Cable Forum

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)

Damien 25-06-2021 08:44

The Hancock Affair
 
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/153880...air-with-aide/

The Sun has a story that Hancock is having an affair with his aide.

What might make this worse, and more in the public interest, is that there were already accusations that he gave her this job because she was a University friend of his and a lobbyist.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...-pal-tppg75t5c

jfman 25-06-2021 10:09

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
I’m more interested in who fed him to The Sun. Johnson or Dom?

Tory corruption has been normalised to the extent the fact he got her a job/contract just makes him one of many.

heero_yuy 25-06-2021 11:34

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
If the pictures are anything to go by there's not much social distancing going on there. :erm:

But like Cummings, it's do as I say not as I do.

daveeb 25-06-2021 11:45

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Good to see him working tirelessley and ramping up his effort. I'm sure Mrs Hancock will be receiving an entirely plausible explanation.

Damien 25-06-2021 11:57

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36084277)
If the pictures are anything to go by there's not much social distancing going on there. :erm:

But like Cummings, it's do as I say not as I do.

That might also be part of any excuse to can him. He did say it was right for Professor Ferguson to resign over his affair which broke the lockdown rules he helped advise. So why shouldn't Hancock resign over breaking the rules he, as a Minister, put into place?

Although personally, I don't actually care if he broke lockdown rules here. It's more the conflict of interest of using Government funds to hire her which already looked a bit dodgy before this.

Hugh 25-06-2021 12:08

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
And who leaked the internal CCTV photos?

heero_yuy 25-06-2021 12:16

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
The Sun article just says a whistleblower.

Coincedentally the Sun website has just gone down.

Damien 25-06-2021 14:16

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
He admits to breaking social distancing 'guidelines': https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57612441

He is not admitting to breaking the law though.

Mick 25-06-2021 14:29

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Shag wives. :rofl:

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Damien 25-06-2021 14:41

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
The one I saw was: Hands, Face, Come back to my Place.

Mick 25-06-2021 14:44

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
BREAKING: Downing Street said the Prime Minister has accepted Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s apology for breaching social distancing guidelines and “considers the matter closed.

Unprecedented to see a major cabinet minister stay on with such sleaze trailing in his path.

heero_yuy 25-06-2021 14:54

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36084298)

Unprecedented to see a major cabinet minister stay on with such sleaze trailing in his path.

I wonder what he's got on Boris? :scratch:

Damien 25-06-2021 14:59

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36084299)
I wonder what he's got on Boris? :scratch:

Well Johnson can hardly fire him for having an affair or putting the women he is having an affair with on the public payroll can he? :shocked:

Pierre 25-06-2021 15:43

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
I'm surprised he had the time.

jfman 25-06-2021 15:47

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36084296)
Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Shag wives. :rofl:

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Is that a Moderator instruction ;)

1andrew1 25-06-2021 16:17

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36084297)
The one I saw was: Hands, Face, Come back to my Place.

The one I saw was he's just one affair and four children away from being Prime Minister. :D

Hugh 25-06-2021 16:52

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36084296)
Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Shag wives. :rofl:

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Makes you wonder what was happening out of shot below the screen when he was doing those Zoom TV interviews… :naughty:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1624632752

Hugh 25-06-2021 17:13

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36084297)
The one I saw was: Hands, Face, Come back to my Place.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1624633893

His explanation*

Quote:

“On Thursday evening after a successful day of saving lives and protecting the NHS, I walked in to my office to see Gina choking on a throat swab from our world beating test and trace kits. I immediately tried to dislodge it with my tongue to save her life…”
*not really…

Mad Max 25-06-2021 17:22

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Would have been an even better picture if she'd been on her knees...:D

Taf 25-06-2021 17:39

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
*Yes I like Gina Colada, and getting caught by The Sun*

RichardCoulter 25-06-2021 17:50

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Eat out to help out.

OLD BOY 25-06-2021 19:27

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36084322)
Eat out to help out.

Yuk!

Maggy 25-06-2021 20:15

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
I don’t care who he sleeps with. I just want him to return all the PPE monies.

OLD BOY 25-06-2021 20:35

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36084334)
I don’t care who he sleeps with. I just want him to return all the PPE monies.

The contractors who supplied deficient PPE should be required to pay us back. It should not come out of taxpayers’ money.

Damien 25-06-2021 22:41

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
The Met police won't investigate any COVID rule-breaking because it would be retrospective: https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/stat...01234361905153

If someone had informed them Hancock might be breaking the law before he did it then I guess they could do something....

