Matt Hancock Has Resigned

[Nick_Ips]

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.

[Nick_Ips]

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".

[california dreamin]

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

[DianaCanada]

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.

[Nick_Ips]

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]

[Nick_Ips]

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.

[california dreamin]

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

[Kiltpin]

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

[Nick_Ips]

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.