RootsChat.Com
General => The Stay Safe Board => Topic started by: BushInn1746 on Saturday 26 June 21 18:38 BST (UK)
-
Matt Hancock has resigned as Secretary of State.
-
I wonder if he'll resign from his marriage too. Or perhaps he'll be sacked from it.
-
Going to be difficult to find someone of unadulterated purity to take the position.
I was going to say impeccable but I’m not sure of the spelling
Mike
-
Sajid Javid
-
I wonder if he'll resign from his marriage too. Or perhaps he'll be sacked from it.
Apparently he told his wife of his affair just hours before the picture of him was published.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-57626422
-
Sad day for his wife and children (and the other woman's, too). As some of the gaudier papers put it, the "love rat" in charge failed to step up to the plate and sack the other "love rat". What hypocrites!
(Hope this is not too political for RC. :-[)
-
Did he do the honourable thing and "fell on his sword" or was he pushed onto it ;D ;D ;D
Proves the point that no matter who you are keep your extra marital affairs out of the Work Place. :-X
I feel sorry for his wife and children and hope she takes him to the cleaners in the Divorce Courts.
Sajid Javid take note.
Dorrie
-
It is very sad and a terrible shock for any unsuspecting families.
Apparently, Coladangelo has quit too
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9729673/Cheating-aide-Gina-Coladangelo-quits-15-000-Department-Health-board-role-affair.html
-
Another example of a midlife crisis?
-
Today's press
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/matt-hancock-used-private-email-account-for-government-business-wrm33djfn
https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/27/matt-hancock-affair-new-questions-over-secret-email-account-14834789/
-
Sadly the Sunday times will not let me see these allegations unless I agree to let them search my computer for personal info, and insert tracking devices on it.
Smacks of hypocrisy to me,
Mike
-
Don't worry, Mike. I'm sure it will all come spilling out via the media. Could this be DC's revenge? Who was this disgruntled whistleblower and who installed the security camera?
-
Sad day for his wife and children (and the other woman's, too). As some of the gaudier papers put it, the "love rat" in charge failed to step up to the plate and sack the other "love rat". What hypocrites!
(Hope this is not too political for RC. :-[)
On another forum I follow someone has made the interesting observation that in these more enlightened times we are totally accepting of people rights to make their own choices about their sexuality, relationships and their adherence to monogamy/fidelity.
...except when it comes to married heterosexual men.
None of us know how much the respective families knew about the relationship, and whether or not it was something that the partners had consented to. There are a lot of assumptions being made that it involved 'lies' and 'cheating', but nobody other than the individuals concerned know whether or not that is the case.
The families could be 'sad' - but possibly only because what was a private matter they were all fully aware of* has become the stuff of gossip mongers, and their personal lives are being made very public. :(
The tone of the coverage, and long-lens pictures of cars being loaded, makes me wonder who the 'hypocrites' really are in a situation like this.
(Likewise I also hope this is not too political)
*Hancock and Coladangelo knew each other at university. There's every possibility the situation is not dissimilar to that of our future King (and Defender of the Faith) and his present wife. Most of us have long since moved on to not thinking of him as a faithless adulterer and she his 'mistress'.
-
Is it really to do with an affair? What does that matter to anybody (apart maybe from those personally involved).
Surely its all to do with acting against the self distancing guidelines that the rest of us are required to follow! A la Cummings!
Pheno
-
For once I am in agreement with Nic :) :)
We are not by any means out of the wood yet, our new health minister now must decide who lives and who dies, who must be sacrificed for the greater good.
What really matters is who is the right person for the job, not whether or not they are as fallible as the rest of us.
Mike
-
What really matters is who is the right person for the job, not whether or not they are as fallible as the rest of us.
I completely agree with this.
I found it quite ironic that in the week that Alan Turing was acknowledged on the new £50 note that a married man was hounded out of his job* for having a relationship with a woman who wasn't his wife.
*I also agree with Pheno that the issue was about him not following the guidelines (not law) that his own department had issued. Once that breach had become public he had to consider his position.
But there's a whole other discussion that could be had whether or not it was right that the breach was made public. It happened in a private place, and the images shouldn't have been published.
-
I seem to recall Matt Hancock spending a lot of time exhorting the public to "Do The Right Thing" ??
-
I seem to recall Matt Hancock spending a lot of time exhorting the public to "Do The Right Thing" ??
As he should have done. That was his job.
In helping to get the public to accept the need to "Do The Right Thing" he is likely to have contributed to saving tens of thousands of lives.
Is there anything wrong with that?
-
The resignation letter contained a couple of short admissions about breaching the guidelines followed by a lot of hot air about the wonderful NHS he has created with Boris. It would be easy to read it, quickly forget the two early references to breaching guidelines and view it as a speech talking of great personal sacrifice culminating in achievements no other could have hoped to emulate.
He stood and gave daily briefings telling the population what they should do, he wriggled and squirmed through countless interviews and throughout most of it was doing the exact opposite to what he was asking. The resignation letter doesn't admit to it but it does have "NHS" appear five times.
The media are going to lap up every morsel of the affair for days to come, the Tory party will do little to stop them as he's resigned and it's a good cover story to divert attention from whatever bad news is about to break about their day to day business.
I've been through the pain of a marriage breakup thanks to a cheating spouse and I've worked with several 'great people' who urged their colleagues to do the right thing whilst they did the opposite. I have little respect for anyone who does either of those, not that I have much for hundreds of those in Westminster anyway as many are cut from the same cloth. They will still come out of any scandal with friends in high places and rewarded with lucrative offers mere mortals can only dream of.
-
He stood and gave daily briefings telling the population what they should do, he wriggled and squirmed through countless interviews and throughout most of it was doing the exact opposite to what he was asking. The resignation letter doesn't admit to it but it does have "NHS" appear five times.
From what I understand the published video was recorded on 6 May 2021 - so only about 7 weeks ago, rather than the approx 15 months the pandemic and press briefings have been going on for.
Unless you have any earlier evidence, or know of any admission of wrongful behaviour prior to 6 May 2021, then "throughout most of it" would appear to be potentially defamatory.
