The £8.50 bar of soap used by the King
Last week a bar of soap arrived on my desk. So far, so boring. But this soap was shaped like a lemon – complete with a convincingly grainy texture – and smelt exactly how a lemon should smell: zesty and fresh.
And the brand? It was the £8.50 Lemon Soap from Bronnley, a brand that has just received a royal warrant from King Charles III as supplier of soap.
It turns out soap bars are in fashion again, after years of plastic-pump hand washes reigning supreme. In fact, it is five years ago this month since the start of the first Covid lockdown and the resultant boom in liquid washes and sanitisers.
But now we're back on soap, in a big way: the global bar soap market is estimated to grow by around £7 billion from 2024 to 2028, according to market research company Technavio.
There's something so satisfying about how well a bar of soap lathers up in your hands, plus the newer formulations don't feel skin-stripping – which I've always found very off-putting – and are mostly very moisturising.
For a product that was originally created in 1892, the Bronnley Lemon Soap has stood the test of time, and it is still produced in the UK in small batches – a rarity nowadays. It's also incredibly popular: one bar of the brand's soap is sold every four minutes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Firm linked to Baroness Bra 'must pay back £122m for faulty PPE': Government suing over Covid contract 'initiated' by Tory peer
A firm linked to Michelle Mone must repay £122million for allegedly breaching a Covid PPE contract, a court heard yesterday. The bra tycoon had recommended PPE Medpro, which went on to provide 25 million 'faulty' surgical gowns. The consortium, led by the Tory peer's husband Doug Barrowman, was awarded contracts by the former Conservative administration during the pandemic. PPE Medpro is now being sued by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), with Government lawyers claiming the gowns couldn't be used because they were not sterile. Baroness Mone and the firm both deny any wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, plus an additional £8,648,691 for transporting and storing the items. PPE Medpro said it 'categorically denies' breaching the contract, with its lawyers claiming the company has been 'singled out for unfair treatment'. Opening the trial, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: 'This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns.' Mr Stanley said in written submissions the 'initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone', with contract discussions then going through one of the firm's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained 'active throughout' negotiations, he said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had 'years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains'. But he said Baroness Mone's communications were not part of this case, which was 'simply about compliance'. He added: 'The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody.' In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with almost £122million paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the firm it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage. Mr Stanley said 99.9999 per cent of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract. The DHSC claims the deal also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise them using a 'validated process', attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said 'none of those things happened', and that of 140 gowns tested for sterility, 103 failed. He added that the DHSC 'was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs'. Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the 'only plausible reason' for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to 'the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject' after delivery. He said testing was done several months after the gowns were rejected, and that the samples were not 'representative of the whole population'. Mr Samek described the DHSC's claim as 'contrived and opportunistic', with PPE Medpro 'made the fall guy for a catalogue of failures... and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money'. Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence during the five-week trial. A PPE Medpro spokesman said it 'categorically denies breaching its obligations' and will 'robustly defend' the claim.
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Firm linked to bra tycoon Michelle Mone begins court battle over dodgy Covid kit
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A FIRM linked to bra tycoon Michelle Mone has begun a court battle to keep £122million it received for dodgy Covid protection kit. UK health chiefs are suing PPE Medpro — which Baroness Mone, 53, and her husband Doug Barrowman, 60, both from Glasgow, had denied for years they were involved with 3 A firm linked to bra tycoon Michelle Mone will appear in court Credit: Corbis 3 The bra tycoon and husband Doug Barrowman Credit: Getty 3 Michelle Mone ahead of the State Opening of Parliament Credit: PA The High Court in London was told 25million surgical gowns had been rejected as unsuitable for the NHS as it was deemed 'non-sterile' with 'invalid technical labelling'. It was later revealed that Baroness Mone had lobbied Tory ministers on behalf of the consortium. Both deny wrongdoing, as do Medpro over gowns supplied in 2020. Paul Stanley KC, for the Department of Health and Social Care, said 'initial contact with the firm came through Baroness Mone' and she remained 'active throughout'. But he added her communications were 'not part of this case', which was 'about compliance'. PPE Medpro won two contracts worth over £200million via the UK Government's 'VIP lane' procurement process. TELLY HOST'S SHOCK By Matt Bendoris BBC host Laura Kuenssberg has revealed the interview that 'sticks' with her the most is when Michelle Mone confessed to being a liar. Scots bra tycoon Mone spent two years fiercely denying through an army of lawyers any involvement with the firm PPE Medro, which had earned over £200million worth of Government contracts to supply face masks and surgical gowns during the Covid pandemic. But in 2023 it was revealed that the Tory life peer and her three adult children had received £29million from the company via her second husband Doug Barrowman. That led to a 'Prince Andrew-style' TV showdown with the politics presenter on her weekly show Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. Appearing alongside Barrowman, 60, Baroness Mone, 53, made the jaw-dropping confession: 'I can't see what we've done wrong. Lying to the press is not a crime.' Read more HERE It was later revealed Mr Barrowman had received more than £65million in profits from the contracts. And he confirmed he transferred £29million from the firm into a trust benefiting Baroness Mone and her three children. Neither the Tory peer nor her husband are expected to give evidence during the trial. The UK Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract plus transport and storage expenses. Trial continues. Carol Vorderman reignites feud with ex-pal Michelle Mone in furious rant on This Morning Meanwhile Mone's ex-lawyer has denied telling her to lie about links to a scandal-hit firm. Jonathan Coad insisted the Scots bra tycoon's allegation that he did was 'not true'. Baroness Mone, 53, blamed him for her three-year refusal to confirm her connection to PPE Medpro — given £200million for Covid protection kit and now being probed by cops. Mr Coad, 67, said: 'I did not advise her she should keep her involvement secret. "The suggestion she did so by taking the advice of her lawyers is just not true. "To have Baroness Mone make allegations against me of serious impropriety was potentially very damaging."
Wales Online
10 hours ago
- Wales Online
Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE, High Court hears
Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for 'faulty' PPE, High Court hears PPE Medpro is being sued for an alleged breach of contract over the supply of PPE during the Covid pandemic, with the Government claiming the gowns were unusable The company in court is linked to Baroness Mone (Image: PA Archive/PA Images ) A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were "faulty" because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Any wrongdoing has been denied. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it "categorically denies" breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company had been "singled out for unfair treatment". Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: "This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. Article continues below "It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns." Mr Stanley said in written submissions the "initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone", with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained "active throughout" the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had "years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains". But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were "not part of this case", which was "simply about compliance". He said: "The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody." In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October, 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December, 2020, and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a "validated process", attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said "none of those things happened", with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: "Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. "On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs." In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the "only plausible reason" for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to "the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject", after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not "representative of the whole population", meaning "no proper conclusions may be drawn". He said the DHSC's claim was "contrived and opportunistic" and PPE Medpro had been "made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors" by the department. He said: "It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. "In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money." He also said there was a "delicious irony" that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had "zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case". Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company "categorically denies breaching its obligations" and will "robustly defend" the claim. Article continues below The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
