Universal Credit

  • Thread starter Deleted member 20720
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 20720

Guest
So it transpires that the government has been gagging charities and service providers to vulnerable people from speaking out about the impact of universal credit on people. The implication being that without an NDA their funding would be in jeopardy.

This is after it was disclosed that hauliers had also been made subject to an NDA after highlighting the difficulties they will face post Brexit with the imposition of a new border system.

Is this government now an authoritarian one? Is this normal?
 


So it transpires that the government has been gagging charities and service providers to vulnerable people from speaking out about the impact of universal credit on people. The implication being that without an NDA their funding would be in jeopardy.

This is after it was disclosed that hauliers had also been made subject to an NDA after highlighting the difficulties they will face post Brexit with the imposition of a new border system.

Is this government now an authoritarian one? Is this normal?
What would make the hauliers feel obliged to sign an NDA?
 
So it transpires that the government has been gagging charities and service providers to vulnerable people from speaking out about the impact of universal credit on people. The implication being that without an NDA their funding would be in jeopardy.

This is after it was disclosed that hauliers had also been made subject to an NDA after highlighting the difficulties they will face post Brexit with the imposition of a new border system.

Is this government now an authoritarian one? Is this normal?

Yes they are and have been getting worse but no one seems to care
 
Couldn't see it being either of those. It's effectively blackmail.

The National Road Haulage Association confirmed the existence of multiple NDA’s at a Brexit committee meeting and latterly to sky news on October 10th.

Blackmail is a very strong word and not one I’d use. Perhaps the government just don’t agree and know better?
 
nonsense, how could the government exclude a company from tendering if they spoke out against UC.

It was contingent to contracts that they were awarded between 2016 and 2017. There’s an article in today’s times about it.

On closer scrutiny it’s an odd one but maybe not as extraordinary as I’d first though. I’ve seen similar commercial agreements that provide for reputational risk.

I suppose by a provider breaking this clause that would automatically bar them from then competing for future tenders from HMG?

Therefore it’s implied in the contracts they have but then again, my interpretation might be wrong.

Have you got a source?

Faisal Islam at sky news tweeted it out in early August. Maybe government just don’t want hauliers undermining negotiations?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Back
Top