Why can't we stick to facts? There's plenty of factual information about this pandemic and the government's handling of it to discuss, without the need to introduce unsubstantiated and potentially defamatory claims.
-
"except when it comes to married heterosexual men"
It's almost like a .... what do they call it? Oh, I know, a double standard. It's funny when the shoe is on the other foot.
-
When I saw the photo, the phrase "Hands, face and space" came to mind.
-
He stood and gave daily briefings telling the population what they should do, he wriggled and squirmed through countless interviews and throughout most of it was doing the exact opposite to what he was asking. The resignation letter doesn't admit to it but it does have "NHS" appear five times.
From what I understand the published video was recorded on 6 May 2021 - so only about 7 weeks ago, rather than the approx 15 months the pandemic and press briefings have been going on for.
Unless you have any earlier evidence, or know of any admission of wrongful behaviour prior to 6 May 2021, then "throughout most of it" would appear to be potentially defamatory.
Why can't we stick to facts? There's plenty of factual information about this pandemic and the government's handling of it to discuss, without the need to introduce unsubstantiated and potentially defamatory claims.
I do apologise.
In view of recent events I'm sure that as I have issued an apology that both you and Mr Hancock will consider the matter closed and the relevant Police authorities will see no need to investigate further.
-
"except when it comes to married heterosexual men"
It's almost like a .... what do they call it? Oh, I know, a double standard. It's funny when the shoe is on the other foot.
Erato, this is purely by way of a joke,
If you wear your shoes on the wrong feet,you will go round the wrong corners!
Honestly, my sister ,( she who must be obeyed! ) used to say that . ;D
Viktoria.
-
Changing the subject slightly.
The UK Doctor featured on one UK News disagreed with the reference made yesterday to being near or close to the end of this [pandemic].
The Doctor went on to say that whilst Covid is continuing to mutate somewhere in the world, this medical crisis is far from over.
Mutant Covid-19 does not need a Passport or a Boarding Pass, the latest mutation can get here in hours, or even mutate here.
Regardless of what is being said, I'll only go out to places operating safety procedures well and also continue with mask, hands and space.
----------
My Grandmother had Rheumatic Fever as a girl and the illness damaged a heart valve.
I was down with influenza as a boy and been bed bound at the top of our house (3 storeys) for a few days, so to cheer me up she purchased me a jig saw of a football player, came upstairs and sat by my bedside long enough.
My Grandmother caught it, the Doctor arrived and said it was a big mistake, she should have remained in her part of the house. I survived, but it was serious enough to kill her, at the age of 59.
Shame, my late Grandparents took precautions at risky times, but my Grandmother let her guard down just once and died.
-
Usual story, don't do as we do! Do as we tell you! But, and this is the serious question I think, do we expect too high a standard from those who govern at any and every level?
-
I seem to recall Nicola Sturgeon broke the rules, as did one of her MSPs- a lady who travelled by train knowing she had tested positive, I think. I believe it was the Mayor of Coventry ? who also broke some rules. And let's not forget the man with the dubious eyesight who is now busy criticising every action of the government, conveniently forgetting he was Boris' main adviser during most of that time.
Let's be honest, in this country you can punch someone ( John Prescott) or fiddle the expenses ( too many to mention ) but a little bit of sleaze will get you sacked every time.
I personally don't think Hancock has done a particularly good job but that is what he should be judged on, not his private life.
-
I seem to recall Nicola Sturgeon broke the rules, as did one of her MSPs- a lady who travelled by train knowing she had tested positive, I think.
....
I personally don't think Hancock has done a particularly good job but that is what he should be judged on, not his private life.
The Scottish Police charged her with culpable and reckless conduct
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55924053
travelling whilst Covid positive
----------
Private life? ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57631547
-
Usual story, don't do as we do! Do as we tell you! But, and this is the serious question I think, do we expect too high a standard from those who govern at any and every level?
It is expected that they follow the Ministerial Code.
Let's be honest, in this country you can punch someone ( John Prescott) or fiddle the expenses ( too many to mention ) but a little bit of sleaze will get you sacked every time.
I personally don't think Hancock has done a particularly good job but that is what he should be judged on, not his private life.
I think there have been several occasions where his professional capabilities have been ‘judged’ or speculated on: cronyism; care homes; high incidence of deaths, the PM’s alleged opinion of him etc but often the matter is closed or denied.
This incident, with the evidence, is perhaps the only way to remove him by those who would wish to do that.
-
This incident, with the evidence, is perhaps the only way to remove him by those who would wish to do that.
The question then is who was it that wished to do that?
Some unknown entity manipulating who gets to run the country would be far more concerning in my opinion than all the froth the media have been getting excited about in Hancock's downfall.
As much as we need open and transparent Government, we also need open and transparent opposition (with a small 'o').
-
The big part of this news is not the affair, or kiss, that is between the families concerned. The important public issue is who installed the security camera, was it a member of the Labour Party a discontented Conservative or a civil servant.
That is what needs to be investigated and the perpetrator brought to justice.
Cheers
Guy
-
When Kier Starmer became leader of The Labour Party ,he said he would not use the position for political back biting etc,
He would support Boris so we got on top of the pandemic ASAP.
I thought how refreshing!
Since when he has been very scathing and self seeking in the broader sense
of his party .
I was naive !
Viktoria.
-
Victoria,
At the moment, this is not concerning Kier Starmer or the Labour Party.
Heywood
-
The big part of this news is not the affair, or kiss, that is between the families concerned. The important public issue is who installed the security camera, was it a member of the Labour Party a discontented Conservative or a civil servant.
That is what needs to be investigated and the perpetrator brought to justice.
Cheers
Guy
I still feel that a certain DC could be playing out his revenge in this matter. He may not have placed the camera, but it's his kind of way of getting his own back. Wasn't he the one who said Hancock should have been sacked umpteen times before?
Sorry, Boris, but the matter is far from closed. How many other hidden cameras are there in Westminster, I wonder?
-
As a taxpayer and currently a part owner of the House of Commons, I expect the people I employ to concentrate on the business in hand in the place of work. I do not expect to pay people to cavort in a place of business. The man hasn't been a success in any job that he's been given and I'm pleased he's been relieved of his latest appointment.
