Tina Reynolds
@tinareynolds.bsky.social
1K followers
1.1K following
2.1K posts
Chartered librarian. Interests include KM, gin, languages, reading especially Girls Own books, and road racing. Usually found trying to improve my very rusty French or searching for sun. Herts/London. She/Her
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Pinned
Reposted by Tina Reynolds
Reposted by Tina Reynolds
Reposted by Tina Reynolds
Reposted by Tina Reynolds
Reposted by Tina Reynolds
Reposted by Tina Reynolds
Reposted by Tina Reynolds
![Mone was neither a director nor shareholder of that company but she was, from this judgment, its champion lobbyist. At a critical stage, according to the judgment, the PPE Medro negotiator “engaged his ‘big gun’ – contacting Baroness Mone who then took up the fight on behalf of Medpro direct with […] the Cabinet Office threatening further escalation.”
Mone sent an email to the Cabinet Office (which indicates the input of lawyers) insisting a contract had already somehow been entered into. She wrote “the committee sign off, the finance sign off, the verbal conversations on the urgency of goods and the signed returned contract, all constitutes a contract, with a legal and moral obligation on [the Department of Health and Social Care]”.
But this was not correct of law or fact. The matter was still entirely subject to contract. The supplier may well have been incurring costs in anticipation of a contract, but at this stage this was at their own risk. In that email, however, a parliamentarian was falsely stating to the government that a high-value contract was already in place and that the government was thereby obliged to purchase the goods. In fact, the final price had not even been determined. There had not even been a best or final offer.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nx2kxyxako6sobj4g4pdkl6s/bafkreidiodntpksjpxz6j2a7uy7v6xrxx2pjijvczgy75n3lfmu427jh4m@jpeg)