Cable Forum - The Hancock Affair

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - The Hancock Affair (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33710166)

Re: The Hancock Affair

https://apple.news/Aebccyk-dQsWOl69iONwsMQ[COLOR="Silver"]

Quote:

Matt Hancock resigned from the cabinet tonight after damaging details of his conduct over his affair with aide Gina Coladangelo were revealed.

The health secretary fell on his sword after fellow cabinet ministers and MPs said his position was untenable and friends told him the only way to save his political career was to throw in the towel.

Hancock told Boris Johnson he was resigning last night after he was informed that he was facing the prospect of a police investigation into whether he broke the law by kissing and fondling his adviser while the public was banned from hugging their loved ones.

Michael Gove, the cabinet office minister, Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, and Nadhim Zahawi, the vaccines minister are all in the running to succeed him but Johnson will wait to make an appointment.

Support for the health secretary had been leaching away after it emerged that Hancock told his wife he was leaving her on Thursday evening shortly after he learned that his affair with married female aide Gina Coladangelo was about to be exposed.

Martha Hancock had no idea her husband was having an affair with his university friend until the health secretary broke the news and announced that their marriage was over.

More to follow...

Re: The Hancock Affair

It was only a matter of time. Once you have to rely on the endorsement of the leader your time is limited.

Re: The Hancock Affair

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084455)

https://apple.news/Aebccyk-dQsWOl69iONwsMQ[COLOR="Silver"]

I trust that makes you happy, Hugh.

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:53 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36084457)

It was only a matter of time. Once you have to rely on the endorsement of the leader your time is limited.

That's right. Once you are 'unassailable' you are toast.

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084440)

Erm, I thought the care home funding and restructuring review was done and dusted - BoJo said in 2019

The overall plan was, but not the detail.

Re: The Hancock Affair

After viewing the video it's clear mr Hancock is practising to become a contestant on strictly come dancing.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/153972...a-coladangelo/

Re: The Hancock Affair

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084435)

Are you actually aware of any principled politicians?

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:37 ----------

Quite. However, the measure that I would use is capability to do the job.

Of course he was wrong to breach the guidelines. However, in the scheme of things, this is the least of our genuine worries. If you have never breached the guidelines, you are one of a small number of people, I would suggest.

I would far rather that Matt Hancock pursued the coronavirus plan to its conclusion and then got on with the care home funding and restructuring review. That’s what we should be talking about because that is what matters.

I would suggest you are wrong, and I would further suggest that this is the self-justifying excuse used by those who do breach the rules, by telling themselves "well, everybody’s doing it, so it’s alright if I do it", especially those who disagreed with the guidelines in the first place…

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084459)

I trust that makes you happy, Hugh.

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:53 ----------

That's right. Once you are 'unassailable' you are toast.

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

The overall plan was, but not the detail.

That does not jibe with your previous post, which stated

Quote:

got on with the care home funding and restructuring review

That’s not how planning works - the review of "where are we now" happens first, which identifies needs, issues, non-functional requirements, high-level budgets, resource requirements, and timescales. From those, a plan is put together.

Review current state first, then agree future state, then put together a plan to deliver future state - that’s the normal process.

BoJo said two years ago

Quote:

“We will fix the crisis in social care once and for all - with a clear plan we have prepared.”

Re: The Hancock Affair

Gobsmacked he's gone after the brilliant job he's been doing. Track and trace, PPE, only 128k dead (he's beat anyone else in Europe on that one).

If only he could have had the affair 12 months ago, a few thousand might have been saved. Weird that's its an affair that caused him to resign and not the crap job he's been doing. Sums this Govt. up.

Re: The Hancock Affair

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084465)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084465)

That does not jibe with your previous post, which stated

That’s not how planning works - the review of "where are we now" happens first, which identifies needs, issues, non-functional requirements, high-level budgets, resource requirements, and timescales. From those, a plan is put together.

Review current state first, then agree future state, then put together a plan to deliver future state - that’s the normal process.

BoJo said two years ago

I think you are being unnecessarily pedantic. I always assumed that we were talking about an overall plan. Since when have such plans proposed so far in advance included the kind of detail you expect?

It was a plan, that is all, and plans have to be fine-tuned and implemented.

Re: The Hancock Affair

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084471)

Just for the record, I don’t think it’s right to break sensible rules. However, when rules don’t make sense, many people will ignore them.

Are you suggesting that it was acceptable for Hancock to break his own rules on the basis that they weren't sensible? :confused:

Re: The Hancock Affair

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084471)

Everyone I know has breached the guidelines in one way or the other, and I dare say you have as well unless you are one of those annoying perfectionists who washes all their shopping and puts it into quarantine before using it.

Just for the record, I don’t think it’s right to break sensible rules. However, when rules don’t make sense, many people will ignore them.

---------- Post added at 19:39 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

I think you are being unnecessarily pedantic. I always assumed that we were talking about an overall plan. Since when have such plans proposed so far in advance included the kind of detail you expect?

It was a plan, that is all, and plans have to be fine-tuned and implemented.

But even a high level plan needs a reasonable amount of information to base initial estimates and a high-level plan on, which is why most Major Programmes have an initial "Discovery" phase, where you meet stakeholders and suppliers to gather these - this has not happened for Social Care.