To those people who now want to ignore current Health advice given by this man because he ignored it - I'd just say; If he jumped in the fire, would you?
-
As a taxpayer and currently a part owner of the House of Commons, I expect the people I employ to concentrate on the business in hand in the place of work.
Out of interest, what standards of behaviour would you expect from the millions of people who have been working at home during the pandemic?
If their partner comes home/goes out would you object to them exchanging a kiss or hug?
If their child needs attention would you expect them to ignore it?
The reality is the world has moved on from the attitudes of the 1950's and 60's and boundaries between work and the rest of people's lives have become blurred. If people are expected to do 'work' stuff in their 'home' time then it is quite reasonable for people to not see wrong in doing 'home' stuff when at 'work'.
There does however need to be concern about relationships within the workplace, but from what has been published so far there is nothing to suggest impropriety in this specific incident.
P.s. Taxpayers neither own the House of Commons, nor employ Ministers or Civil Servants.
-
"What interests the public is very rarely in the public interest!"
Regards
Chas
-
"What interests the public is very rarely in the public interest!"
Regards
Chas
That’s ‘us and them’ ::)
-
No matter the rights and wrongs of Mr Hancock’s departure I wonder if the new incumbent will address the real problem facing us , that is of restoring the NHS to something like it used to be.
What happened to the nightingale units, we used to have isolation hospitals for TB, why not for covid.
We used to be able to see a doctor, now you dial 111 for a recorded message saying they are too busy to take any more calls, try using the computer to self diagnose,
Mike
-
Victoria,
At the moment, this is not concerning Kier Starmer or the Labour Party.
Heywood
The Labour Party was mentioned in a post by Guy at 9-16 today prior to my post at 9-21.
His post was relevant and so was mine.
So?
Viktoria.
-
What happened to the nightingale units, we used to have isolation hospitals for TB, why not for covid.
Most of them have been decommissioned. We were extremely fortunate that Covid turned out not to be an influenza-like disease that the planning had envisaged, so they weren't needed.
The problem for the NHS now isn't dealing with Covid patients (so isolation hospitals are unnecessary) but that any person presenting themselves for treatment at a healthcare facility could have a case of asymptomatic Covid, and during their attendance at the facility could pass the infection on.
Therefore the necessity is for people seeking treatment to be tested (and isolated) prior to attendance - and/or implementation of measures to mitigate the risks within the facility (e.g. thorough cleansing between seeing each patient, or reduced numbers of patients per ward).
The latter unfortunately constrains the number of patients who can be seen/treated because of the extra time and/or space needed for each person.
This is the same reason why GPs are having to ration face-to-face care and reserve appointments for those most in need. (and, frankly, a lot of pre-Covid GP appointments were for things [e.g. contraceptive prescription renewals] that never needed to be done at a face-to-face appointment)
-
As a taxpayer and currently a part owner of the House of Commons, I expect the people I employ to concentrate on the business in hand in the place of work.
Out of interest, what standards of behaviour would you expect from the millions of people who have been working at home during the pandemic?
If their partner comes home/goes out would you object to them exchanging a kiss or hug?
If their child needs attention would you expect them to ignore it?
The reality is the world has moved on from the attitudes of the 1950's and 60's and boundaries between work and the rest of people's lives have become blurred. If people are expected to do 'work' stuff in their 'home' time then it is quite reasonable for people to not see wrong in doing 'home' stuff when at 'work'.
There does however need to be concern about relationships within the workplace, but from what has been published so far there is nothing to suggest impropriety in this specific incident.
P.s. Taxpayers neither own the House of Commons, nor employ Ministers or Civil Servants.
Ref "working from home" :
Does the mortgage stipulate that your domestic premises can be used as an office? Usually a business morgage is more expensive. (I've been there, done that).
If you're using your home as an office then you should expect to pay business rates on your telephone and other utilities. Additionally what portion of the utilities has the company you work for stated they will pay?
MPs and civil servants work for the people, thus they are employees of the people. In days of yore neither MPs nor town councillors were paid for the hours they worked, nor for their expenses.
Practically every decade they dip their hands even further into our pockets. One example being the £10K per annum each MP receives from the public purse to pay for their own IT page. Previous to this MPs had a free write up in their daily newspaper extolling their virtues and the opposition's failures.
-
Ref "working from home" :
Does the mortgage stipulate that your domestic premises can be used as an office? Usually a business morgage is more expensive. (I've been there, done that).
If you're using your home as an office then you should expect to pay business rates on your telephone and other utilities. Additionally what portion of the utilities has the company you work for stated they will pay?
How does that work if you are working from home but as an employee - you aren't actually running a business? According to articles I've read as long as you’re not altering your property considerably, such as adding an extra room to use for your business, your lender should agree to you continuing with your residential mortgage.
It is worth informing your insurance company though if you have expensive office equipment, although presumably if your employer has said you need it to work from home, they should have insured it.
I wonder if burglaries have gone down over the last year with fewer homes left unoccupied during the day?
-
Ref "working from home" :
Does the mortgage stipulate that your domestic premises can be used as an office? Usually a business morgage is more expensive. (I've been there, done that).
If you're using your home as an office then you should expect to pay business rates on your telephone and other utilities. Additionally what portion of the utilities has the company you work for stated they will pay?
Fortunately the vast majority of banks, building societies, and utility companies have more common sense than to attempt to charge people differently if they use some of the service provided to them domestically for the benefit of their employment.
No organisation I've been employed by has ever offered to pay part of my utilities bills, although in the early days some of my older colleagues got a 'telephone allowance' if they were on an on-call rota. That was phased out as they retired.
It is all part of the quid pro quo of flexible working. I never minded using some of the electricity I pay for at home to charge my work mobile - and in return wouldn't have expected to be disciplined or sacked if I plugged my personal phone in to charge at work.
MPs and civil servants work for the people, thus they are employees of the people.