Hugh 25-06-2021 22:47

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Every investigation into a crime is retrospective, this isn’t Minority Report!

Have the Met now got a Pre-Crime Unit?

https://i.gifer.com/Cn2A.gif

Carth 25-06-2021 22:54

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084385)
Every investigation into a crime is retrospective, this isn’t Minority Report!

Have the Met now got a Pre-Crime Unit?

Stop & Search? ;)

Hugh 26-06-2021 10:52

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57619721

Quote:

Cabinet colleagues of Mr Hancock have defended the health secretary.

Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick told BBC Radio's 4 Any Questions programme: "There's a task to be done, Matt is on the job doing that, and I think we should allow him to get on with the job."

He added: "The rules have been hard. It is everybody's duty to follow the rules, but equally I've not been somebody who has criticised and condemned people when they've made mistakes."
That would be the Robert Jenrick who, as the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary was forced to explain himself in April last year after travelling more than an hour to visit his parents despite warning people to remain at home, and was also criticised for travelling 150 miles from his London property to his Herefordshire home from where he travelled to his parents' home in Shropshire…

In other unrelated news, Fred West defended Harold Shipman, pointing out what he did out of work shouldn’t reflect on the good job he did as a Doctor…

OLD BOY 26-06-2021 11:34

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084403)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57619721



That would be the Robert Jenrick who, as the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary was forced to explain himself in April last year after travelling more than an hour to visit his parents despite warning people to remain at home, and was also criticised for travelling 150 miles from his London property to his Herefordshire home from where he travelled to his parents' home in Shropshire…

In other unrelated news, Fred West defended Harold Shipman, pointing out what he did out of work shouldn’t reflect on the good job he did as a Doctor

Except that Matt Hancock broke no laws - only guidelines. We all do it..

Angua 26-06-2021 11:48

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
No thought for Martha Hancock or Oliver Tress in all this.

jfman 26-06-2021 12:05

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084407)
Except that Matt Hancock broke no laws - only guidelines. We all do it..

A principled stand for a politician telling others to follow the same guidelines.

1andrew1 26-06-2021 12:20

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084407)
Except that Matt Hancock broke no laws - only guidelines. We all do it..

With power comes responsibility. You are always held to higher standards. If you behaved as Matt Hancock did, it wouldn't be plastered over the media.

---------- Post added at 11:20 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 36084409)
No thought for Martha Hancock or Oliver Tress in all this.

I'm sure everyone feels dreadfully sorry for them both, I certainly do. But as it's not disputed people aren't discussing that aspect.

Pierre 26-06-2021 12:25

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36084413)
A principled stand for a politician telling others to follow the same guidelines.

In this we are in agreement. It’s gross hypocrisy and if he had any moral fibre whatsoever he would step down instead of trying to cling on to his job. He has enjoyed being the centre of attention and the power the last 18 months and having to disappear from the TV onto the back-benches is too much for his ego to take.

But such is the confidence of the Tories and any lack of credible opposition that believe they can do anything they please and get away with it.......and they’re probably right.

jfman 26-06-2021 13:11

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36084416)
In this we are in agreement. It’s gross hypocrisy and if he had any moral fibre whatsoever he would step down instead of trying to cling on to his job. He has enjoyed being the centre of attention and the power the last 18 months and having to disappear from the TV onto the back-benches is too much for his ego to take.

But such is the confidence of the Tories and any lack of credible opposition that believe they can do anything they please and get away with it.......and they’re probably right.

Fundamentally the Tories have successfully shifted the dial on what is, and isn’t, acceptable conduct in a public office (and use of public funds) for the vast majority of the population.

I dare say 20 years ago, possibly even 10, there’s about five sackable offences here regardless of which party it is or which party you support. And it wouldn’t even be contentious on a public forum.

And yes, the opposition being crap helps.

1andrew1 26-06-2021 13:21

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Anyone remember what Hancock said about Professor Neil Ferguson?
Quote:

The UK health secretary has said he would back the police in any action they wish to take over Prof Neil Ferguson breaking social distancing rules by having a woman visit him at his home.

Ferguson, an epidemiologist who has helped shape the government’s response to coronavirus and who advocated the lockdown, made the right decision to resign, Matt Hancock told Sky News.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...er-coronavirus

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36084416)
In this we are in agreement. It’s gross hypocrisy and if he had any moral fibre whatsoever he would step down instead of trying to cling on to his job. He has enjoyed being the centre of attention and the power the last 18 months and having to disappear from the TV onto the back-benches is too much for his ego to take.

