and heard earlier, America is unreservedly back as leader of the free world and that is a fantastic thing."

Then the self- agrandissements : notice all the "I" & "Global Britain"

Dems are correct in not calling witnesses, which is obvious when you think this through. First, the case has been made. Any GOPr or delusional Trump fan who doesnt accept that - or care - never will. The country knows/sees what happened. 2nd, if dems called witnesses.../1

...it will add next to nothing. Statements are being admitted into the record from some witnesses. Third, & most important, the GQP is a monstrosity that only cares about power. Once the witness door opens, they'll turn the trial into a farce, calling anyone and everyone.../2

...to muddy up the case. Since their entire case is whataboutism, they will try to call Obama, Hillary Clinton, Holder, Waters, and on and on. If the presiding officer holds the testimony irrelevant before allowing it, there will be weeks of rage about cover-ups, etc. The.../3

...actual case - already strongly proven by the House Managers, even using the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt - will get buried as the days and weeks pass with hundreds of irrelevant witnesses are fought over. Finally, bringing those witnesses.../4

...could interfere with a possibly more important proceeding if it happens: The criminal prosecution of Trump by District of Columbia for inciting a riot, which is a crime in DC. As in the Oliver North case, the public Congressional testimony of North led a court to throw.../5