Hancock on his way out?

What this does is to show Johnson is a very weak leader, and should also consider his own position, the British public are losing faith in this government very quickly, they have cocked up on so many occasions, and yes they must take massive credit for the vaccine rollout, they have fucked up on nearly every other level.

As inevitble as Jenrick's resignation (and Cummings'!) should have been. Why protest when you've been caught with your trousers down? Simply makes his flawed character look even worse. Makes people doubt his other proclamations about PPE and so on.

But what does this say about Boris and the others who backed him? Poor judgement or more evidence of corrupt practices?

This is a party determined to do anything to avoid scrutiny, lie, deny.... and to gather more power by placing more of their ilk in positions of authority and influence. Have you noticed how they've sneaked more Tories into culturally important positions, the latest being George Osborne as chairman of the British Museum with no qualifications for the post? The BBC will be next to be overseen by the government.

MartinBWFC wrote:What this does is to show Johnson is a very weak leader, and should also consider his own position, the British public are losing faith in this government very quickly, they have cocked up on so many occasions, and yes they must take massive credit for the vaccine rollout, they have fucked up on nearly every other level.

The Conservatives won massively in the elections less than TWO MONTHS ago ffs!!!

Conservatives make council gains across England

The Conservatives have made significant gains across England, adding 13 councils and an extra 235 councillors to their overall tally by Sunday. Labour has lost control of eight councils, including Durham County Council.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c481drqqzv7t/england-local-elections-2021

I don't really think much has greatly changed since then, do you?

Infections up - yes, but jabs up too and up to now the NHS isn't being swamped with new admissions.

So does Hancock being caught with his pants down change anything much really than what we knew before?

I don't think so myself?

okocha wrote:As inevitble as Jenrick's resignation (and Cummings'!) should have been. Why protest when you've been caught with your trousers down? Simply makes his flawed character look even worse. Makes people doubt his other proclamations about PPE and so on.

But what does this say about Boris and the others who backed him? Poor judgement or more evidence of corrupt practices?

This is a party determined to do anything to avoid scrutiny, lie, deny.... and to gather more power by placing more of their ilk in positions of authority and influence. Have you noticed how they've sneaked more Tories into culturally important positions, the latest being George Osborne as chairman of the British Museum with no qualifications for the post? The BBC will be next to be overseen by the government.

Fantastic news!

I've been waiting well over a year for any evidence of corrupt practices and now you are telling us there is even more!!!

Great news indeed. Please link me to the existing evidence and also the new evidence as well!

I can't wait to read it all!!!

By any other governments standards Hancock would have gone months ago but we are in unprecedented times - as Okocha rightly points out just look at what Jenrick, Cummings and Patel have gotten away with. We are at a low ebb for cabinet integrity, with no end in sight.

It clearly undermines Johnson’s leadership, but regardless I’m sure the Tories will continue to climb in the polls. Until Labour offer a credible alternative we’re stuck with this sham I’m afraid.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:By any other governments standards Hancock would have gone months ago but we are in unprecedented times - as Okocha rightly points out just look at what Jenrick, Cummings and Patel have gotten away with. We are at a low ebb for cabinet integrity, with no end in sight.

It clearly undermines Johnson’s leadership, but regardless I’m sure the Tories will continue to climb in the polls. Until Labour offer a credible alternative we’re stuck with this sham I’m afraid.

Totally agree.

The question you should be asking though is not why there isn't an alternative party for people to vote for - Labour lost complete credibility even within their own stoic hardcore supporters with Corbyn at the helm - as can clearly be evidenced by the collapse and loss of their traditional heartland seats (the 'red wall').

Things have certainly not improved since - nor can I see how it can whilst it is driven by ideology that simply isn't palatable to the electorate as a whole.

The question rather should be why people vote Conservative at all?

Surely mass abstention by the electorate is the only way to show dissatisfaction in the government with no acceptable alternative party to vote for.

The fact is (as recent as just two months ago) that despite Jenrick, Cummings, Patel people still went out and voted to give the Conservatives even more seats and power at the latest (local government) elections.

I mean, does that signal that they are unhappy with how the government has been acting up to that point?

I suggest very strongly that it doesn't.

It would seem to me that our shared values of honesty and integrity are no longer shared by the masses.

This can be evidenced by the almost universal lack respect in following the most basic of rules by the majority of people since the pandemic started - you don't get 5 million people testing positive if everyone simply kept to their own bubbles and wore a mask when they had to.

People do what they like these days and have a fuck you mentality it seems to me.

I also believe most people don't like to see the multitude of never ending protests (often ending with crowd trouble, damage to property and attacks on the police) and they don't like to be forced into watching gestures such as taking the knee.