But such is the confidence of the Tories and any lack of credible opposition that believe they can do anything they please and get away with it.......and they’re probably right.

Agreed. Governance in this country has deterioated far more than I could ever have imagined

joglynne 26-06-2021 13:52

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
I know that all the politicians listed in the following link didn't have affairs but it's still interesting to look back at all the UK political scandals since the 1890s. Sex does seem to be quite a prominent feature from the 1960's onwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...United_Kingdom

Mad Max 26-06-2021 14:04

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36084413)
A principled stand for a politician telling others to follow the same guidelines.

Totally agree with that, he's an absolute arse, do as we say, not as we do!

Hugh 26-06-2021 15:02

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084407)
Except that Matt Hancock broke no laws - only guidelines. We all do it..

You mean the guidelines he set up and told everyone to adhere to?

A quote from Hancock from last year
Quote:

"We couldn't be clearer that social distancing rules are there for everyone,"

OLD BOY 26-06-2021 15:46

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36084413)
A principled stand for a politician telling others to follow the same guidelines.

Are you actually aware of any principled politicians?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084432)
You mean the guidelines he set up and told everyone to adhere to?

A quote from Hancock from last year

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.

Hugh 26-06-2021 16:35

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Erm, I thought the care home funding and restructuring review was done and dusted - BoJo said in 2019
Quote:

there was a “clear plan we have prepared,”

1andrew1 26-06-2021 16:56

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
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

Was the review oven ready? :D

---------- Post added at 15:56 ---------- Previous post was at 15:51 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36084427)
Totally agree with that, he's an absolute arse, do as we say, not as we do!

Agreed. I think it will be like the Cummings saga - BoJo won't sack him now but he'll end up walking the plank in due course.

jfman 26-06-2021 17:11

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084435)
Are you actually aware of any principled politicians?

While you may be content for the rat race to the bottom many of us are not.

1andrew1 26-06-2021 17:12

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36084435)
Quite. However, the measure that I would use is capability to do the job

Capability is more than just delivering a few PowerPoint slides.

It's getting the nation to trust you and to win the argument that they need to forgo many of the things that they would like to do, like meeting loved ones and attending sporting fixtures. You just cease to be convincing if you ignore the rules that you want the rest of the country to follow. You only need to look at Tony Blair's tattered reputation after the WMD fiasco in Iraq to appreciate the difference that trust in a politician provides.

Nick Hancock knows this and that's why he said that Professor Neil Ferguson* who broke social distancing rules by having a woman visit him at his home did the right thing by resigning.

[Ferguson was the epidemiologist who helped shape the government’s response to coronavirus and who advocated the lockdown.]

Damien 26-06-2021 19:19

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
He has resigned.

nashville 26-06-2021 19:21

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Might be a couple of Divorces coming shortly

Hugh 26-06-2021 19:22

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...

heero_yuy 26-06-2021 19:23

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.

OLD BOY 26-06-2021 19:55

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084455)

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.

papa smurf 26-06-2021 20:10

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/

Hugh 26-06-2021 20:30

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.”

Mr K 26-06-2021 20:30

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.

OLD BOY 26-06-2021 20:39

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084465)
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…

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 ----------

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.

1andrew1 26-06-2021 20:42

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:

Hugh 26-06-2021 21:01

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

OLD BOY 26-06-2021 21:13

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36084478)
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 ----------



As I said earlier

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.

Carth 26-06-2021 21:14

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:

Hom3r 27-06-2021 09:37

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.

Pierre 27-06-2021 09:45

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.

spiderplant 27-06-2021 10:06

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."

Hugh 27-06-2021 10:56

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).

Maggy 27-06-2021 11:27

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36084470)
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.

:tu:

1andrew1 27-06-2021 11:49

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36084520)
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.

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

Totally agree with all the above points.

Sky News is sugesting that BoJo has lost his scapegoat. I'm not so sure. Surely BoJo can still lay a lot of the blame on Hancock. In fact, it might be easier with Hancock gone to do so.

Also lots of headlines on why Hancock had a camera in his office, with previous incumbents stating they never had one and concerns over national security being raised.
https://news.sky.com/story/trevor-ph...ation-12342819

RichardCoulter 28-06-2021 15:15

Johnson explains why he did a U turn on Hancock:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/...XRh_Z12FuDDJ0o

1andrew1 28-06-2021 17:23

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36084643)
Johnson explains why he did a U turn on Hancock:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/...XRh_Z12FuDDJ0o

Not sure he did a u-turn - Hancock resigned so he appointed his successor. :confused:

TheDaddy 28-06-2021 17:39

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Was Gove in court today or was that earlier in the month, it's getting hard to keep up with their corruption and law breaking

Mick 28-06-2021 18:14

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36084656)
Was Gove in court today or was that earlier in the month,

What has this got to do with Hancock exactly?

jfman 28-06-2021 18:50

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36084659)
What has this got to do with Hancock exactly?

