Multi-Million/Billionaires Owning Farms
Society & Culture3 mins ago
Goodbye And Good Riddance Hancock
Answers
It would have been better for the country for this to have been an immediate sacking rather than a forced resignation. I'm glad he has gone. Not because of the affair but because of the sheer hypocrisy of the man. His obvious contempt for the public and Prof. Ferguson makes it clear that he can't be trusted and should never again hold a position with any degree of...
18:10 Sat 26th Jun 2021
Poorclare, what happened to Matt Hancock he brought on himself, I’ll say again, it had nothing at all to do with his infidelities , he was the health minister who for the last 15+ months stood preaching to us about the 2m rule , about not bugging your ‘granny’ about staying apart from elderly relatives in care homes,that’s why he should and has resigned, nothing at all to do with ‘all of you’ losing a man his job
//He is certainly not the only person to say they are following the rules and actually not follow the rules are they!//
No he’s not. But he’s the only person who has signed these particular rules into law (with the threat of criminal sanctions for transgressions) and gone on to break them.
//There is lots and lots of sanctimony on this site.//
This is not principally about sanctimony, 10CS (not as far as I am concerned, anyway). There is a moral aspect to this; both parties have abandoned a marriage and, more importantly, six children have seen their lives turned upside down. But that is not really what the issue is. It is the sheer hypocrisy of the man. He has been one of the most vociferous proponents of all the various “social distancing” rules he has introduced. I recall one occasion where he was standing behind one of the lecterns at a Downing Street briefing, telling people they must remain distant from people outside their household: “This is not a request. It is an instruction…” British people do not like being lectured by hypocritical politicians.
Like you I am no fan of most of the measures being taken to “fight” Covid. I believe many of them are pointless, contradictory and of no value. But as I explained in my earlier post, most people have gone along with Mr. Hancock’s “instructions”. Some people have seen loved ones pass away without even being able to say goodbye. And now we see this slimeball blatantly contravening his own instructions by which everybody else is bound. Such views do not illustrate sanctimony but just plain anger.
//You must be all pleased now that you have hounded a man out of a job, who is next on your list//
Nobody on here hounded him out of his job. He was the architect of his own downfall. He was forced into resignation by Tory Whips who had been contacted by Tory MPs from across the country. Those MPs had reacted to the justifiable anger they had sensed among their constituents (see above). We have a system of accountability in this country and it doesn’t have to wait for a General Election to work. Next on the list will be any other politicians who believe the rules do not apply to them (and there are plenty).
No he’s not. But he’s the only person who has signed these particular rules into law (with the threat of criminal sanctions for transgressions) and gone on to break them.
//There is lots and lots of sanctimony on this site.//
This is not principally about sanctimony, 10CS (not as far as I am concerned, anyway). There is a moral aspect to this; both parties have abandoned a marriage and, more importantly, six children have seen their lives turned upside down. But that is not really what the issue is. It is the sheer hypocrisy of the man. He has been one of the most vociferous proponents of all the various “social distancing” rules he has introduced. I recall one occasion where he was standing behind one of the lecterns at a Downing Street briefing, telling people they must remain distant from people outside their household: “This is not a request. It is an instruction…” British people do not like being lectured by hypocritical politicians.
Like you I am no fan of most of the measures being taken to “fight” Covid. I believe many of them are pointless, contradictory and of no value. But as I explained in my earlier post, most people have gone along with Mr. Hancock’s “instructions”. Some people have seen loved ones pass away without even being able to say goodbye. And now we see this slimeball blatantly contravening his own instructions by which everybody else is bound. Such views do not illustrate sanctimony but just plain anger.
//You must be all pleased now that you have hounded a man out of a job, who is next on your list//
Nobody on here hounded him out of his job. He was the architect of his own downfall. He was forced into resignation by Tory Whips who had been contacted by Tory MPs from across the country. Those MPs had reacted to the justifiable anger they had sensed among their constituents (see above). We have a system of accountability in this country and it doesn’t have to wait for a General Election to work. Next on the list will be any other politicians who believe the rules do not apply to them (and there are plenty).
For interest I have worked in an office bubble throughout. It meant the few of us (6 in total) could regularly sit round a large meeting table or go into each other's offices and not bother with masks BUT we always kept at least a metre apart and certainly didn't touch each other. I thought that was the rules as deemed by government.
Thanks, NJ, for spelling it out so clearly. I remain confused why anybody could not understand the anger at Hancock's actions, the anger at his initial refusal to resign, the anger at Johnson's refusal to sack him -- and the relief that finally common sense prevailed. Hypocrisy is damaging to a Government's reputation. A refusal to take responsibility is destructive. And -- especially importantly for those who wish to see the nation unite behind the Government -- accountability is precisely what is needed to ensure that.
Avatar Image Mamyalynne
I don't take any pleasure in things like this being played out in public whoever's involved.
Totally agree. The media swooping in his wife is totally disgusting. And getting pleasure from this amazes me. As for morally judging his personal life, I wonder how many on AB are squeaky clean. I am not defending his action, but this thread shoes the level of some people on this site.
I don't take any pleasure in things like this being played out in public whoever's involved.
Totally agree. The media swooping in his wife is totally disgusting. And getting pleasure from this amazes me. As for morally judging his personal life, I wonder how many on AB are squeaky clean. I am not defending his action, but this thread shoes the level of some people on this site.
Jim. It is hard to understand til you think of the reasons some may not be angry or may even be defending and feeling sorry for Hancock.
If they haven't had or wanted to make any sacrifices through this they won't understand how his behaviour upset others.
Then, of course, if they have been guilty of doing something similar at any time (and I don't mean the affair) they won't be able to criticise him, will they...... ;-)
Anne @ 11.34. That is one of the most important reasons for him having to resign and the reason he should have been sacked immediately.