"Pedantic"? - I have 30 years of Programme & Project Management experience - you can’t just "magic up" a high level plan without the appropriate information.

---------- Post added at 20:01 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084471)

Everyone I know has breached the guidelines in one way or the other, and I dare say you have as well unless you are one of those annoying perfectionists who washes all their shopping and puts it into quarantine before using it.

Just for the record, I don’t think it’s right to break sensible rules. However, when rules don’t make sense, many people will ignore them.

---------- Post added at 19:39 ---------- Previous post was at 19:35 ----------

I think you are being unnecessarily pedantic. I always assumed that we were talking about an overall plan. Since when have such plans proposed so far in advance included the kind of detail you expect?

It was a plan, that is all, and plans have to be fine-tuned and implemented.

As I said earlier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
I would suggest you are wrong, and I would further suggest that this is the self-justifying excuse used by those who do breach the rules, by telling themselves "well, everybody’s doing it, so it’s alright if I do it", especially those who disagreed with the guidelines in the first place…

Re: The Hancock Affair

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084478)

I’m sorry to be pedantic myself, but you didn’t answer the question. Can you honestly say that you have always followed the Covid guidelines? Really?

As far as the plan is concerned, I don’t think many people would have expected it to be as detailed as you are suggesting.

---------- Post added at 20:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

It looks like Sajid Javid will replace Matt Hancock.

Re: The Hancock Affair

Anyone else now expecting a flurry of 'revealing' texts and transcripts pointing fingers at 'useless & incompetent' party members?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084484)

It looks like Sajid Javid will replace Matt Hancock.

oh gaaawd :dozey:

Re: The Hancock Affair

Matt Hancock broke NO law.

The person who leaked the Video DID, they broke the OSA.

But pople seem more interested in him.

Re: The Hancock Affair

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084484)

I’m sorry to be pedantic myself, but you didn’t answer the question. Can you honestly say that you have always followed the Covid guidelines? Really?
.

It’s an irrelevance OB, Hugh didn’t make the guidelines. Hancock has to be held to a higher standard. It’s the same reason people lost their minds over Cummings.

I think, apart from the vaccine procurement and roll out, the government has handled Covid poorly and I’m glad he’s gone.

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36084519)

Matt Hancock broke NO law.

But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a colossal **** that had it coming though.

Re: The Hancock Affair

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36084519)

Matt Hancock broke NO law

That's not what a barrister thinks here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/57611369

Quote:

There was an exception for work purposes but only if the gathering was "reasonably necessary".

"I cannot see how that exception could apply in the circumstances," Adam Wagner, a barrister from Doughty Street Chambers who is an expert on the lockdown restrictions told BBC Reality Check.

"Based on what we know, this seems to me to have been an illegal gathering."

Re: The Hancock Affair

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...ness-wrm33djfn

Quote:

Matt Hancock faces an investigation after using a personal email account instead of an official address during the pandemic in a breach of government guidelines.

Since March last year the former health secretary has routinely used a private account to conduct government business, concealing information from his own officials and potentially the public, according to documents obtained by The Sunday Times.

It means that the government does not hold records of much of Hancock’s decision-making, including negotiating multimillion-pound PPE contracts, setting up the £37 billion test and trace programme and overseeing the government’s care homes strategy.

The disclosure of Hancock’s secret account appears in minutes of a meeting between senior officials at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in December. Cabinet Office guidance states that ministers should use official email accounts in order to ensure that there is evidence of important decisions and of proper internal scrutiny...

… Hancock, 42, is also accused of conflicts of interest after appointing Gina Coladangelo, 43, as his media adviser and a director of his department, earning £15,000 a year. However, according to leaked documents, he may have hidden details of their official dealings and his wider conduct in office.

The minutes record that David Williams, the department’s second permanent secretary, had warned about Hancock’s conduct, saying that he “only” deals with his private office “via Gmail account”. He stated that “the SOS [secretary of state] does not have a DHSC inbox”.

Williams disclosed that officials could not freely access key evidence or documents, saying the “threshold for requesting this personal account would need to be substantial”.

He added that Lord Bethell, Hancock’s ally and a junior health minister, engaged in the same practice, saying he “routinely uses his personal inbox and the majority of [approvals for contracts] would have been initiated from this inbox”.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084484)

I’m sorry to be pedantic myself, but you didn’t answer the question. Can you honestly say that you have always followed the Covid guidelines? Really?

As far as the plan is concerned, I don’t think many people would have expected it to be as detailed as you are suggesting.

---------- Post added at 20:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

It looks like Sajid Javid will replace Matt Hancock.

Once again, you completely miss the point - even a high level plan needs some planning (otherwise it isn’t a plan, it’s somebody’s ideas about something that have not been discussed or agreed).

You appear to be a follower of the Baldrick planning Methodology, rather than the industry standards of Agile or Waterfall…

In answer to your question about following guidelines, we have tried at all times to follow them, and never knowingly broke them.

An example - my wife is finishing 10 days self-isolation tonight, because she was contacted by the App to say she had been in contact with someone who had tested "positive"; now, we’ve both been double-jabbed (second one over two weeks ago), both went to a walk through PCR testing centre (both tested negative), but she still self-isolated because it’s not about us, it’s about reducing the risk to others. She’s not held her grandson over that time (we normally look after him two days a week).