Comments on: Gilligan strikes again! http://www.wordsdept.co.uk/2007/12/16/gilligan-strikes-again/ <h2>A words-based weblog by Manchester journalist David Quinn</h2> Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:52:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Robin http://www.wordsdept.co.uk/2007/12/16/gilligan-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-3039 Robin Thu, 01 May 2008 12:12:50 +0000 http://www.wordsdept.co.uk/2007/12/16/gilligan-strikes-again/#comment-3039 Worth reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/30/pressandpublishing.london08 Worth reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/30/pressandpublishing.london08

]]> By: andrew gilligan http://www.wordsdept.co.uk/2007/12/16/gilligan-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-1508 andrew gilligan Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:09:52 +0000 http://www.wordsdept.co.uk/2007/12/16/gilligan-strikes-again/#comment-1508 It's not that complicated. You obviously haven't read as far as the bit in my O'Loughlin story where it makes crystal clear that the £250k payment "fell through after the liquidator vetoed it." You have also misunderstood the email the Mayor quotes from. It shows Jasper claiming to have had doubts in 2005 about the *original award* of the contract to his friend, but now arguing strongly for his friend not to be sacked, as the LDA wanted to do. Only a week after that email, on May 1 2006, was the figure of £250k offered. The £250k was an extra over and above the £345k that Jasper's friend had already taken. You might also like to look at a story on our website, standard.co.uk, today in which the LDA's former programme manager of the O'Loughlin programme, Brenda Stern, goes on the record to say: "Everything the Standard reported about that programme and that contract was correct. I cannot understand why the Mayor is denying the truth." Nor is this the only allegation we make: the main allegation (on December 5) was that £2.5 million in City Hall cash had been funnelled to organisations run by friends of Lee Jasper; organisations which have done very little, or in some cases nothing, with the money; organisations that have failed in several cases to account for the money. Ken hasn't denied any of these allegations at all. It’s not that complicated. You obviously haven’t read as far as the bit in my O’Loughlin story where it makes crystal clear that the £250k payment “fell through after the liquidator vetoed it.”

You have also misunderstood the email the Mayor quotes from. It shows Jasper claiming to have had doubts in 2005 about the *original award* of the contract to his friend, but now arguing strongly for his friend not to be sacked, as the LDA wanted to do. Only a week after that email, on May 1 2006, was the figure of £250k offered. The £250k was an extra over and above the £345k that Jasper’s friend had already taken.

You might also like to look at a story on our website, standard.co.uk, today in which the LDA’s former programme manager of the O’Loughlin programme, Brenda Stern, goes on the record to say: “Everything the Standard reported about that programme and that contract was correct. I cannot understand why the Mayor is denying the truth.”

Nor is this the only allegation we make: the main allegation (on December 5) was that £2.5 million in City Hall cash had been funnelled to organisations run by friends of Lee Jasper; organisations which have done very little, or in some cases nothing, with the money; organisations that have failed in several cases to account for the money. Ken hasn’t denied any of these allegations at all.

]]>