Bobbie. "I'll say it again". You'll be saying that til you're blue in the face and it'll be ignored.
If they haven't had or wanted to make any sacrifices through this they won't understand how his behaviour upset others.
Then, of course, if they have been guilty of doing something similar at any time (and I don't mean the affair) they won't be able to criticise him, will they...... ;-)
Anne @ 11.34. That is one of the most important reasons for him having to resign and the reason he should have been sacked immediately.
Bobbie. "I'll say it again". You'll be saying that til you're blue in the face and it'll be ignored.
Well I never, Bobbisox 1 (saying goodbye and good riddance Hancock) The penny has at last dropped. You've spent at least 15 months telling me that I was wrong in calling this man a slime ball, and for continuing to tells lies to the public on many occasion, and awarding contracts to mates, and jobs, especially his pub mate. Sticking up for him at every possible opportunity. But I dare say an excuse will be on the way. I would think that he has already feathered his nest to a certain degree especially the 3 million to his pub mate. So me and Gully were proved to be right all along.
Anyhow, its now done and dusted, at least he's seen to have done one right thing, when Boris couldn't, but his handouts need to be investigated, other than that its over and in my book there's nothing to be achieved or gained my kicking someone that's already down.
Anyhow, its now done and dusted, at least he's seen to have done one right thing, when Boris couldn't, but his handouts need to be investigated, other than that its over and in my book there's nothing to be achieved or gained my kicking someone that's already down.
I haven't read the whole thread, but providing he gave the public the best and safest advice they had, I'm not worried about him. I followed the rules for the sake of people around me and myself, not because any politicians were.
I've lost count of the nurses I've seen in my life, who were overweight or obese, and clearly not following their own advice. His job is to give out accurate information.
I've lost count of the nurses I've seen in my life, who were overweight or obese, and clearly not following their own advice. His job is to give out accurate information.
//Thanks, Prudie. I thought there was a regulation something like that in place. I can't see how an office can work satisfactorily otherwise.//
In fact there is no specific guidance along the lines Prudie mentions. As usual there is more generic guidance which employers have to interpret for themselves. As far as meetings go it says this:
=====
You will usually need to:
Use remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings.
Ensure participants physically attend meetings only where reasonably necessary. They should maintain social distancing guidelines. These are 2m, or 1m+ with risk mitigation where 2m is not viable
Avoid transmission during meetings caused by sharing objects. For example, pens and documents.
Provide hand sanitiser in meeting rooms.
Hold meetings outdoors whenever possible. Otherwise use rooms where there is good ventilation. This could be:
– fresh air through open doors, windows and vents
–mechanical ventilation, such as air conditioning
You can also provide good ventilation through a combination of the two.
Air rooms between meetings. Open all the doors and windows as fully as possible, to maximise the ventilation in the room.
Use floor signage to help people maintain social distancing in areas where you hold regular meetings.
=====
I don’t see how Mr Hancock’s and Mrs Tress’s amorous clinch can fall within this guidance.
//…I wonder how many on AB are squeaky clean. I am not defending his action, but this thread shoes the level of some people on this site.//
You still don’t quite seem to get it. As far as I can see nobody on here has castigated Mr Hancock for his moral deficiencies (as plentiful as they are). The anger stems from his hypocrisy. This man has drawn up and signed off some of the most Draconian measures this country has ever seen (and I include in that comparison many wartime measures). He has been banging his tub about the need to comply with them for well over a year. People have suffered enormous emotional hardship because of them but they have gone along with his edicts. It’s nothing to do with expecting people to be being “squeaky clean.” Most people could not give a toss about his lack of morals (though they may have some sympathy for his wife and children). It's plain anger that they have been taken for a ride for the last year by people who quite plainly believe that the rules they have imposed do not apply to them.
In fact there is no specific guidance along the lines Prudie mentions. As usual there is more generic guidance which employers have to interpret for themselves. As far as meetings go it says this:
=====
You will usually need to:
Use remote working tools to avoid in-person meetings.
Ensure participants physically attend meetings only where reasonably necessary. They should maintain social distancing guidelines. These are 2m, or 1m+ with risk mitigation where 2m is not viable
Avoid transmission during meetings caused by sharing objects. For example, pens and documents.
Provide hand sanitiser in meeting rooms.
Hold meetings outdoors whenever possible. Otherwise use rooms where there is good ventilation. This could be:
– fresh air through open doors, windows and vents
–mechanical ventilation, such as air conditioning
You can also provide good ventilation through a combination of the two.
Air rooms between meetings. Open all the doors and windows as fully as possible, to maximise the ventilation in the room.
Use floor signage to help people maintain social distancing in areas where you hold regular meetings.
=====
I don’t see how Mr Hancock’s and Mrs Tress’s amorous clinch can fall within this guidance.
//…I wonder how many on AB are squeaky clean. I am not defending his action, but this thread shoes the level of some people on this site.//
You still don’t quite seem to get it. As far as I can see nobody on here has castigated Mr Hancock for his moral deficiencies (as plentiful as they are). The anger stems from his hypocrisy. This man has drawn up and signed off some of the most Draconian measures this country has ever seen (and I include in that comparison many wartime measures). He has been banging his tub about the need to comply with them for well over a year. People have suffered enormous emotional hardship because of them but they have gone along with his edicts. It’s nothing to do with expecting people to be being “squeaky clean.” Most people could not give a toss about his lack of morals (though they may have some sympathy for his wife and children). It's plain anger that they have been taken for a ride for the last year by people who quite plainly believe that the rules they have imposed do not apply to them.
Latest Posts
Football5 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.