Tory peer Michelle Mone - Received £29m from PPE Medpro

[Digga]

So the Good Law project, which IIRC is run by Jolyon Maugham is now looking into other significant PPE procurements:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/02/m...

[wc98]

bhstewie said:

A very philanthropic individual

The sad thing is they both probably genuinely believe he is.

[glazbagun]

Only tangentially related, but Dan Neidle (who was doing some of the digging on the Mone case) has recieved copyright infringement takedown notices from Google claiming he was plagiarising the work of others.

Naturally he went digging and found there's a whole industry taking advantage of Google's lazy moderation practices to remove bad news from Google searches.

https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1758859001394...

[havoc]

Google really does feel like the biggest stain on the internet right now, doesn't it?

Worse even than FB, it's got to the top and now couldn't give two sts.

Tangentially, did anyone read the FT article recently about 'ensttification' of the internet? This is a clear example...

https://www.ft.com/content/6fb1602d-a08b-4a8c-bac0...
(looks like there's no paywall)

[hidetheelephants]

havoc said:

Google really does feel like the biggest stain on the internet right now, doesn't it?

Worse even than FB, it's got to the top and now couldn't give two sts.

Tangentially, did anyone read the FT article recently about 'ensttification' of the internet? This is a clear example...

https://www.ft.com/content/6fb1602d-a08b-4a8c-bac0...
(looks like there's no paywall)

Thanks for that; Doctorow is an engaging writer. I couldn't read it, archive.ph opened it up.

[youngsyr]

hidetheelephants said:

havoc said:

Google really does feel like the biggest stain on the internet right now, doesn't it?

Worse even than FB, it's got to the top and now couldn't give two sts.

Tangentially, did anyone read the FT article recently about 'ensttification' of the internet? This is a clear example...

https://www.ft.com/content/6fb1602d-a08b-4a8c-bac0...
(looks like there's no paywall)

Thanks for that; Doctorow is an engaging writer. I couldn't read it, archive.ph opened it up.

What he's describing is simply vulture capitalism as applied to the Internet.

I suspect vulture capitalism may become the defining characteristic of the past 15 years.

Essentially it defines the process where technological improvements are initially heavily subsidised by investors, often to the point of the service being free, which initially gains the new tech traction with consumers.

At that point the tech is incrementally improved and expanded, whilst still being loss making and supported by investors.

After several years, the new tech has pushed the old tech out of the market almost entirely, at which point, having killed the competition, the new tech gradually increases its prices and reduces its offering (adding an even more expensive premium tier).

This results in the market place being transformed, but the initial promise of the new tech being unfulfilled.

The first proponent of this method was arguably Amazon, but plenty of others have followed suit: Uber, YouTube, Netflix, Deliveroo.

[b0rk]

youngsyr said:

What he's describing is simply vulture capitalism as applied to the Internet.

I suspect vulture capitalism may become the defining characteristic of the past 15 years.

Essentially it defines the process where technological improvements are initially heavily subsidised by investors, often to the point of the service being free, which initially gains the new tech traction with consumers.

At that point the tech is incrementally improved and expanded, whilst still being loss making and supported by investors.

After several years, the new tech has pushed the old tech out of the market almost entirely, at which point, having killed the competition, the new tech gradually increases its prices and reduces its offering (adding an even more expensive premium tier).

This results in the market place being transformed, but the initial promise of the new tech being unfulfilled.

The first proponent of this method was arguably Amazon, but plenty of others have followed suit: Uber, YouTube, Netflix, Deliveroo.

This approach to tech (or "progress") long predates Amazon it is just the conventional loss leader approach of market disruption with a new label.
The only quirk to this is over last two decades there has been an excess of "spare" capital looking for a home and hopefully returns. Coupled with market incumbents that are due to lax regulation from 2000 onwards prepared to abuse their market position.
Historically market abuses by egregious loss leader pricing to force smaller or new entrants out would be frowned upon by regulators, but with in many cases said entrants having raised vast sums of capital the argument became moot.

Amazon of the last 90's could and did engage in predatory pricing because it had billions in investment capital to burn trying to capture market share, many others of same timeframe tried this to but ultimately ran out of investor cash before reaching a semi-sustainable position. However it's primary competitors where then large and well funded, so could have decided to compete on the same terms. Some notably did at the time, Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer and later on media players, Apple with iTunes and the appstore.

[RemarkLima]

havoc said:

Google really does feel like the biggest stain on the internet right now, doesn't it?

Worse even than FB, it's got to the top and now couldn't give two sts.

Tangentially, did anyone read the FT article recently about 'ensttification' of the internet? This is a clear example...

https://www.ft.com/content/6fb1602d-a08b-4a8c-bac0...
(looks like there's no paywall)

That's a great article, thanks for sharing.