The Tories ooze corruption, so when one of them gets pushed it makes you wonder what they are hiding.

Mick 28-06-2021 20:23

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Corrupt or not: They are still the better party than the racist antisemitic Labour Party or the Illiberal Undemocrats.

jfman 28-06-2021 20:29

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
It’s a low bar I’ll give it that. For a sizeable proportion of the population they’re the party that delivered Brexit at an ideological level, and I’ll kinds of incompetence and corruption can be forgiven.

TheDaddy 28-06-2021 20:30

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36084668)
Corrupt or not: They are still the better party than the racist antisemitic Labour Party or the Illiberal Undemocrats.

It's not really corrupt or not it's just plain corrupt and it'll do for them in the end just like sleeze did before

Mick 28-06-2021 20:39

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36084674)
It's not really corrupt or not it's just plain corrupt and it'll do for them in the end just like sleeze did before

It won’t, for reasons I’ve said above about who is the better choice out of Tories, Labour and Lib Dem’s. You’ve never been a Tory fan, so they could be squeaky clean and you’d still attribute corruption at them.

Pierre 28-06-2021 20:42

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36084660)
The Tories ooze corruption, so when one of them gets pushed it makes you wonder what they are hiding.

And they’ll still win Batley and Spen.

The U.K. is in danger of being a one party nation potentially for several decades, and that is not good for any democracy. You only have to look to Scotland to see how that works out for you.

jfman 28-06-2021 20:47

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36084681)
And they’ll still win Batley and Spen.

The U.K. is in danger of being a one party nation potentially for several decades, and that is not good for any democracy. You only have to look to Scotland to see how that works out for you.

Haha, it can’t be that bad if almost 50% of the public vote for it.

Free tuition fees, free prescriptions all courtesy of those generous folk in the South East of England clinging onto the days of Empire with their last breaths. God bless them.

Sephiroth 28-06-2021 20:56

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36084685)
Haha, it can’t be that bad if almost 50% of the public vote for it.

Free tuition fees, free prescriptions all courtesy of those generous folk in the South East of England clinging onto the days of Empire with their last breaths. God bless them.

"Haha" is right. Remember the EU Referendum where 52% voted Leave. A few sticky points at the edges but not bad at all.

As to the folk of the SE of England, in what way are they "clinging onto the days of empire with their last breaths"? By the way, the previous African colonies that we left with functioning administrations, justice systems, local government and clean water supply have mostly become corrupt banana republics. I can think of one, Mauritius, that comes near to something workable - except that the real colonials (South Indian origin) keep the institutions for themselves and severely depress the non-Hindu population.


Pierre 28-06-2021 20:57

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36084685)
Haha, it can’t be that bad if almost 50% of the public vote for it.

Free tuition fees, free prescriptions all courtesy of those generous folk in the South East of England clinging onto the days of Empire with their last breaths. God bless them.

Or laws introduced where you can be arrested for expressing contrary opinions in your own home, or trying to introduce laws were your child is appointed a state “guardian”.

They keep you sweet by giving titbits funded by the residents of Kent.

jfman 28-06-2021 21:00

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36084693)
Or laws introduced where you can be arrested for expressing contrary opinions in your own home, or trying to introduce laws were your child is appointed a state “guardian”.

They keep you sweet by giving titbits funded by the residents of Kent.

Well let’s be honest Pierre, 2 trillion of debt and rising nobody is actually paying for anything.

1andrew1 28-06-2021 21:21

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36084695)
Well let’s be honest Pierre, 2 trillion of debt and rising nobody is actually paying for anything.

Worse than the EU average. We just need to man up and raise taxes, there's little space to cut expenditure except on some of the fanciful PPE procurement and advisers we've seen.
https://www.cityam.com/britain-is-si...to-climb-down/

jfman 28-06-2021 21:23

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36084700)
Worse than the EU average. We just need to man up and raise taxes, there's little space to cut expenditure except on some of the fanciful PPE procurement and advisers we've seen.
https://www.cityam.com/britain-is-si...to-climb-down/

Where’s the fun in that when you can keep kicking the can down the road. ;)

Mick 28-06-2021 22:37

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Topic?