I tend to think it actually gives many people a choice in their minds as to which is more palatable to them - more of this Tory government or a 'looney' left government replacing it (I put the 'looney' tag in there simply because many perceive it to be - I'm not saying it is).

So if there is no acceptable Labour party to vote for, no other alternative party with any chance of beating the Tory government then surely it comes down to a choice to vote Conservative or abstain doesn't it?

And if people are continuing to vote Conservative rather than not bother at all then they either like what the government is doing or don't like what they perceive to be the alternative if the government falls.

Labour needs to take drastic action.

They need to unite behind a charismatic leader and I'm not talking Burnham or Rayner (a David Miliband type perhaps if they can find one).

They need to rebrand and reposition themselves in the eyes of the electorate to become a socially democratic centre party and distance themselves from the leftist activists they are associated with.  Dump the Corbynistas and other leftish nutjobs, and start to come up with rational national policies for the country and be seen to be the next government in waiting.

Easier said than done I know but they need to take control of their destiny now otherwise they won't have one because who in their right minds will want to vote for this shower in 2024 or even 2029 after that!

Your mate Maugham is doing a better job of opposition than the whole of the Labour Party at the moment.

Would it be beyond the bounds of reality that one day he might set up his own party?

Macron did and look at him now!

If Maugham set himself a platform of 'get the Tories out (without the baggage of the looney left that Labour caries around with them), would he become a viable alternative to the electorate that they currently don't have?

He'd certainly have all his twitter followers voting for him!

I'm not really being serious about Maugham having political aspirations but merely shows how far down the Labour party has sunk in many peoples eyes in that Maugham might be seen to be a more realistic vote of getting the Tories out than Labour currently are!

Sluffy wrote:Everything is always black or white to you, you can't seem to accept that things are dynamic and some of what you believe simply isn't true.

At the start of the pandemic it was right that senior figures should step down if seen to be breaking the rules but getting on for a year an a half later I think most people by now have broken them themselves.

I have.

Nothing major in the scheme of things - as I'm in the at risk category myself - but little things such as helping my daughter out when she needed it and where it didn't effect anyone else.

There have been 4,700,000 positive Covid cases in the UK and NI since this thing began, and the virus can't spread itself can it?  

You need people doing something they shouldn't be doing in order to spread it so God knows how many other countless occasions that folk have broken the rules but didn't catch it.  Must be millions of times, billions probably!

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wasn't seriously shielding that haven't broke some rule or other by now, so to say Hancock should go because he broke one of the rules when he snogged the women he was working with and seeing on a daily (hourly) basis is just extreme hypocrisy is it not?

You know, he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Cummings called him a serial liar - so what - didn't Cummings tell the whole nation a big fat lie over Barnard Castle - pot and kettle there methinks!

Johnson called him hopeless, well maybe he did - but in what context?

The context was a private tweet (or similar?) to Cummings wasn't it?

Well do you always say exactly what you mean every time, or do you just agree and join in sometimes just to save yourself the hassle?

If your Mrs ask you if her bum looked big in her new dress, would you say 'no love, you look as gorgeous as ever' (or whatever you do say) or would you say it makes you look like the back end of a bus (if indeed it did!).

Cummings clearly was on Hancock's case and Boris simply agreed with him for a quiet life - if he really thought he was so shit then you would not have him front and centre of everything for the last year would you???

I mean would you, just think about it for a moment?

I reckon he thinks Priti Patel is though, Home Secretary - one of the three great offices of state - how many times have we seen her leading on this - hardly ever...

...I wonder why?

I could go on but you are one of those who are unable to listen to any sort of reason - you've made your mind up and that's an end to it as far as you are concerned.

The thing is though is that you are probably in the majority of how people now are, namely breaking the rules themselves but indignant with rage and howling for Hancock's head for doing much the same himself (I mean not keeping in his bubble, wearing a facemask type thing rather than having a bit on the side or whatever it is he's doing).

You and they may even get your wish too.


But let us leave thinking about this.

Don't you think it is more than a bit strange that the 'kiss' happened nearly two months ago and clearly someone has 'sat' on this story until now?

I wonder why...

...don't you?

No, I don't wonder why at all. Like you, I think it is pretty obvious who sat on the story and why. So is the identity of the messenger and the timing of it's disclosure really relevant? Does it absolve Hancock for his stupid and selfish actions?

The 'kiss' you mention that happened nearly two months ago, if you've seen the actual video it's taken from, he's all over her like a rash, virtually eating her face and squeezing her arse.
At the very same time he was dictating to the nation how to conduct our social lives, sex lives, whether we could attend weddings/funerals or visit and comfort our aged/dying relatives he was conducting a sordid secret affair with a married work colleague. The affair itself is obviously irrelevant here, these things happen to many people.(Evening Mr. Johnson). But if you are Secretary of State for Health in a pandemic you had better make sure you don't get caught if you're going to be shagging your assistant on a regular basis.

His actions made his position completely untenable and he had to go. He finally even told you that himself tonight.

As I've told you before, I post my opinions on here. That's all, just my opinions. I don't claim that what I post is always correct and and if someone disagrees with me I won't be writing a 2 page essay to try to prove how right I am.

You say that I see everything as either completely black or white. Maybe so but some people just won't accept what's happening right in front of their eyes. Every other poster on this thread (you can't count 50p) seems to be of a similar opinion on exactly what's really happening here. There are none so blind as them that won't see.

Now that's settled, can we focus on more important events? Why's Auntie Sharon delaying publication of the club's balance sheet to the last minute (or longer)?

Interesting though that Gina Coladangelo didn't use her married name when she got a job with you know who. Ms Tress might have been a bit of a giveaway.

It says in the Mail today that: 

Gina Coladangelo works for the company her spouse Oliver Tress founded - while also being Mr Hancock's closest aide. The mother of three, 43, is a major shareholder - as well as director - of the lobbying firm Luther Pendragon.


Companies House says she doesn't have  any shares in Oliver Bonas and she left Luther Pendragon four years ago. She still has some shares in Luther Pendragon, held in her maiden name.

Hip Priest wrote:No, I don't wonder why at all. Like you, I think it is pretty obvious who sat on the story and why. So is the identity of the messenger and the timing of it's disclosure really relevant? Does it absolve Hancock for his stupid and selfish actions?

The 'kiss' you mention that happened nearly two months ago, if you've seen the actual video it's taken from, he's all over her like a rash, virtually eating her face and squeezing her arse.
At the very same time he was dictating to the nation how to conduct our social lives, sex lives, whether we could attend weddings/funerals or visit and comfort our aged/dying relatives he was conducting a sordid secret affair with a married work colleague. The affair itself is obviously irrelevant here, these things happen to many people.(Evening Mr. Johnson). But if you are Secretary of State for Health in a pandemic you had better make sure you don't get caught if you're going to be shagging your assistant on a regular basis.

His actions made his position completely untenable and he had to go. He finally even told you that himself tonight.

As I've told you before, I post my opinions on here. That's all, just my opinions. I don't claim that what I post is always correct and and if someone disagrees with me I won't be writing a 2 page essay to try to prove how right I am.

You say that I see everything as either completely black or white. Maybe so but some people just won't accept what's happening right in front of their eyes. Every other poster on this thread (you can't count 50p) seems to be of a similar opinion on exactly what's really happening here. There are none so blind as them that won't see.

There's also another quote about the blind leading the blind is there not?

I rather see where I'm going, clearly you would rather follow the crowd instead.

Unlike you I like to understand the motives and reasons of what has gone on and not be spoon fed from the trough of ignorance that is set before me that most do.

I also don't make spurious guesses as to who is behind it all - it could be Cummings, then again it may not be - I don't know but what I do know is this.

Hancock checks to see that they won't be disturbed, stands behind the door to stop anyone walking in on them, then snogs the woman directly in view of a CCTV  camera, which can be viewed by countless unknown people to him - does that make any sense if you want to keep this thing a secret???

Clearly not.

So is the CCTV camera in plain sight or is it concealed, and if so who by and for what purpose?

Something doesn't add up here does it as he's either knowingly done something he shouldn't be doing directly in front of a clearly visible CCTV camera or his office is bugged and under some sort of surveillance.

Then if you want to destroy Hancock's reputation - and have the means to do so with this video - then why sit on it and wait a further two months to do so?

What else has the CCTV seen in that time???

As for Hancock you talk about him as though he's personally pissed on your chips, that he's stopped you and the rest of the country from living your life's for the last year and a half.

Has he balls!

He's just the messenger, the talking head, the face on TV you see, if it wasn't him telling us the government message it would simply have been someone else telling us it - the policies certainly would not have been dreamt up by Hancock, nor would he have been the key decision maker either.

Like it or not the messages he's been giving us ARE from the scientific experts and designed to keep us ALL safe.

Hancock was told to go.

He would have resigned at once if he was going to do so under his own steam.

The delay no doubt was for Johnson and his advisors to come up with a way out of this mess and to be fair Javid's appointment (seeing he resigned rather to do what Cummings had wanted) was a flash of inspiration - and I wonder how hard a bargain he drove to fill Hancock's shoes?

And as for me having to write copiously explaining stuff on here to the likes of yourself, then maybe if you saw things other than in black or white and used that brain and common sense you tell us about, then maybe I wouldn't have the need to do so at all?