I really do think Google are an absolute crappy company, the way things have gone with Pay Per Click and how YouTube is saturated with gambling adverts is incredibly depressing.

[DeejRC]

RemarkLima said:

havoc said:

Google really does feel like the biggest stain on the internet right now, doesn't it?

Worse even than FB, it's got to the top and now couldn't give two sts.

Tangentially, did anyone read the FT article recently about 'ensttification' of the internet? This is a clear example...

https://www.ft.com/content/6fb1602d-a08b-4a8c-bac0...
(looks like there's no paywall)

That's a great article, thanks for sharing.

I really do think Google are an absolute crappy company, the way things have gone with Pay Per Click and how YouTube is saturated with gambling adverts is incredibly depressing.

I think Google do exactly what they say on the tin. You lot just want the moon on a stick and not to pay for it.

[RemarkLima]

DeejRC said:

I think Google do exactly what they say on the tin. You lot just want the moon on a stick and not to pay for it.

Not really, when paid search takes up all the real estate, they've moved goal posts, once they have everyone hooked. Sure, their house, their rules and all that, but the sttification is real

[hidetheelephants]

DeejRC said:

I think Google do exactly what they say on the tin. You lot just want the moon on a stick and not to pay for it.

"Don't be evil", but it's completely ok to pander to murderous dictators for money and be complicit in genocide.

[tangerine_sedge]

DeejRC said:

I think Google do exactly what they say on the tin. You lot just want the moon on a stick and not to pay for it.

Google are the kings of ensttification. When they launched they quickly won the web search war because they were quicker, had better search returns and had a neater (advert free) interface. Every thing they've done since has made those things worse but their shareholders significantly richer.

I'm particularly amused/annoyed by Youtube which basically secured the online video market by ignoring the legit copyright demands of established companies (whole films, TV episodes and music albums were freely available), but now they have no competitors they freely use copyright strikes as a way of controlling who can and can't release content on their platform.

[DeejRC]

OMFG...there are ads! They have "monitised" their product! The bds! How dare someone monitise something I use for free! The bds!

You kinda realise how this sounds right?

[Digga]

DeejRC said:

OMFG...there are ads! They have "monitised" their product! The bds! How dare someone monitise something I use for free! The bds!

You kinda realise how this sounds right?

Agreed. People thinking the internet was 'free' are the problem.

FWIW, between Google and Meta, as a business owner, I'd pick Google every time. Cannot even being to explain how bureaucratic, inefficient and infuriating running Facebook pages and ads accounts is. I am amazed they are taking much in the way of revenue - it's that bad.

[President Merkin]

DeejRC said:

OMFG...there are ads! They have "monitised" their product! The bds! How dare someone monitise something I use for free! The bds!

You kinda realise how this sounds right?

Yes, it sounds like you wholly fail to grasp the issues at hand. Which is a pity.

[RemarkLima]

Digga said:

DeejRC said:

OMFG...there are ads! They have "monitised" their product! The bds! How dare someone monitise something I use for free! The bds!

You kinda realise how this sounds right?

Agreed. People thinking the internet was 'free' are the problem.

FWIW, between Google and Meta, as a business owner, I'd pick Google every time. Cannot even being to explain how bureaucratic, inefficient and infuriating running Facebook pages and ads accounts is. I am amazed they are taking much in the way of revenue - it's that bad.

Did you read the article? The beef isn't that it's not free, it's that their product(s) are becoming more and more st and aggressively prevent any competition.

[havoc]

RemarkLima said:

Did you read the article? The beef isn't that it's not free, it's that their product(s) are becoming more and more st and aggressively prevent any competition.

...and the people/businesses they choose to do business with are often in direct conflict with their alleged corporate mantra.

[bitchstewie]

Hmmm.

Man, 46, arrested in connection with criminal investigation into PPE Medpro

[sugerbear]

bhstewie said:

Hmmm.

Man, 46, arrested in connection with criminal investigation into PPE Medpro

Too young to be Micheal Gove or Doug Barrowman.. which is a shame

[redback911]

Interestingly the original Michelle Mone PPE £200m PPE thread seems to have been removed. Can anyone else find it, not showing up in my initial PH searches.

Is it far fetched that Mone's legal team might be trying to remove discussion from various Internet sites and asked PH to remove the thread? I'm sure Mone would want her innocence to be discussed, and not try to silence discussion.

In other news...

"Mone accuses Covid inquiry of 'cover-up'"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8mr2kz222o

"Tory peer Michelle Mone at centre of PPE scandal brands Covid inquiry "a blatant betrayal of transparency and justice"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/michelle-mo...

Edited by redback911 on Thursday 13th March 21:03