No, they really aren't. As a long-time local government manager it was really tiresome dealing with entitled people demanding a member of my team should do what they were told (by the entitled person) because "I pay your wages" or "You work for me". The lack of respect shown by people demanding this or that was quite remarkable. :(
In days of yore neither MPs nor town councillors were paid for the hours they worked, nor for their expenses.
1911 was when MPs started to be paid. Up to that point it was assumed MPs would be self-funding, and therefore the role was effectively self-limiting to wealthy men who could afford to do so.
I think the majority of the population would agree the modern approach is superior and not wish to go back to those days.
The role of local government councillors has also changed. Historically they would only attend occasional meetings and have limited (usually postal) correspondence with their constituents. Now many councillors are in executive roles within the council structure, and phone and internet communication has enabled all constituents to have virtually 24/7 direct contact with their councillor. It isn't the same 'job' as it was in days of yore.
Practically every decade they dip their hands even further into our pockets. One example being the £10K per annum each MP receives from the public purse to pay for their own IT page. Previous to this MPs had a free write up in their daily newspaper extolling their virtues and the opposition's failures.
The pay and expenses of MPs are determined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), not by the MPs themselves. Members of the public are entitled to make representations to IPSA if they disagree with any specific aspect of the scheme, or to the idea of MPs being paid at all. More info here...
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/
-
How does that work if you are working from home but as an employee - you aren't actually running a business? According to articles I've read as long as you’re not altering your property considerably, such as adding an extra room to use for your business, your lender should agree to you continuing with your residential mortgage.
This is correct. Companies (in particular insurers) separate out work for an employer from working for yourself.
As it happens, I recently had to change my car insurance from Social and Domestic (only) to Social, Domestic, Commuting and employer's business [because I was doing a job involving going between sites] - the change actually resulted in a partial refund of my premium, not the increase I was expecting (from historic experience). The CS rep said this reflected changed attitudes towards the way people work now.
-
Ref "working from home" :
Does the mortgage stipulate that your domestic premises can be used as an office? Usually a business morgage is more expensive. (I've been there, done that).
If you're using your home as an office then you should expect to pay business rates on your telephone and other utilities. Additionally what portion of the utilities has the company you work for stated they will pay?
How does that work if you are working from home but as an employee - you aren't actually running a business? According to articles I've read as long as you’re not altering your property considerably, such as adding an extra room to use for your business, your lender should agree to you continuing with your residential mortgage.
It is worth informing your insurance company though if you have expensive office equipment, although presumably if your employer has said you need it to work from home, they should have insured it.
I wonder if burglaries have gone down over the last year with fewer homes left unoccupied during the day?
I think the advent of computers has blurred the lines somewhat between what constitutes an official office.
Additionally there are far less Inland Revenue and Customs Offices in towns and cities around the UK these days, thus less local Tax Inspectors and VAT Inspectors to make visits..
-
Additionally there are far less Inland Revenue and Customs Offices in towns and cities around the UK these days, thus less local Tax Inspectors and VAT Inspectors to make visits..
Fewer offices, partly because HMRC cottoned on to the idea that more employees working from (/based at) home means fewer desks, which means less expense to the taxpayer.
Or, the 'Gamekeepers' have turned 'Poacher'. :)
-
Victoria,
At the moment, this is not concerning Kier Starmer or the Labour Party.
Heywood
The Labour Party was mentioned in a post by Guy at 9-16 today prior to my post at 9-21.
His post was relevant and so was mine.
So?
Viktoria.
I am not sure what ‘So?’ means.
However, you are correct. He mentioned the ‘Labour Party, a discontented Conservative or a Civil Servant.’
-
MPs and civil servants work for the people, thus they are employees of the people.
No, they really aren't. As a long-time local government manager it was really tiresome dealing with entitled people demanding a member of my team should do what they were told (by the entitled person) because "I pay your wages" or "You work for me". The lack of respect shown by people demanding this or that was quite remarkable. :(
I think the majority of the population would agree the modern approach is superior and not wish to go back to those days.
The role of local government councillors has also changed. Historically they would only attend occasional meetings and have limited (usually postal) correspondence with their constituents. Now many councillors are in executive roles within the council structure, and phone and internet communication has enabled all constituents to have virtually 24/7 direct contact with their councillor. It isn't the same 'job' as it was in days of yore.
Practically every decade they dip their hands even further into our pockets. One example being the £10K per annum each MP receives from the public purse to pay for their own IT page. Previous to this MPs had a free write up in their daily newspaper extolling their virtues and the opposition's failures.
The pay and expenses of MPs are determined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), not by the MPs themselves. Members of the public are entitled to make representations to IPSA if they disagree with any specific aspect of the scheme, or to the idea of MPs being paid at all. More info here...
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/
ref IPSA = when do we stop laughing?
Their pronouncements are incongruous. MPs have to have an increase because "They're worth it". We have had times when the country has been on its knees, we've had "toy town money" what was practically valueless in other countries; no work for the masses; massive debts owed to international monetary funds and only lent because we are "the fifth richest country" (even with debts)
-
Additionally there are far less Inland Revenue and Customs Offices in towns and cities around the UK these days, thus less local Tax Inspectors and VAT Inspectors to make visits..
Fewer offices, partly because HMRC cottoned on to the idea that more employees working from (/based at) home means fewer desks, which means less expense to the taxpayer.
Or, the 'Gamekeepers' have turned 'Poacher'. :)
My first interaction with the Inland Revenue was in my home in the 1970s after my late husband was demobbed and as there were labour shortages, but no money to pay for increased number of workers, it meant we had to use our own initiative to earn an honest crust. After examining my books he listed all examples of transactions that needed me to pay the government some money. One was no claim could be made for transport from home to wherever the workplace was at any given time. A claim could be made from an official workplace but not from a residence. As with most government officials it took quite some time before he admitted that he was allowed to give a 10% discretion.
-
Victoria,
At the moment, this is not concerning Kier Starmer or the Labour Party.
Heywood
The Labour Party was mentioned in a post by Guy at 9-16 today prior to my post at 9-21.
His post was relevant and so was mine.
So?
Viktoria.
I am not sure what ‘So?’ means.
However, you are correct. He mentioned the ‘Labour Party, a discontented Conservative or a Civil Servant.’