RichardCoulter 28-06-2021 23:04

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36084655)
Not sure he did a u-turn - Hancock resigned so he appointed his successor. :confused:

By U turn I meant that he was all for keeping Hancock and had accepted his apology. When even Hancock realised that his position was untenable and resigned, Johnson joined in in attacking him and said that he couldn't be allowed not to follow the rules he had introduced himself.

TheDaddy 29-06-2021 03:16

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36084680)
It won’t, for reasons I’ve said above about who is the better choice out of Tories, Labour and Lib Dem’s. You’ve never been a Tory fan, so they could be squeaky clean and you’d still attribute corruption at them.

Correct I'm not a fan of the Tories even though they're the party I've voted most for in general elections, I've never voted Labour although I would have if John Smith had lived and I did vote Liberal right up until they got a sniff of power in the coalition and never again since, I've voted UKip and even Green and come to the conclusion I don't like any of them, have no faith in any of them, Hancock isn't the exception he's the norm and like many millions of others I'm sick of them all

Hom3r 30-06-2021 11:11

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
The thing about this that me laugh is some people on my towns FB page would have called for his execution for as they said "he was breaking the law".

When these exact same people said it was guidance, and they would not wear masks, and they would still hug family despite being told not too.

heero_yuy 30-06-2021 11:51

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Quote from The Sun: Matt Hancock has faced calls from disgruntled Tories to stand down as an MP after quitting his Health Secretary role in disgrace.

The demand from his West Suffolk constituency comes days after the love rat left his wife, Martha, for his married adviser, Gina Coladangelo.

Hancock is facing furious demands to resign over his bombshell affair - as Tory stalwarts call upon the local party to de-select him, say reports.

Cllr Ian Houlder, a Tory councillor at West Suffolk Council, told the Telegraph that he has personally written to the local association chairman.

He's urged the group to de-select Hancock before the next election.

A fuming Cllr Houlder has also slammed the MP directly in a letter, telling him off about his "hypocrisy" and to "express my ire".
Looks like the knives are out for him. Serves him right.

(Telegraph link left in)

1andrew1 30-06-2021 11:54

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36084861)
Looks like the knives are out for him. Serves him right.

(Telegraph link left in)

Surely Hancock's extra-marital affair only increases his chances of becoming Prime Minister? ;)

Carth 30-06-2021 12:29

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36084863)
Surely Hancock's extra-marital affair only increases his chances of becoming Prime Minister? ;)

Surely using that as a guideline would make Wayne Rooney a candidate too ;)

1andrew1 30-06-2021 12:34

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36084870)
Surely using that as a guideline would make Wayne Rooney a candidate too ;)

It increases his chances, for sure!

GrimUpNorth 30-06-2021 20:27

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36084863)
Surely Hancock's extra-marital affair only increases his chances of becoming Prime Minister? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36084870)
Surely using that as a guideline would make Wayne Rooney a candidate too ;)

Do either of them know how many children they've got (and own up to fathering them all)? Thought that was a question on the application form :).

RichardCoulter 01-07-2021 02:35

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
Tonight's The Skewer was pretty good :D

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000xdr2

Hugh 02-07-2021 20:46

Re: The Hancock Affair
 
1 Attachment(s)
Six days ago…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-Universe.html
Quote:

SARAH VINE: The problem with the wife who's been with you for ever is that she knows you're not the Master of the Universe you purport to be

… I was struck by something Hancock told an interviewer during lockdown.

Asked about how the family had been coping, he said ‘of course, Martha’s borne the brunt of it’, adding: ‘Thank God Martha is totally wonderful in looking after the children and looking after me, and it’s really tough.’

For many people, this might sound like a compliment. And I am certain that was the intention.

But to anyone who truly understands how high-level politics works, it’s also an alarm bell. Because the dynamic it implies is that of two people on very different paths.

In many ways this exemplifies the eternal lot of the political spouse: keeping the home fires burning so the ‘Big I Am’ can do more important stuff – in this case saving the world from Covid-19.

The old ‘behind every great man there’s a woman drowning in dirty laundry’ is a cliche. But it’s true.

It is very hard to do these high-level, high-pressure, high-stakes jobs unless you have someone prepared to take up the reins in every other department of your life.

But the problem is that inevitably sets you on different tracks. You become so entrenched in your respective roles that you begin to drift apart.
Today…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1625251542

The end of a marriage is never easy, and I hope that Sarah Vine be shown the same empathy and compassion as she has shown to others…


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:05.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum