Quote Originally Posted by Ram59 View Post
I think at the time there was a certain amount of panic RA and the government, possibly incorrectly in this case, fell back to using those closest to them.

A similar analogy would be, the country is hit by a hurricane with many properties suffering roof damage, you've had tiles ripped off your roof and despite ringing around, you can't get anyone to answer the phone, never mind give you a quote, so when your brother-in-law says that he's got a mate who's done a bit of roofing, you jump at the chance, as there is rain forecast for tonight.

You could argue that the government should have been able to do better than the brother-in-law's mate, but it's difficult to appreciate the chaos, that was going on behind the scenes at the time.
That's absolutely how it goes in times of panic/urgency. IF (big IF) HMG, acting for the taxpayer, went for their mates who they KNEW could do the best job possible in the circumstances I'm fine with a bit of a premium price so long as the delivery and quality side of the contract is nice and tight. What I WOULDN'T be fine with is if HMG went for mates with NO track record of delivering the required goods/services JUST because they were mates.

So Ram's right if he's got a relative's mate up on his roof if that mate's mate is REALLY a roofer. If the relative's mate is a barrista, an actor or an accountant, Ram's wrong and he's been done over by his relative. The analogy is fine