-
It means why query my post and not Guy’s.?
They are both relevant given the questions re who is most likely to have planted a hidden camera in Hancock’s office ?quote author=Viktoria link=topic=850346.msg7179061#msg7179061 date=1624883169]
Victoria,
At the moment, this is not concerning Kier Starmer or the Labour Party.
Heywood
The Labour Party was mentioned in a post by Guy at 9-16 today prior to my post at 9-21.
His post was relevant and so was mine.
So?
Viktoria.
I am not sure what ‘So?’ means.
However, you are correct. He mentioned the ‘Labour Party, a discontented Conservative or a Civil Servant.’
[/quote]
Viktoria.
-
Oh I see. Thank you.
I didn’t query Guy’s post because I saw nothing to query. He was writing about the focus and was speculating, I assumed, on who installed the security camera.
-
Another example of a midlife crisis?
Personally, I have decided to postpone my midlife crisis for as long as possible. Perhaps combine it with my second childhood.
-
Another example of a midlife crisis?
Personally, I have decided to postpone my midlife crisis for as long as possible. Perhaps combine it with my second childhood.
I couldn't be bothered to have either a first or second life crisis. I went straight into Grumpy Old Woman mode ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Additionally there are far less Inland Revenue and Customs Offices in towns and cities around the UK these days, thus less local Tax Inspectors and VAT Inspectors to make visits..
I get at least one phone call from “HMRC” most days! ;D
Pinetree
-
Usual story, don't do as we do! Do as we tell you! But, and this is the serious question I think, do we expect too high a standard from those who govern at any and every level?
I accept they are human and I don't expect them to be saints. However, there are certain standards they are supposed to maintain.
7 principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
The ministerial code includes:
"proper and appropriate" relationships with colleagues;
"should ensure that no conflict arises or could reasonably be perceived to arise between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise"
"The questions about advisors that must follow the Matt Hancock affair" article 25th June by Dr. Catherine Haddon of Institute for Government.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org/blog/advisers-matt-hancock-affair
There are many issues to unpick in this situation.
-
No more than in any other work colleague situation I don't suppose.
They are just people - the same as the rest of us and I don't expect them to behave any differently.
Niaive to expect them to I feel.
Pheno
-
The big part of this news is not the affair, or kiss,
The important public issue is who installed the security camera
That is what needs to be investigated and the perpetrator brought to justice.
They are all important public issues. They all have serious implications. They should all be investigated. Until that happens people resort to speculation. The decision whether or not to hold an inquiry is the P.M.'s.
-
They are just people - the same as the rest of us and I don't expect them to behave any differently.
Niaive to expect them to I feel.
I'd rather be naive than cynical. I start from the viewpoints that most people do the right thing most of the time and that people who hold public office work for the public good.
Unfortunately I've become increasingly cynical during the last 2 years.
-
Well that is what I mean!
Why expect government ministers to behave differently. I bet that amongst groups of say 100 ministers and 100 clerical staff you would find more or less the same amount of indiscretions.
Don't expect too much and you won't be disappointed.
Pheno
-
The decision whether or not to hold an inquiry is the P.M.'s.
I see that as being a problem - he seems to think this is no big deal, as he wanted the issue closed last Friday as Matt Hancock had apologised.
-
Additionally there are far less Inland Revenue and Customs Offices in towns and cities around the UK these days, thus less local Tax Inspectors and VAT Inspectors to make visits..
I get at least one phone call from “HMRC” most days! ;D
Pinetree
lol you lucky devil you.
I used to get a visit each year from IR and VAT inspectors.
I only ever once spoke to another person who had annual visits - we both thought we were being used by new inspectors for "practice".
-
Don't expect too much and you won't be disappointed.
That leads to decreasing standards and the low calibre of national political leadership we currently endure.
Taken to the ultimate it ends in widespread corruption as happens in some countries. Populations suffer as a result.
Cynicism about politicians and government officials may discourage people from voting. Distrust in government leaves a vacuum for extremism.
:(
-
The big part of this news is not the affair, or kiss,
The important public issue is who installed the security camera
That is what needs to be investigated and the perpetrator brought to justice.
They are all important public issues. They all have serious implications. They should all be investigated. Until that happens people resort to speculation. The decision whether or not to hold an inquiry is the P.M.'s.
I think it's understandable that CCTV cameras have been installed and probably installed quite some time ago. When third parties are trying to undermine democracy why should this have been publicized? Furthermore, we must not forget that the IRA tried to bomb and kill MPs during John Major's government, thus I think it unreasonable that every Tom, Dick and Harry should know exactly when and where CCTV cameras are installed.
What should be investigated is who released the film, as their action is against the Data Protection Act and whatever other Act something like this.
-
The decision whether or not to hold an inquiry is the P.M.'s.
I see that as being a problem - he seems to think this is no big deal, as he wanted the issue closed last Friday as Matt Hancock had apologised.
Quite.
Not a good track record on inquiries. Sat on the "Russia Report" for months (until after general election) before releasing findings when there was so much else going on it didn't get the publicity it might have done earlier. Kept his advisor DC when he should have got rid of him. Didn't act on inquiry report about a cabinet minister's conduct.
Poacher/gamekeeper and cans of worms spring to mind.
-
Don't expect too much and you won't be disappointed.
That leads to decreasing standards and the low calibre of national political leadership we currently endure.
Taken to the ultimate it ends in widespread corruption as happens in some countries. Populations suffer as a result.
Cynicism about politicians and government officials may discourage people from voting. Distrust in government leaves a vacuum for extremism.
:(
My thoughts too Maiden Stone.
-
The decision whether or not to hold an inquiry is the P.M.'s.
I see that as being a problem - he seems to think this is no big deal, as he wanted the issue closed last Friday as Matt Hancock had apologised.
My view on why the PM did not dismiss him straight away is that the PM has had a chequered love life himself, thus it would be the "kettle calling the pot".
