18
Will UK taxpayers get their £122m back from PPE Medpro?
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
18 points (95.0% liked)
United Kingdom
5471 readers
370 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That assumes they had no costs in producing or acquiring the not fit for purpose goods. And that they knew the goods were unfit.
A fraud case would be more about proving they knew the goods would not be fit for purpose. Failing to pay back money when if they did not know. Is just breach of contract.
Proving there knowledge before the event. And the cost of providing the goods. Or the companies wealth to payback the costs of operation while obtaining and shipping the goods. Are all extremely complex to do.