Now there's a thought!

Hip Priest wrote:The affair itself is obviously irrelevant here, these things happen to many people.(Evening Mr. Johnson). But if you are Secretary of State for Health in a pandemic you had better make sure you don't get caught if you're going to be shagging your assistant on a regular basis.

His actions made his position completely untenable and he had to go. He finally even told you that himself tonight.

Ye completely agree with this, he can do what he likes in his personal life but if you get caught, hold your hands up and move aside. Says a lot that Johnson wanted to keep him on - didn't want to appease 'mob rule' by all accounts. The government does need to have some standards of behaviour though, no matter how hard they're trying to avoid it.

Javid a bit of an odd choice in my view, would have thought a junior health minister who had been closer to the pandemic response would have made more sense - someone like Helen Whately.

What do i know though, they're all shysters at the end of the day.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ye completely agree with this, he can do what he likes in his personal life but if you get caught, hold your hands up and move aside.

I completely disagree. A bloke in his position shouldn't be making an irrational decision because a pretty woman bats her eyelids at him. He should be above it seeing as he's in one of the top jobs in the country.

Ye I should be more clear - he can do anything he wants in his personal life, but clearly this spilled into his professional/may have even dictated parts of his professional role if this is the reason she got the job.

If he was bonking his neighbour on his days off I really wouldn’t give a shit.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Now that's settled, can we focus on more important events? Why's Auntie Sharon delaying publication of the club's balance sheet to the last minute (or longer)?

Fuck off you boring tw@t

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ye I should be more clear - he can do anything he wants in his personal life, but clearly this spilled into his professional/may have even dictated parts of his professional role if this is the reason she got the job.

If he was bonking his neighbour on his days off I really wouldn’t give a shit.

Completely agree.

MartinBWFC wrote:
Fuck off you boring tw@t

Is Martin the numbest numb nut on Nuts?

Sluffy wrote:There's also another quote about the blind leading the blind is there not?

I rather see where I'm going, clearly you would rather follow the crowd instead.

Unlike you I like to understand the motives and reasons of what has gone on and not be spoon fed from the trough of ignorance that is set before me that most do.

I also don't make spurious guesses as to who is behind it all - it could be Cummings, then again it may not be - I don't know but what I do know is this.

Hancock checks to see that they won't be disturbed, stands behind the door to stop anyone walking in on them, then snogs the woman directly in view of a CCTV  camera, which can be viewed by countless unknown people to him - does that make any sense if you want to keep this thing a secret???

Clearly not.

So is the CCTV camera in plain sight or is it concealed, and if so who by and for what purpose?

Something doesn't add up here does it as he's either knowingly done something he shouldn't be doing directly in front of a clearly visible CCTV camera or his office is bugged and under some sort of surveillance.

Then if you want to destroy Hancock's reputation - and have the means to do so with this video - then why sit on it and wait a further two months to do so?

What else has the CCTV seen in that time???

As for Hancock you talk about him as though he's personally pissed on your chips, that he's stopped you and the rest of the country from living your life's for the last year and a half.

Has he balls!

He's just the messenger, the talking head, the face on TV you see, if it wasn't him telling us the government message it would simply have been someone else telling us it - the policies certainly would not have been dreamt up by Hancock, nor would he have been the key decision maker either.

Like it or not the messages he's been giving us ARE from the scientific experts and designed to keep us ALL safe.

Hancock was told to go.

He would have resigned at once if he was going to do so under his own steam.

The delay no doubt was for Johnson and his advisors to come up with a way out of this mess and to be fair Javid's appointment (seeing he resigned rather to do what Cummings had wanted) was a flash of inspiration - and I wonder how hard a bargain he drove to fill Hancock's shoes?

And as for me having to write copiously explaining stuff on here to the likes of yourself, then maybe if you saw things other than in black or white and used that brain and common sense you tell us about, then maybe I wouldn't have the need to do so at all?

Now there's a thought!

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't feel you need to write copiously explaining to "the likes of myself" (presumably this refers to all the thickies on here who disagree with your views).
I try and avoid reading anything you post these days as your smug, arrogant, supercilious, condescending, patronising, (please feel free anyone to add to this list of suitable adjectives if you think I've left any good ones out)"know it all" attitude winds me up no end.

Given Javid's past history with Johnson's autocracy and lack of judgement, not to mention the enormous (impossible?) task that lies ahead, I'm surprised he is prepared to forego his principles and return to the cabinet. Presumably Javid's morality has a sell-by date.... What happens when he inevitably clashes with his boss again?

karlypants wrote:
Completely agree.

I don't.

Which bit don’t you agree with Bob?