Removing the inept portfolio holder only came about because reality dawned that he had not been practicing what he had been preaching = "HANDS, FACE, SPACE"
-
I think it's understandable that CCTV cameras have been installed and probably installed quite some time ago. When third parties are trying to undermine democracy why should this have been publicized? Furthermore, we must not forget that the IRA tried to bomb and kill MPs during John Major's government, thus I think it unreasonable that every Tom, Dick and Harry should know exactly when and where CCTV cameras are installed.
IRA attacked Major's gov. by firing mortars at the Cabinet Office. Later attacks have come from outside.
A Secretary of State is not every Tom, Dick or Harry.
The new SoS has "swept" the department for devices - is that what is meant by a "new broom sweeps clean"? ;D
-
Don't expect too much and you won't be disappointed.
That leads to decreasing standards and the low calibre of national political leadership we currently endure.
Taken to the ultimate it ends in widespread corruption as happens in some countries. Populations suffer as a result.
Cynicism about politicians and government officials may discourage people from voting. Distrust in government leaves a vacuum for extremism.
:(
My thoughts too Maiden Stone.
But not disappointment It's just reality.
Pheno
-
I think it's understandable that CCTV cameras have been installed and probably installed quite some time ago. When third parties are trying to undermine democracy why should this have been publicized? Furthermore, we must not forget that the IRA tried to bomb and kill MPs during John Major's government, thus I think it unreasonable that every Tom, Dick and Harry should know exactly when and where CCTV cameras are installed.
IRA attacked Major's gov. by firing mortars at the Cabinet Office. Later attacks have come from outside.
A Secretary of State is not every Tom, Dick or Harry.
The new SoS has "swept" the department for devices - is that what is meant by a "new broom sweeps clean"? ;D
lol :D :D
So now that we've started removing the CCTV cameras - how will we or MI5 and MI6 know when and where the Ruskies have planted their listening devices? ::)
-
Don't expect too much and you won't be disappointed.
That leads to decreasing standards and the low calibre of national political leadership we currently endure.
Taken to the ultimate it ends in widespread corruption as happens in some countries. Populations suffer as a result.
Cynicism about politicians and government officials may discourage people from voting. Distrust in government leaves a vacuum for extremism.
:(
My thoughts too Maiden Stone.
I agree! Leaders should be held to higher standards, as other people often are, e.g. teachers, doctors, clergy.
Cheating on one’s spouse shows something about character, no matter how you slice it. Also no one has mentioned the fact that she was his subordinate - already he’s on thin ice vis a vis workplace behaviour.
-
I agree! Leaders should be held to higher standards, as other people often are, e.g. teachers, doctors, clergy.
Cheating on one’s spouse shows something about character, no matter how you slice it.
So what does making assumptions about other people's private lives show about character?
None of us know for sure what knowledge or agreement there might have been between the four adults involved in this private matter. Therefore to assume it involved "Cheating" and to cast the first stone is as wrong as making any other assumption about someone's personal life (such as their sexuality) and start judging them against "higher standards".
This is why the relationship and the 'kiss' is not relevant to the performance of his job, or the decision for him to be sacked/resign. We are living in 2021, not 1951.
Also no one has mentioned the fact that she was his subordinate - already he’s on thin ice vis a vis workplace behaviour.
She wasn't "his subordinate". And provided they had both declared a close personal relationship when she was appointed, neither of them are "on thin ice".
Politicians and other people who work in the public sector are allowed to have relationships, including relationships with each other. Again, this is 2021, not 1951.
-
My view on why the PM did not dismiss him straight away is that the PM has had a chequered love life himself, thus it would be the "kettle calling the pot".
In which case you are wrong.
Having a "chequered love life" ( ::) ) is not a reason for a minister to be dismissed "straight away".
Ministers are allowed to have a private life, and have relationships within that private life. Whether they have one, two or a hundred partners is irrelevant to the performance of the role, just as it is irrelevant whether they are male or female, gay, straight or trans etc.
If this was a conventional employment, dismissing someone because they had a "chequered love life" ( ::) ) would lead to an open and shut employment tribunal case.
It was a resigning matter because he had breached the guidelines his own department had issued on socialisation between people living in different households. An entirely different issue to his "love life".
-
Hi all just scanning through this I'm afraid I have to disagree with Nick_Ips. These aren't a couple of random people who got tangled up in the workplace. They are public 'servants' and paid for out of the public purse.
Nick Hancock holds governmental office and thus agreed to comply with the Ministerial Code. So, unfortunately his extra curricular love life does matter.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/826920/August-2019-MINISTERIAL-CODE-FINAL-FORMATTED-2.pdf
CD
-
Well, I don’t know about 1951, I wasn’t alive then. Just because we’re seventy years on, doesn’t mean everything has improved.
The MeToo Movement has been helpful in showing that relationships at work can be fraught and are ill-advised, if one partner has more power than the other. People on an equal footing, that’s a different story.
I agree that the reason for Hancock’s resignation is related to his work performance, not his love life.
-
Hi all just scanning through this I'm afraid I have to disagree with Nick_Ips. These aren't a couple of random people who got tangled up in the workplace. They are public 'servants' and paid for out of the public purse.
Nick Hancock holds governmental office and thus agreed to comply with the Ministerial Code. So, unfortunately his extra curricular love life does matter.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/826920/August-2019-MINISTERIAL-CODE-FINAL-FORMATTED-2.pdf
So where in the Code does it say "his extra curricular love life" matters?
[Answer: It doesn't]
-
The MeToo Movement has been helpful in showing that relationships at work can be fraught and I are ill-advised, if one partner has more power than the other. People on an equal footing, that’s a different story.
I agree. If this was a case of a Minister starting a relationship with a junior member of staff (Bill Clinton style) then it would deserve far more scrutiny.
However, the two people involved have known each other since they were at university together, and Gina Coladangelo is a successful businesswoman, who is in many ways the equal (if not better) than Hancock. That makes the relationship a non-issue in this case.
If people think relationships at work (particularly in the political sphere) are bad, then they should google "Mrs Murrell" (they might be surprised if they don't already know the significance of that name). It is normal, especially in politics, for people to have relationships in the workplace - and there are protocols and procedures to deal with it.
-
You need to put your glasses on and for a start look at the Seven Principles of Public life (these include honesty and integrity). I think Mr Hancock didn't read that far either. In the middle of a pandemic not only did he not follow his own guidelines he certainly has not upheld the Ministerial Code. It's a fail from me on all points particularly how he handled the pandemic. And, please don't say he wasn't distracted from his work, it is obvious his mind was not wholly focused on matters at hand.
CD
-
For what it is worth, I agree with Nick_Ips. We know NOTHING of their relationship (if there is one).
What we do know is that a photograph was taken illegally; it was sold to a newspaper illegally; bought illegally; and published illegally. Everything else is supposition.
Regards
Chas
-
You need to put your glasses on and for a start look at the Seven Principles of Public life (these include honesty and integrity).
In what way has he been dishonest?
In what way has he lacked integrity?
You seem to assume that he has been dishonest with his wife, but you can have no idea whether or not that is the case.
Judging other people's personal lives on the basis of assumptions is wrong.
Everyone is entitled to have their own morality code, but you aren't entitled to impose yours on other people.
-
Nick_ups could you please explain your reference to Mrs. Murrell?
Confused
Dorrie
-
You need to put your glasses on and for a start look at the Seven Principles of Public life (these include honesty and integrity).
In what way has he been dishonest?
In what way has he lacked integrity?
You seem to assume that he has been dishonest with his wife, but you can have no idea whether or not that is the case.
Judging other people's personal lives on the basis of assumptions is wrong.
Everyone is entitled to have their own morality code, but you aren't entitled to impose yours on other people.
Wow .... morality code .... knowing right from wrong .... co-operatively behaving as a community. Putting the interests of the community ahead of your own personal interests ...
JM
-
Nick_ups could you please explain your reference to Mrs. Murrell?
Confused
Happy to. It is quite a well-know example (in some circles) of a relationship in the workplace, in the political sphere, which most of us think is absolutely fine - and none of our business so long as the necessary protocols are being followed.
I used the words "Mrs Murrell" (which I don't endorse the use of) because (a) for some people it will produce a 'I didn't know that' response, and (b) a google search using those words will give top-ranked results showing how those individual's personal decisions are regarded as 'fair game' by judgemental individuals who think they have the right to impose their own ideas of morals and standards on other people (particularly in the political sphere).
In case it remains uncertain, the point I'm making is that relationships in the workplace (particularly in the political sphere) are not uncommon, but not always common knowledge - and that personal choices within the private lives of individuals concerned are a matter for them, not for public scorn or moral judgement, subject to those choices not being incompatible with their position.
Hope that helps.
-
I really don't think the issue here is whether or not he is having an affair, that is his business, although the people I feel sorry for are his wife and children and her husband and children. What is wrong is that he was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and was the person telling the whole country to obey the rules of social distancing etc whilst he was obviously breaking them. If he breaks them why can't everyone else. A case of do as I say, not what I do. I feel we have a right to expect those that make the rules to keep them and if they can't then they need to step down from that job.
-
I feel we have a right to expect those that make the rules to keep them and if they can't then they need to step down from that job.
I, broadly, agree. But if we actually applied that policy then virtually every politician currently in post (all parties, all levels) would have to resign.
There cannot be many politicians who can honestly say they have never exceeded the speed limit, have never overstayed their parking by a few minutes, have never paid cash for work, have never consumed an illegal substance, nor engaged in a sexual act proscribed by law.
But then of course none of us should 'cast the first stone' unless we ourselves can honestly say we have never broken a rule or law.
So it comes down to shades of grey... and Hancock was on the wrong side of the line in terms of not following the Covid guidance.
-
I feel we have a right to expect those that make the rules to keep them and if they can't then they need to step down from that job.
I, broadly, agree. But if we actually applied that policy then virtually every politician currently in post (all parties, all levels) would have to resign.
There cannot be many politicians who can honestly say they have never exceeded the speed limit, have never overstayed their parking by a few minutes, have never paid cash for work, have never consumed an illegal substance, nor engaged in a sexual act proscribed by law.
But then of course none of us should 'cast the first stone' unless we ourselves can honestly say we have never broken a rule or law.
So it comes down to shades of grey... and Hancock was on the wrong side of the line in terms of not following the Covid guidance.
............ and above we have an example of a person needing to control the conversation by subtle introductions into the original topic.
-
"a successful businesswoman"
Call me cynical, but I doubt that's the quality that got her the job.
-
Is this Matt Hancock the same person who in 2014-15 was the UK Anti-Corruption Champion? ... ummm ...
June 2021, so is he resigning from public life or just from Secretary of that one Ministry- for Health and Social Care? ..
JM
-
"a successful businesswoman"
Call me cynical, but I doubt that's the quality that got her the job.
Erato! :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Viktoria.
-
............ and above we have an example of a person needing to control the conversation by subtle introductions into the original topic.
............ and above we have an example of a person needing - when finding themselves unable to kick the ball - to kick the player instead.
I've been clear - some might say 'forthright' - in making my point throughout the thread. To be accused of "subtle introductions" now is amusing. :)
But again, politicians are entitled to a private life, and judging them on the basis of rumour and gossip about their private life choices is wrong. Hancock's failure wasn't in his relationships, it was in breaching the guidelines his own department issued.
If we want politicians who are representatives of 'us', then we need them to be like 'us'. And that means having politicians with faults..... because none of 'us' are perfect. As I pointed out in my preceding post (the one you have objected to), it is rare to find anyone (politicians included) who haven't broken some of the 'rules'.
-
I really don't think the issue here is whether or not he is having an affair, that is his business, although the people I feel sorry for are his wife and children and her husband and children. What is wrong is that he was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and was the person telling the whole country to obey the rules of social distancing etc whilst he was obviously breaking them. If he breaks them why can't everyone else. A case of do as I say, not what I do. I feel we have a right to expect those that make the rules to keep them and if they can't then they need to step down from that job.
Wholeheartedly agree with you Groom and I think some of the participants here need to grow up and become part of the real world.
Of course politicians aren't perfect, just like the rest of us thank goodness - I would certainly not want to be governed by a bunch who never did anything wrong and expected the rest of us to behave in the same way.
Pheno
-
Of course politicians aren't perfect, just like the rest of us thank goodness - I would certainly not want to be governed by a bunch who never did anything wrong and expected the rest of us to behave in the same way.
+1
-
Nicola Sturgeon kept her own name, she is not Mrs Murrell, she follows what was standard practice in Scotland of not changing her name on marriage. None of my female teachers changed their names. It was an English fashion which I'm glad to say is no longer very fashionable nooadays with the young.
I have a buddy who moved from Glasgow out to Lanarkshire when he married a native. After about 30 years he is still "Mary Brown's Man" to all and sundry, he maintains he lost his identity ;D
No amount of waffle however disguises the fact that this government is a disgrace.
Skoosh.
-
“But again, politicians are entitled to a private life, and judging them on the basis of rumour and gossip about their private life choices is wrong. Hancock's failure wasn't in his relationships, it was in breaching the guidelines his own department issued.”
Mr Hancock breached the guidelines through his close contact with and an admitted relationship with a friend who had been appointed by him to a position within his department.
That is not rumour and gossip.
-
Mr Hancock breached the guidelines through his close contact with and an admitted relationship with a friend who had been appointed by him to a position within his department.
That is not rumour and gossip.
Not sure that anyone has suggested it is rumour or gossip.
Sorry just not on the same wavelength as those who believe his private life is a worse scenario than breaching covid guidelines.
Pheno
-
Nicola Sturgeon kept her own name, she is not Mrs Murrell, she follows what was standard practice in Scotland of not changing her name on marriage. None of my female teachers changed their names. It was an English fashion which I'm glad to say is no longer very fashionable nooadays with the young.
I have a buddy who moved from Glasgow out to Lanarkshire when he married a native. After about 30 years he is still "Mary Brown's Man" to all and sundry, he maintains he lost his identity ;D
No amount of waffle however disguises the fact that this government is a disgrace.
Nicola Sturgeon's government has its faults, Skoosh, but I'm surprised you go as far as to call it a "disgrace". ;)
-
Chumocracy is a relatively new term, but in my recent readings of its use in the media, it is not a complimentary label.
Once upon a time, in Australia, politicians who appointed chums to statutory bodies without declaring private relationships 'got away with it' ... nowadays several of our eight jurisdictions have Independent Commissions against Corruption ....
JM
-
............ and above we have an example of a person needing to control the conversation by subtle introductions into the original topic.
............ and above we have an example of a person needing - when finding themselves unable to kick the ball - to kick the player instead.
I've been clear - some might say 'forthright' - in making my point throughout the thread. To be accused of "subtle introductions" now is amusing. :)
But again, politicians are entitled to a private life, and judging them on the basis of rumour and gossip about their private life choices is wrong. Hancock's failure wasn't in his relationships, it was in breaching the guidelines his own department issued.
If we want politicians who are representatives of 'us', then we need them to be like 'us'. And that means having politicians with faults..... because none of 'us' are perfect. As I pointed out in my preceding post (the one you have objected to), it is rare to find anyone (politicians included) who haven't broken some of the 'rules'.
Mention of judging on basis of rumour and gossip
-
Mr Hancock breached the guidelines through his close contact with and an admitted relationship with a friend who had been appointed by him to a position within his department.
That is not rumour and gossip.
Not sure that anyone has suggested it is rumour or gossip.
Sorry just not on the same wavelength as those who believe his private life is a worse scenario than breaching covid guidelines.
Pheno
I was quoting Nick’s opinion re rumour and gossip and was, I thought, giving his (Mr Hancock’s) reason for the breach of covid guidelines which was his admitted downfall i.e. his close contact with his friend.
-
I was quoting Nick’s opinion re rumour and gossip and was, I thought, giving his (Mr Hancock’s) reason for the breach of covid guidelines which was his admitted downfall i.e. his close contact with his friend.
That quote, with the important words bolded....
"But again, politicians are entitled to a private life, and judging them on the basis of rumour and gossip about their private life choices is wrong. Hancock's failure wasn't in his relationships, it was in breaching the guidelines his own department issued."
"Mr Hancock breached the guidelines through his close contact with and an admitted relationship with a friend who had been appointed by him to a position within his department."
= Fact (with the breach being a resigning issue)
[Edit: Examples below from elsewhere, not said by heywood]
"love rat"
"throughout most of it"
"I feel sorry for his wife and children"
"midlife crisis"
"Cheated"
"Mistress"
~and~
"Matt Hancock's secret affair with aide Gina Coladangelo..." [The Sun]
"Matt Hancock 'affair with Gina' is 'serious' and he is 'in love'..." [The Mirror]
"Callous Matt Hancock dumped wife on Thursday" [Daily Wail]
= Rumour and gossip (about private life choices)
-
I would appreciate it, Nick, if you did not quote my post alongside those. That is not my opinion. You introduced ‘rumour and gossip’ and I qualified his reasons for resignation.
-
I would appreciate it, Nick, if you did not quote my post alongside those. That is not my opinion. You introduced ‘rumour and gossip’ and I qualified his reasons for resignation.
Apologies for any confusion.
My reply was also a response to your post #94 in which you quoted me (unattributed), stated the facts I've quoted above, and then said "That is not rumour and gossip".
My reply was to draw the distinction between what you said (the relevant facts), and what I meant by 'rumour and gossip'. I thought that distinction was self-evident in my reply, but have now edited it to further separate the quote of your post (still using the forum's 'quote' facility) from the examples of 'rumour and gossip' (still using plain text).
-
Thank you.
-
I really don't think the issue here is whether or not he is having an affair, that is his business, although the people I feel sorry for are his wife and children and her husband and children. What is wrong is that he was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and was the person telling the whole country to obey the rules of social distancing etc whilst he was obviously breaking them. If he breaks them why can't everyone else. A case of do as I say, not what I do. I feel we have a right to expect those that make the rules to keep them and if they can't then they need to step down from that job.
That's the nub of it.
It's similar to Professor Neil Ferguson's resignation last year. Ferguson resigned after a close encounter with a lady-friend. The reason for his resignation was that he broke Covid guidelines not because he was having an affair.