Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: SydneyRover on June 23, 2021, 11:32:59 pm
-
Put you choices here:
-
.....Not forgetting, of course that you can't get much further than Austf**kingstralia.
-
Back to the old angry, haty bb we know so well, there's no need to be so rude about queenie she was commenting on hancock not the other way around and it was liar, stabber johnson that was rude in trying to finish her sentences for her aye owd lad.
-
....But now you're telling us what to say, Skippy. be reasonable.
-
I accept your gracious apology bb.
-
But I'm not apologizing Skippy, I'm just trying to tell someone from the other side of the world to f**k off.
-
once is enough bb you don't have to apologise twice, you have a strange idea of patriotism if you think supporting the elite carpet baggers in their quest to asset strip the nation is the way to go.
-
Johnson in number 10, just happens to bump into Ed Woodward days before the infamous super-league debacle and Woodward, accountant and investment banker that makes squillions reading the markets and the way all things financial will play out just happens to come away with the totally wrong impression that jonson and number 10 do not, did not support superleague.
And you support this renowned liar, give me a break bb.
-
You guys considered just PM'ing each other if you want a constant, pointless, unwinnable battle that achieves absolutely nothing?
-
You guys considered just PM'ing each other if you want a constant, pointless, unwinnable battle that achieves absolutely nothing?
The only thing with that is it would obstruct one person in his quest to derail every debate
-
Heard this on Radio 1 earlier - funny af what Johnson did/said! :laugh: :silly: :laugh: :silly:
-
Food and drink !. That he has consumed today.
-
Another thread that hardly anyone is interested in.
-
Johnson in number 10, just happens to bump into Ed Woodward days before the infamous super-league debacle and Woodward, accountant and investment banker that makes squillions reading the markets and the way all things financial will play out just happens to come away with the totally wrong impression that jonson and number 10 do not, did not support superleague.
And you support this renowned liar, give me a break bb.
I thought this comment would have interested the enablers and fan boys as their leader was prepared to sell them out, it beggars belief.
-
NEWS JUST IN:
Matt Hancock is a dirty dog.
-
I love Cold War Steve, so quick with these.
-
A spokes for hanccccock said that he is promoting good sexual health for the nation
-
So not only is he lying to the PM and the public... He lies to his wife too.
What a smashing fella!
-
they are considering a name change to the Bunga Bunga party
-
''A longtime friend of Matt Hancock would have gone through a “very rigorous” process before being given a job at the health department, Grant Shapps has said, after photographs emerged of Hancock kissing the woman''
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise Mr Shapps
-
Meanwhile lots of people hadn't even seen their parents for months.
-
... Eating out to help out?
-
I love the way the BBC describe the photos as showing him "hugging" his aide.
From the ones I've seen, I hope he doesn't hug his mother like that.
But forget the moral outrage. There is a FAR bigger question here. How was this woman, who he has known since university, recruited?
Details of appointments at this level are supposed to be publicly released. But this one hasn't been. Just like Hancock consistently refused to publish details of the PPE contracts that he put out last year. There is a recurring theme of "f**k you" to the checks and balances that are there to stop ministers doing what the f**k they want.
-
''Asked in a separate interview with LBC whether any lockdown rules had been broken, Shapps said he was “quite sure that whatever the rules were at the time were followed”.
Last year, when Prof Neil Ferguson, the epidemiologist who has helped shape the government’s response to coronavirus, quit his advisory role for breaking social distancing rules by having a woman visit him at his home, Hancock said he would support the idea of police taking action against him.
According to the Sun, the images show Hancock and Coladangelo kissing at about 3pm on 6 May. An unnamed “friend” of the health secretary told the paper: “He has no comment on personal matters. No rules have been broken.”
''Shapps, the transport secretary, also said Hancock was following Covid rules. However, according to the Sun the images were from 6 May, and under the government’s unlocking timetable, intimate contact with people outside your own household was only permitted from 17 May.
-
Hmm, his affair has been known for some time it seems. Maybe 'outing' it now by the right wing media is a good way of burying very bad news.....
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nhs-test-and-trace-lost-covid-tests_uk_60d48f44e4b0c101fc857eeb
That's really serious!
-
He has admitted breaking social distancing rules now so he has to resign really
-
If Hancock actually survives this one, we might as well pack up democracy and go full on Soma.
Not the video game. The drug in Brave New World. The one that made folk stop worrying about what was happening so the ones in charge could do what they wanted.
This is the bit that does my head in with 5G/Anti-Vax/Bill Gates conspiracy head jobs. They reckon there is a Davos-controlled plan to anaesthetise us all and make us compliant. What they don't get is that half the population already just "meh"s no matter what these shit shower in power do anyway!
-
If Hancock actually survives this one, we might as well pack up democracy and go full on Soma.
Not the video game. The drug in Brave New World. The one that made folk stop worrying about what was happening so the ones in charge could do what they wanted.
This is the bit that does my head in with 5G/Anti-Vax/Bill Gates conspiracy head jobs. They reckon there is a Davos-controlled plan to anaesthetise us all and make us compliant. What they don't get is that half the population already just "meh"s no matter what these shit shower in power do anyway!
Hancock will survive because people are so used to the Government’s corruption that few people care anymore. We are being run by self serving individuals who lack any sort of morale compass.
-
''Health Secretary Matt Hancock said it was "extraordinary" and that he "took the right decision to resign".
He told Sky News that it was "just not possible" for Prof Ferguson to continue advising the government.
Mr Hancock said the social distancing rules "are there for everyone" and are "deadly serious".
this is QI I would have thought?
-
He should resign.
He won't resign.
Something else daft he's done will pop up & he still won't resign.
Farce.
-
The social distancing is one thing.
But there's a far bigger thing. He's used public money to employ a woman that he's f**king.
How did we lose our way so badly that there's even any discussion about this being a resignation issue?
Oh yeah! I know. It's because we have a PM who did EXACTLY the same thing when London Mayor and brazened it out. And half the population couldn't give a shit. Because he got Brexit done.
-
Absolutely insane what these Kitsons are getting away with. Surely it’s not just their own party that can old them to account.
-
Was he seeing her at the time he employed her thou? If he was not there is no problem, he should resign for the social distancing thou
-
Irrelevant Bpool. The moment the affair commenced, he was under obligation to flag this up as a massive conflict of interest. Not doing that is a sacking offence full stop.
-
That's not going to happen in the real world thou is it
-
And what sort of defence is THAT?
-
So if your having a affair bst are you going to announce it?
-
So No10 says it considers the issue closed after Hancock apologised.
Any right winger in here going to support that?
-
No he should resign
-
So if your having a affair bst are you going to announce it?
1) I don't and haven't.
2) I've been in a job where it was written in the contract that any relationship with an employee in my management chain had to be reported to my line manager, with failed to do bring considered gross misconduct.
If Hancock can't keep his cock in his pants, either he or his mistress should have resigned. It's THAT simple.
-
But in the real world bst that does not
Happen does it, and does it say that in his contract? I've not seen it so I can't really say
-
Johnson accepts an apology and considers the matter closed.
Off course, how can he do anything else? It's exactly how he behaves.
-
Bpool.
The ministerial code requires ALL conflicts of interest to be flagged up.
All. Not "all except ones that will get you booted out of your house."
It is critically important that ministers are not a) misusing public funds and b) not leaving themselves open to blackmail.
There is no way he should survive this, regardless of the social distancing issue.
-
This sums it up perfectly.
https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1408404237294374918
-
The BBC has totally lost its moral compass here.
They are saying Hancock breached "guidelines."
He DIDN'T. He broke the f**king law (no pun). In early May it was ILLEGAL to meet indoors with someone from another household.
-
He won't be sacked, when you're Boris its convenient having some one around that actually worse than he is.
-
Typical of this Govt of course. When Hancock wants a service, he gives the job to one of his old university mates, instead of putting the job out to Tinder.
-
I'm amazed he has not resigned lol, I will give it a week thou and he will go
-
I'm amazed he has not resigned lol, I will give it a week thou and he will go
I’m sure he will too, Blackpool - quite rightly.
Let’s hope it’s before all the Frank Dobermans on here burst blood all their blood vessels.
-
I don't know what the law was at that point. If he broke it he should resign but I didn't think he had broke the law then?
Does government have enough checks in place to ensure these things are proper in terms of her recruitment? She may be the best candidate in which case it is. It's not uncommon for friends/former colleagues/family members to be recruited to work together. I work with my wife without issue for example. But it just doesn't feel right in this case.
A further question, how does CCTV from government offices end up in the sun? That needs an investigation aswell. God knows why he's acting like that in the workplace mind.
-
Typical of this Govt of course. When Hancock wants a service, he gives the job to one of his old university mates, instead of putting the job out to Tinder.
I really hope that's a deliberate typo
-
Typical of this Govt of course. When Hancock wants a service, he gives the job to one of his old university mates, instead of putting the job out to Tinder.
I really hope that's a deliberate typo
I'm getting the feeling I'm wasted here.
-
Typical of this Govt of course. When Hancock wants a service, he gives the job to one of his old university mates, instead of putting the job out to Tinder.
I really hope that's a deliberate typo
I'm getting the feeling I'm wasted here.
Finally.
-
Yeah Belton. Difference is, I'm being ironic when I say that.
-
Oh well Billy. It was a good feeling while it lasted.
-
.....Not forgetting, of course that you can't get much further than Austf**kingstralia.
There's a little lump of Rock perched in the Antarctic Ocean that would suit Sydders, if he doesn't mind the odd Penguin or Leopard Seal!
-
.....Not forgetting, of course that you can't get much further than Austf**kingstralia.
There's a little lump of Rock perched in the Antarctic Ocean that would suit Sydders, if he doesn't mind the odd Penguin or Leopard Seal!
In fact there might even be enough room for Nick Hamshank as well!
-
Just imagine the chats they could have, a match made in heaven.
-
And so the personal insult pile-on continues. Have a look at yourselves.
-
Still got no sense of humour then BST.
I thought it was bleeding obvious that it was said in jest by myself and sproty.
-
Hancock has much worse than this on his watch, bad though it is.
1) Sending untested people back into care homes from hospital with covid;
2) Wasting billions on failing Test & Trace,
3) Did not declare an interest in a company getting NHS contracts (with his family),
4) Outsourced PPE provision to Tory donors, with no experience,
5) Failed to recoup money for PPE unsuitable for use, then lied about it,
6) Misled Cabinet colleagues in his internal discussions about his brief,
7) Refused NHS staff a proper pay rise,
So, not too shabby, all in all!
The only thing to be surprised about is that breaching the ministerial code, and breaking the law, are now par for the course.
-
Iit's the double standards this time.
Do as I say not as I do, particularly since he castigated Neil Ferguson for the exact same offence and suggested it ought to be a police matter.
-
RD.
If folks won't condemn it and hold them responsible at the ballot box, why shouldn't they flick the rods to the country?
It's a basic feature of the UK system that ONLY the electorate can hold a Govt to account. There are no checks and balances to stop a Govt doing whatever it wants, as long as they keep 40% of the voters on side.
It used to be that voters had standards and this sort of behaviour going unpunished would have led to massive drops in Govt support.
Now? Now everything is so partisan, that it doesn't matter if someone is a cheat, a liar, a lawbreaker, a hypocrite. At least they are not on the other side.
Did you see that one when there was the senate or Governor election in Alabama a couple of years ago. The Republican candidate had very strong allegations of paedophile behaviour aimed at him. A senior republican went on TV to persuade Republicans still to vote for their man. The interviewer said, "But what about these allegations?" The Republican answered "Yeah, they look serious, but do you really want to elect a Democrat?"
Folk have switched off from making evidence based decisions. It's now all about us vs them.
-
Hound.
My apologies. I'm such a purist when it comes to humour. I insist on it actually being funny. Apologies for not seeing the blleeding obvious this time.
-
When Trump said he could shoot a man in broad daylight and it wouldn't make a difference to his support base, he wasn't joking.
-
Irony’s not usually funny.
-
Typical of this Govt of course. When Hancock wants a service, he gives the job to one of his old university mates, instead of putting the job out to Tinder.
I really hope that's a deliberate typo
I'm getting the feeling I'm wasted here.
Sometimes you need a good drink while you're reading this forum.
-
RD
Yep.
And Johnson knows he can make catastrophic mistakes that kill tens of thousands of people, and he still won't lose support. You see it in here with people who will never, ever criticise anything he does or says. Johnson can be a serial adulterer. He can be a career liar. He can disastrously manage a pandemic. He can stand by people who have broken every rule in the book. He can be recorded arranging to assist an old friend carry out an assault on someone who has wronged him. Not a word of criticism. Yet those people are straight into the scrum when someone from the other side has a pop. It'd be fascinating to watch as a neutral observer from another planet.
-
Typical of this Govt of course. When Hancock wants a service, he gives the job to one of his old university mates, instead of putting the job out to Tinder.
I really hope that's a deliberate typo
I'm getting the feeling I'm wasted here.
Sometimes you need a good drink while you're reading this forum.
Sometimes you should probably stay off it when you've had a couple.
-
Hound.
My apologies. I'm such a purist when it comes to humour. I insist on it actually being funny. Apologies for not seeing the blleeding obvious this time.
You yourself have accused people of not understanding that something you posted was funny (in your opinion) and castigated them for not seeing your intended humour, so not such a purist after all.
I forgot to mention earlier by the way that I noticed you continue to troll my posts.
-
Typical of this Govt of course. When Hancock wants a service, he gives the job to one of his old university mates, instead of putting the job out to Tinder.
I really hope that's a deliberate typo
I'm getting the feeling I'm wasted here.
Sometimes you need a good drink while you're reading this forum.
Sometimes you should probably stay off it when you've had a couple.
What and not share all this great wit!
-
RD
Yep.
And Johnson knows he can make catastrophic mistakes that kill tens of thousands of people, and he still won't lose support. You see it in here with people who will never, ever criticise anything he does or says. Johnson can be a serial adulterer. He can be a career liar. He can disastrously manage a pandemic. He can stand by people who have broken every rule in the book. He can be recorded arranging to assist an old friend carry out an assault on someone who has wronged him. Not a word of criticism. Yet those people are straight into the scrum when someone from the other side has a pop. It'd be fascinating to watch as a neutral observer from another planet.
bst try getting someone neutral to look at this off topic forum and ask them their views
-
Typical of this Govt of course. When Hancock wants a service, he gives the job to one of his old university mates, instead of putting the job out to Tinder.
I really hope that's a deliberate typo
I'm getting the feeling I'm wasted here.
Sometimes you need a good drink while you're reading this forum.
Sometimes you should probably stay off it when you've had a couple.
Mmmm, is that an insult then?
-
Midazolam Mat is off the hook then.
-
Deeper and deeper, down the Rabbit hole....
https://news.sky.com/story/matt-hancock-affair-aide-gina-coladangelos-relative-has-top-job-at-company-with-nhs-contracts-12341789?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
When will you Tory Fan Boise wake up and smell the coffee?
-
Partnering Health Ltd, must run in the family, I wonder what it's limited to?
-
''On Friday night the Sun released a 1 minute 10 second video, apparently taken on CCTV, showing Hancock looking out of a room, before closing the door, standing in front of it and kissing Coladangelo''
Hancock must have thought that little box up in the corner was a bug zapper, so much for oxford and cambridge aye?
-
Strange really, how you believe The Sun when it suits!
It's also strange that you should even be reading such an out of the bounds of respectability news outlet in the first place, unless, of course, you read it regularly and only use it as a platform of truth when it suits!
-
Government have announced Royal Commission into the Matt & Gina affair and said the inquiry will be open ended with unlimited resources and will not stop until they .......... have found who leaked the video to the Sun newspaper ................
-
If people ignored The Sun this wouldn't have got out!
-
Oh hi darling, how's your day been, anything interesting happened?
-
Can you imagine if Cummings had a weekly column in The Sun?
-
I think he has enough material belton
-
hancock and johnson are having a karaoke night too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi2AX14eRbk
-
Strange really, how you believe The Sun when it suits!
It's also strange that you should even be reading such an out of the bounds of respectability news outlet in the first place, unless, of course, you read it regularly and only use it as a platform of truth when it suits!
Not directed at it me but I've never read The Sun in my life but I'm on Twitter and Matt Hancocks kissing picture is all over there at the moment, you don't need to go on their website or buy The Sun to see that. Also, the point about their factuality is true, they aren't known as the most reliable outlet, however, a picture or video is hard to disagree with.
-
As I was saying. YouGov poll today. Tory voters say by 44-33% that Hancock should not resign.
For way too many people, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you're on our side.
-
Got to give credit where it's due, bp has called it out.
-
I’m not sure what’s more unbelievable at this stage - the fact that things like this keep happening, or the fact that over half the country simply couldn’t care less.
-
As I was saying. YouGov poll today. Tory voters say by 44-33% that Hancock should not resign.
For way too many people, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you're on our side.
So a very significant amount of Tory voters think the Tory Health Minister should resign, yet your focus is on those who don’t.
Statistics, eh?
-
Strange really, how you believe The Sun when it suits!
It's also strange that you should even be reading such an out of the bounds of respectability news outlet in the first place, unless, of course, you read it regularly and only use it as a platform of truth when it suits!
Not directed at it me but I've never read The Sun in my life but I'm on Twitter and Matt Hancocks kissing picture is all over there at the moment, you don't need to go on their website or buy The Sun to see that. Also, the point about their factuality is true, they aren't known as the most reliable outlet, however, a picture or video is hard to disagree with.
But it is still a Sun article that has been used because it suits! If it had been a Labour politician it wouldn't have been accepted as genuine by the lefties on this forum, and most certainly not brought to attention by them!
I think they call it grown up politics or summat 'ot sorts.
-
As I was saying. YouGov poll today. Tory voters say by 44-33% that Hancock should not resign.
For way too many people, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you're on our side.
Yougov is not really credible though is it. Zahawis business has links to the firm that runs Yougov.
Yougov ran a poll on whether health passports should be mandatory, it came out around 70/30 in favour of them.
Jeremy vine ran a similar poll on twitter and it was around 92/8 against them.
Vine then chose not to publish those results on his show and it never got mentioned.
-
Strange really, how you believe The Sun when it suits!
It's also strange that you should even be reading such an out of the bounds of respectability news outlet in the first place, unless, of course, you read it regularly and only use it as a platform of truth when it suits!
Not directed at it me but I've never read The Sun in my life but I'm on Twitter and Matt Hancocks kissing picture is all over there at the moment, you don't need to go on their website or buy The Sun to see that. Also, the point about their factuality is true, they aren't known as the most reliable outlet, however, a picture or video is hard to disagree with.
But it is still a Sun article that has been used because it suits! If it had been a Labour politician it wouldn't have been accepted as genuine by the lefties on this forum, and most certainly not brought to attention by them!
I think they call it grown up politics or summat 'ot sorts.
What do you think should happen regarding Hancock BB, apologies if I’ve missed your opinion amongst the petty squabbles
-
I think his private life should be private.
-
I think his private life should be private.
True
Let me rephrase that, what is your opinion of a Govt Minister that has broken the law that everyone else has to adhere to?
-
Strange really, how you believe The Sun when it suits!
It's also strange that you should even be reading such an out of the bounds of respectability news outlet in the first place, unless, of course, you read it regularly and only use it as a platform of truth when it suits!
Not directed at it me but I've never read The Sun in my life but I'm on Twitter and Matt Hancocks kissing picture is all over there at the moment, you don't need to go on their website or buy The Sun to see that. Also, the point about their factuality is true, they aren't known as the most reliable outlet, however, a picture or video is hard to disagree with.
But it is still a Sun article that has been used because it suits! If it had been a Labour politician it wouldn't have been accepted as genuine by the lefties on this forum, and most certainly not brought to attention by them!
I think they call it grown up politics or summat 'ot sorts.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.webp)
-
So where do you think the Sun got hold of security video from?
An investigation might help, unless of course it was from within government.
Nudga,
You cannot run a meaningful poll on Twitter, even if Jeremy Vine thinks you can.
There is no overlap between this and a properly set up poll sample.
-
You cannot run a meaningful poll on yougov either because they've been known to fiddle with the numbers.
-
Typical of this Govt of course. When Hancock wants a service, he gives the job to one of his old university mates, instead of putting the job out to Tinder.
I really hope that's a deliberate typo
I'm getting the feeling I'm wasted here.
Sometimes you need a good drink while you're reading this forum.
Sometimes you should probably stay off it when you've had a couple.
Mmmm, is that an insult then?
No. It was a word of advice from someone who has made that mistake.
-
I think his private life should be private.
But it's not his private life.
1) He's employed someone he's known for 20 years.
2) There is no public record of the job description or recruitment process.
3) She's been paid with your and my money.
4) They are having an affair, contrary to the letter and spirit of the Ministerial Code.
5) They broke the very law on household mixing that Hancock himself signed.
Point out which part of that should be glossed over as being "private".
-
Eh, all that information from one private photo taken on the sly!
-
Eh, all that information from one private photo taken on the sly!
Taken on the sly or not, he broke the law, a law he signed off, whats your opinion on that, for the third time
-
No. BB.
The first half of points 4 and 5 are from that photo, and from Hancock's own admission. The rest is public domain information.
Do you think Hancock should resign based on the information we know?
-
Even Tory MPs are saying he ought to resign now...
-
If Hancock has broken the law then he should face the consequences. It's not up to me what those consequences should be, neither should it be up to those who constantly troll the internet looking for anything anti-government they can find in order to bring down the government.
-
So you don't have any opinion on this then BB?
Is it REALLY that hard? Is it really that much about winning an argument for you?
-
BB
Hancock himself thinks it's a resigning matter when it's not applied to him.
He even thinks it's a police matter!
-
If Hancock has broken the law then he should face the consequences. It's not up to me what those consequences should be, neither should it be up to those who constantly troll the internet looking for anything anti-government they can find in order to bring down the government.
Bit of a cop out that, no one said it was up to you, I was asking your opinion of what you think should happen
-
So you don't have any opinion on this then BB?
Is it REALLY that hard? Is it really that much about winning an argument for you?
Yes, I have an opinion, and I've expressed it. You see Billy Boy, my opinion is not a politically based biased one, unlike yours. That's why you don't agree with it!
You see, I don't have a problem with us having a government that I didn't vote for, because I'm not a hideously irate bad loser with an obsession for bringing the government down because my own party is too shit to come anywhere near winning an election on its own merit like you are.
-
I don't think anyone on here is suggesting what the consequences should be BB.
We're just being guided by the man who put his name to the law, Mr Hancock himself.
He says resignation isn't good enough. The Police should be involved too.
-
RD, if no one on here is suggesting what the consequences should be, why did they ask me what they should be?
-
RD, if no one on here is suggesting what the consequences should be, why did they ask me what they should be?
Because "Billy Boy" suggested that there are some people these days who are so partisan they can never ever condemn a politician who is on their side...
-
I can't help but wonder about the mental health of someone who wades into every topic but always says they don't have an opinion to share.
-
RD, if no one on here is suggesting what the consequences should be, why did they ask me what they should be?
Because "Billy Boy" suggest that there are some people these days who are so partisan they can never ever condemn a politician who is on their side...
For me, it's nothing to do with being partisan to the Tories, It's everything to do with opposing the one-sided, politically biased lefties on here and trying to add a bit of balance.
-
Opposing one-sided politically biased lefties, isn't being partisan?
-
Opposing one-sided politically biased lefties, isn't being partisan?
It's as petty as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Only they manage to do it without the personal comments and insults BB obvious thinks he and his mighty intellect needs to resort to.
-
I can't help but wonder about the mental health of someone who wades into every topic but always says they don't have an opinion to share.
I can't help but suspect you were one of those types who hung on to the shirttails of the playground bullies in your school days and always got a thrill out of having a sly kick when the victim lay on the floor at the end.
Go on, you were, weren't you? I'm right, aren't I?
-
I can't help but wonder about the mental health of someone who wades into every topic but always says they don't have an opinion to share.
I can't help but suspect you were one of those types who hung on to the shirttails of the playground bullies in your school days and always got a thrill out of having a sly kick when the victim lay on the floor at the end.
Go on, you were, weren't you? I'm right, aren't I?
Hooked first time.
This baiting lark really is as easy as selby says it is.
-
See what I mean Don?
-
I can't help but wonder about the mental health of someone who wades into every topic but always says they don't have an opinion to share.
I can't help but suspect you were one of those types who hung on to the shirttails of the playground bullies in your school days and always got a thrill out of having a sly kick when the victim lay on the floor at the end.
Go on, you were, weren't you? I'm right, aren't I?
I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said, you know you've won the argument when they have to resort to personal insults...
-
But he doesn't resort to them, he starts with them.
-
Opposing one-sided politically biased lefties, isn't being partisan?
It's as petty as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Only they manage to do it without the personal comments and insults BB obvious thinks he and his mighty intellect needs to resort to.
Mighty intellect arguing with you? You certainly flatter yourself, don't you!
-
I can't help but wonder about the mental health of someone who wades into every topic but always says they don't have an opinion to share.
That’s the way, Glyn - it must be the other person’s mental health that is the problem. It came a bit earlier than usual, but it came nonetheless.
-
Opposing one-sided politically biased lefties, isn't being partisan?
It's as petty as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Only they manage to do it without the personal comments and insults BB obvious thinks he and his mighty intellect needs to resort to.
Mighty intellect arguing with you? You certainly flatter yourself, don't you!
Back on topic, your opinion? You have n’t given it yet, I know you say you have, but you haven’t and you know you haven’t
-
I can't help but wonder about the mental health of someone who wades into every topic but always says they don't have an opinion to share.
I can't help but suspect you were one of those types who hung on to the shirttails of the playground bullies in your school days and always got a thrill out of having a sly kick when the victim lay on the floor at the end.
Go on, you were, weren't you? I'm right, aren't I?
I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said, you know you've won the argument when they have to resort to personal insults...
Cheers RD. Common sense at last! Questioning someones mental health is quite insulting and personal!
-
I can't help but wonder about the mental health of someone who wades into every topic but always says they don't have an opinion to share.
I can't help but suspect you were one of those types who hung on to the shirttails of the playground bullies in your school days and always got a thrill out of having a sly kick when the victim lay on the floor at the end.
Go on, you were, weren't you? I'm right, aren't I?
I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said, you know you've won the argument when they have to resort to personal insults...
Sorry BB,
I thought that was aimed in my direction. I take that back.
-
Filo, se
Opposing one-sided politically biased lefties, isn't being partisan?
It's as petty as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Only they manage to do it without the personal comments and insults BB obvious thinks he and his mighty intellect needs to resort to.
Mighty intellect arguing with you? You certainly flatter yourself, don't you!
Back on topic, your opinion? You have n’t given it yet, I know you say you have, but you haven’t and you know you haven’t
Filo, see post 104
-
Filo, seOpposing one-sided politically biased lefties, isn't being partisan?
It's as petty as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Only they manage to do it without the personal comments and insults BB obvious thinks he and his mighty intellect needs to resort to.
Mighty intellect arguing with you? You certainly flatter yourself, don't you!
Back on topic, your opinion? You have n’t given it yet, I know you say you have, but you haven’t and you know you haven’t
Filo, see post 104
I’ve seen it, there’s no opinion there, just evasiveness and deflection
-
I can't help but wonder about the mental health of someone who wades into every topic but always says they don't have an opinion to share.
I can't help but suspect you were one of those types who hung on to the shirttails of the playground bullies in your school days and always got a thrill out of having a sly kick when the victim lay on the floor at the end.
Go on, you were, weren't you? I'm right, aren't I?
I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said, you know you've won the argument when they have to resort to personal insults...
Sorry BB,
I thought that was aimed in my direction. I take that back.
No probs, RD. Don't you ever worry, even slightly over some of the people who share your views, though?
-
Filo, seOpposing one-sided politically biased lefties, isn't being partisan?
It's as petty as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Only they manage to do it without the personal comments and insults BB obvious thinks he and his mighty intellect needs to resort to.
Mighty intellect arguing with you? You certainly flatter yourself, don't you!
Back on topic, your opinion? You have n’t given it yet, I know you say you have, but you haven’t and you know you haven’t
Filo, see post 104
I’ve seen it, there’s no opinion there, just evasiveness and deflection
If I based my opinion on a picture and trolled the internet for anti-government stories based on the said picture, I'd be as bad as you, and therefore certainly not in a position to make an unbiased judgement.
That's why my opinion at the moment is If Hancock has broken the law then he should face the consequences but it's not up to me to say what those consequences should be.
-
Filo, seOpposing one-sided politically biased lefties, isn't being partisan?
It's as petty as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Only they manage to do it without the personal comments and insults BB obvious thinks he and his mighty intellect needs to resort to.
Mighty intellect arguing with you? You certainly flatter yourself, don't you!
Back on topic, your opinion? You have n’t given it yet, I know you say you have, but you haven’t and you know you haven’t
Filo, see post 104
I’ve seen it, there’s no opinion there, just evasiveness and deflection
If I based my opinion on a picture and trolled the internet for anti-government stories based on the said picture, I'd be as bad as you, and therefore certainly not in a position to make an unbiased judgement.
That's why my opinion at the moment is If Hancock has broken the law then he should face the consequences but it's not up to me to say what those consequences should be.
Bullshit, as usual, evading the answer as usual, you just attempt to wear the person you are against down, every thread involving you goes this way, rather than you answer a question
-
BB
I don't think I'll involve myself in the ongoing interactions between yourself and Glyn.
On this topic, would you not agree with Mr Hancocks assesment of what the consequences of this offence should be?
-
What do you want me to say, Filo? Do you want me to say they should hang Hancock immediately and remove the government from office, and replace them with the mightily popular and squeaky clean Labour party?
-
BB
I don't think I'll involve myself in the ongoing interactions between yourself and Glyn.
On this topic, would you not agree with Mr Hancocks assesment of what the consequences of this offence should be?
If all that is true, yes. Like I've said twice previously if Hancock has broken the law he should face the consequences.
-
BB
I don't think I'll involve myself in the ongoing interactions between yourself and Glyn.
On this topic, would you not agree with Mr Hancocks assesment of what the consequences of this offence should be?
If all that is true, yes. Like I've said twice previously if Hancock has broken the law he should face the consequences.
We got there in the end.
You agree, he should be sacked and fined then.
If ever there was a man hoist by his own petard, it's Matt Hancock now.
-
BB
But breaking the law is only one aspect of what he's done.
1) He himself has admitted that he broke the social distancing guidelines.
2) He himself said when a member of SAGE did EXACTLY the same thing, that it was a resignation issue.
In light of that, what do YOU think? Regardless of who replaces him or gains politically. Should he resign?
If I was playing this for political advantage for Labour, I'd say keep him in post. He is the gift that keeps on giving.
But it's not about political advantage, despite your worrying obsession. It's about having a Health Secretary that the country can trust when he or she looks you in the eye and tells you why the guidelines are vital.
-
Resigned
-
Like I've said all along RD, if he has broken the law then he should face the consequences, and I'll go along with whatever those consequences are. If he is to be sacked and fined for being a hypocrite so be it, although I'm sure there are plenty of hypocrites in politics who have escaped being sacked.
-
Like I've said all along RD, if he has broken the law then he should face the consequences, and I'll go along with whatever those consequences are. If he is to be sacked and fined for being a hypocrite so be it, although I'm sure there are plenty of hypocrites in politics who have escaped being sacked.
Not for being a hypocrite, for breaking the law.
-
End of discussion?
-
BB
I don't think I'll involve myself in the ongoing interactions between yourself and Glyn.
On this topic, would you not agree with Mr Hancocks assesment of what the consequences of this offence should be?
I haven't interacted with BB despite the deliberate provocation.
-
End of discussion?
Not Really, the “matter was closed” why has the PM accepted his resignation if it was closed?
-
Like I've said all along RD, if he has broken the law then he should face the consequences, and I'll go along with whatever those consequences are. If he is to be sacked and fined for being a hypocrite so be it, although I'm sure there are plenty of hypocrites in politics who have escaped being sacked.
Not for being a hypocrite, for breaking the law.
RD, he's admitted to breaking the social distancing law which is normally a £200 fine, or £100 if paid within 14 days. I suggest he had to resign on the basis he was a hypocrite.
-
Like I've said all along RD, if he has broken the law then he should face the consequences, and I'll go along with whatever those consequences are. If he is to be sacked and fined for being a hypocrite so be it, although I'm sure there are plenty of hypocrites in politics who have escaped being sacked.
Not for being a hypocrite, for breaking the law.
RD, he's admitted to breaking the social distancing law which is normally a £200 fine, or £100 if paid within 14 days. I suggest he had to resign on the basis he was a hypocrite.
You knew that before he resigned, but didn’t give your opinion until after he resigned
-
End of discussion?
Not Really, the “matter was closed” why has the PM accepted his resignation if it was closed?
I didn’t think so.
-
Belton.
You are quite at liberty to:
1) Ignore this discussion.
2) Contribute substantively to this discussion.
3) Do neither of the above but snipe at people who choose 2.
Anyone taking bets?
-
Like I've said all along RD, if he has broken the law then he should face the consequences, and I'll go along with whatever those consequences are. If he is to be sacked and fined for being a hypocrite so be it, although I'm sure there are plenty of hypocrites in politics who have escaped being sacked.
Not for being a hypocrite, for breaking the law.
RD, he's admitted to breaking the social distancing law which is normally a £200 fine, or £100 if paid within 14 days. I suggest he had to resign on the basis he was a hypocrite.
Yes, you are right, he's said he resigned because those who make the rules should abide by the rules, so he has to go.
-
Oh I missed 3a. Snipe at CERTAIN people but not say a word when a poster without provocation tells another one to "f**k off".
-
Like I've said all along RD, if he has broken the law then he should face the consequences, and I'll go along with whatever those consequences are. If he is to be sacked and fined for being a hypocrite so be it, although I'm sure there are plenty of hypocrites in politics who have escaped being sacked.
Not for being a hypocrite, for breaking the law.
RD, he's admitted to breaking the social distancing law which is normally a £200 fine, or £100 if paid within 14 days. I suggest he had to resign on the basis he was a hypocrite.
Yes, you are right, he's said he resigned because those who make the rules should abide by the rules, so he has to go.
That is so obvious, it defies belief that anyone could have thought a gritted teeth apology yesterday was enough to close the matter.
-
So why was he not just sacked when he failed to resign?
-
So why was he not just sacked when he failed to resign?
Because then people would have pointed out that the PM was calling the kettle black.
-
Belton.
You are quite at liberty to:
1) Ignore this discussion.
2) Contribute substantively to this discussion.
3) Do neither of the above but snipe at people who choose 2.
Anyone taking bets?
Is 2 and 3 available together, as it is for you?
-
Belton.
My mistake. 3) Should have read snipe at people BECAUSE they choose 2.
-
If you can point out where I have sniped at someone for contributing a substantive point, I'll take the rap on the knuckles.
-
As someone who works in the NHS all I can say is good f**king riddance
-
As someone who works in the NHS all I can say is good f**king riddance
Watch out, I wouldn't be surprised if you got Gavin Williamson or Chris Grayling!
EDIT: I've just seen on BBC News that you've got Sajid Javid. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad for you in the long run
-
Billy. You really want to bring in NOT sniping at CERTAIN people who provoke? Really?
Who told who to f**k off without provocation? I genuinely don’t know.
-
BB
I suggest you have a look at the first 6 posts of this thread and get back to me.
-
Yes, and I meant every word of it.
-
Post six is the first one that tells anyone to f**k off. If you think there is no provocation before that then you are being even more selective than usual. In fact, most of Sydney’s posts are provocative, including the vast majority of his thread openers.
But of course our Sydney hangs on your every word, hence the lack of sniping from you to him. That’s not unexpected, but be careful about who you accuse of what, and who you don’t, because it can make you look a bit silly.
-
Absolutely Belton. There are half a dozen members of the Britain Surrendering Together party hell-bent on taking over the world of a third division football forum simply because they have no chance in the real world.
Many posters have f**ked off because of them but I'll be f**ked if I'm gonna be one of them.
-
So why was he not just sacked when he failed to resign?
Because then people would have pointed out that the PM was calling the kettle black.
And keeping him post made a good deflection shield for Johnson - someone to blame for the mistakes when they finally have the inquiry.
Suprised he chose to appoint Javid tho. Someone with integrity who wants his job - could be interesting.
I can't be bothered to read all the posts in the thread - far too many personal insults from the usual troll to be bothered with - so I don't know if anyone has yet asked 'how did the photo and then video come to be posted in The S*n'? It's a Johnson supporting paper, Murdoch is a personal friend of Patel - why would they publish it to damage him, it just seems odd to me? Who's on manouvres?
-
Post six is the first one that tells anyone to f**k off. If you think there is no provocation before that then you are being even more selective than usual. In fact, most of Sydney’s posts are provocative, including the vast majority of his thread openers.
But of course our Sydney hangs on your every word, hence the lack of sniping from you to him. That’s not unexpected, but be careful about who you accuse of what, and who you don’t, because it can make you look a bit silly.
You're right Belton.
The provocation started in post 2. But hands up, it was poor wording from me. I shouldn't have said without provocation. I should have said someone provoking a fight and then telling another poster to f**k off
-
So, Billy Boy, By answering the question posed in post 1 with my genuine opinion, it is deemed by you as provocative because it doesn't suit your opinion. Is that honestly how you think this forum should function?
Alternatively, are you suggesting that those not in your party are never provoked?
-
and it looks like queenie was right all along ............... poor man
-
As for my condemnation of sniping, I very rarely do it because I assume that we are all big boys who can take as well as give. I do have a policy that I try to stick to of not initiating personal attacks.
In the case of why I'm not having a pop at Sydney, well, he's never started a fight with me. If you truly think I somehow get off on him "hanging on my every word" then...well I can't think what to say that you wouldn't interpret as an insult so I'll rise above and shake my head wistfully.
If you're asking why I'm pointing out BB's volley of abuse at the start of this thread then I obviously didn't make myself clear. It's not about him. I usually try to ignore him in that mode. It's more about your selective was in who's contributions you choose to criticise. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency.
-
No BB.
You answered a harmless question on a topic that was raising laughs across the internet with a personal dig. Like you were spoiling for a fight.
I don't mind that by the way. That's your choice.
-
Billy. Is it the swearing or the provocation that upsets you? Personally, I’d rather someone tell me to f**k off than, say, question my mental health.
You provoke, I provoke, along with lots of others. Some seem to thrive on provocation, some don’t tend to provoke unless provoked.
Either accept that or don’t, but for crying out loud, leave it with the mightier than thou hypocrisy.
-
Oh thanks for not minding and giving me a choice BST, that's much appreciated.
So, you think Skippy's hatred of everything British, including the royal family and the Tories - in fact, every subject in the title of his post, wasn't provocative?
Give it a rest!
-
Oh thanks for not minding and giving me a choice BST, that's much appreciated.
So, you think Skippy's hatred of everything British, including the royal family and the Tories - in fact, every subject in the title of his post, wasn't provocative?
Give it a rest!
there you go posting without a thought for the truth bb, if you do know it then that makes you a liar.
-
As for my condemnation of sniping, I very rarely do it because I assume that we are all big boys who can take as well as give. I do have a policy that I try to stick to of not initiating personal attacks.
In the case of why I'm not having a pop at Sydney, well, he's never started a fight with me. If you truly think I somehow get off on him "hanging on my every word" then...well I can't think what to say that you wouldn't interpret as an insult so I'll rise above and shake my head wistfully.
If you're asking why I'm pointing out BB's volley of abuse at the start of this thread then I obviously didn't make myself clear. It's not about him. I usually try to ignore him in that mode. It's more about your selective was in who's contributions you choose to criticise. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency.
Yet you are perplexed that I haven’t pulled up Bentley for provoking, despite the fact that he has never ‘started a fight with me’.
As I said, hypocrisy at its best.
-
Ah, now we've got to the issue Belton. It's not toxicity that you object to. It's toxicity directed at you personally. If you'd said that months ago, it would have been much clearer.
-
Ah, now we've got to the issue Belton. It's not toxicity that you object to. It's toxicity directed at you personally. If you'd said that months ago, it would have been much clearer.
I honestly, genuinely do not know how you dare!
-
Ah, now we've got to the issue Belton. It's not toxicity that you object to. It's toxicity directed at you personally. If you'd said that months ago, it would have been much clearer.
I didn’t realise you were being provocatively, personally toxic.
Know I know.
-
Oh thanks for not minding and giving me a choice BST, that's much appreciated.
So, you think Skippy's hatred of everything British, including the royal family and the Tories - in fact, every subject in the title of his post, wasn't provocative?
Give it a rest!
there you go posting without a thought for the truth bb, if you do know it then that makes you a liar.
And there you go again! My truth is reality, Sydney, your truth is The Guardian. There is no way I would attempt to put you right on the political scene in your life in Sydney because you would be quite within your rights to tell me to f**k off, just like I tell you to f**k off on here.
there you go again bb, that's the thing see, I don't hate you at all, I feel sorry for you at times, that you cannot control your temper and have a predilection for fantasy but you posts amuse me on the whole and I find that I can watch telly, do crosswords and the like and fend you off at the same time quite easily.
-
At least my presence seems to ween you off the Guardian, Sydney, albeit temporarily. As an aside, I don't hate you either, although I would understand you hating me. I would imagine there's now't worse than having an argument with somebody who's right (so I've been told).
-
Ah, now we've got to the issue Belton. It's not toxicity that you object to. It's toxicity directed at you personally. If you'd said that months ago, it would have been much clearer.
I didn’t realise you were being provocatively, personally toxic.
Know I know.
A few months ago, you made a good point about the need for us all to try to be a bit less personal in here. I agreed.
Since then I have tried very hard not to instigate personal fights. I think I'm right in saying that in your case I haven't started any personal digs.
In this very thread, your first contribution was a pop at anyone who was concerned about Hancock's antics. Your second was a little dig at me on a subject that you have given your opinion several times before. Maybe that was light-hearted, I don't know, but in the context of previous interactions, there hasn't been much light-heartedness.
Maybe if you dialled it down a bit, you could play your own part in this place being less toxic?
-
BST, seeing as you class being toxic as someone who disagrees with you, or any of your handful of supporters, what is your ultimate aim regarding the future of this forum? Would detoxing the forum basically lead to just a handful of BST supporters being on it?
-
At least my presence seems to ween you off the Guardian, Sydney, albeit temporarily. As an aside, I don't hate you either, although I would understand you hating me. I would imagine there's now't worse than having an argument with somebody who's right (so I've been told).
I don't think of it like that at all bb and try and I do help with your craving for attention by pointing out your failure to promulgate a sound argument at which you normally fly off the handle with expletive laden posts which I discuss with my partner and decide sometimes between us what the best reply should be. Remember the paint + corner ones they are some of my favourites. Sleep well fella
-
What?
-
Back on topic, here's a list of what this episode says about Hancock.
1) He broke a law that he signed on household bubble mixing.
2) By breaking the law, he lost any possible credibility in his future ability to require other people to toe the line.
3) He ignored Govt requirements of transparency in recruiting senior staff in his department.
4) He had an affair with a non-exec director in his department whose very job was to hold him to account.
5) In doing so, he undermined every interaction that Coladangelo had with other staff, because there is a clear danger that private discussions with them could get back to her lover.
6) He broke the Ministerial Code in conducting that affair.
7) In having that affair, he left himself open to potential blackmail and would without question have violated his Developed Vetting status that is required for access to Top Secret information.
Every single one of those points should have required his immediate dismissal.
But the PM decided that a half apology was grounds to keep him on.
-
Ah, now we've got to the issue Belton. It's not toxicity that you object to. It's toxicity directed at you personally. If you'd said that months ago, it would have been much clearer.
I didn’t realise you were being provocatively, personally toxic.
Know I know.
A few months ago, you made a good point about the need for us all to try to be a bit less personal in here. I agreed.
Since then I have tried very hard not to instigate personal fights. I think I'm right in saying that in your case I haven't started any personal digs.
In this very thread, your first contribution was a pop at anyone who was concerned about Hancock's antics. Your second was a little dig at me on a subject that you have given your opinion several times before. Maybe that was light-hearted, I don't know, but in the context of previous interactions, there hasn't been much light-heartedness.
Maybe if you dialled it down a bit, you could play your own part in this place being less toxic?
Stop misrepresenting my words.
-
BST, seeing as you class being toxic as someone who disagrees with you, or any of your handful of supporters, what is your ultimate aim regarding the future of this forum? Would detoxing the forum basically lead to just a handful of BST supporters being on it?
BB. I've no idea how you come to that conclusion in your first line, so rather than get into a pointless argument, I'll pass.
-
Belton. If I've misrepresented your words, please point out where and I'll gladly withdraw.
-
Back on topic, here's a list of what this episode says about Hancock.
1) He broke a law that he signed on household bubble mixing.
2) By breaking the law, he lost any possible credibility in his future ability to require other people to toe the line.
3) He ignored Govt requirements of transparency in recruiting senior staff in his department.
4) He had an affair with a non-exec director in his department whose very job was to hold him to account.
5) In doing so, he undermined every interaction that Coladangelo had with other staff, because there is a clear danger that private discussions with them could get back to her lover.
6) He broke the Ministerial Code in conducting that affair.
7) In having that affair, he left himself open to potential blackmail and would without question have violated his Developed Vetting status that is required for access to Top Secret information.
Every single one of those points should have required his immediate dismissal.
But the PM decided that a half apology was grounds to keep him on.
The Guardian report says that they both went down to the G7 talks therefore I would think that his affair was common knowledge amongst his colleagues and if so it demonstrates further the arrogance and contempt this lot have for public office.
-
By the way, I've just listened to R4's Any Questions from before Hancock's resignation.
Absolute gem from Jenrick. He said that Hancock had apologised and as we need the Health Secretary to guide us through the pandemic, we should let him get back "on the job".
You could not script that.
-
Belton. If I've misrepresented your words, please point out where and I'll gladly withdraw.
Where I’ve said anything remotely toxic to you in this thread.
-
BST, seeing as you class being toxic as someone who disagrees with you, or any of your handful of supporters, what is your ultimate aim regarding the future of this forum? Would detoxing the forum basically lead to just a handful of BST supporters being on it?
BB. I've no idea how you come to that conclusion in your first line, so rather than get into a pointless argument, I'll pass.
I come to that conclusion because it's the gods honest truth!
-
By the way, I've just listened to R4's Any Questions from before Hancock's resignation.
Absolute gem from Jenrick. He said that Hancock had apologised and as we need the Health Secretary to guide us through the pandemic, we should let him get back "on the job".
You could not script that.
this is a gem too
''In his resignation letter Hancock said: “We have worked so hard as a country to fight the pandemic. The last thing I would want is for my private life to distract attention from the single-minded focus that is leading us out of this crisis. I want to reiterate my apology for breaking the guidance, and apologise to my family and loved ones for putting them through this. I also need [to] be with my children at this time.”
-
Belton
I didn't say you had. I said you couldn't resist a couple of personal digs in your first two posts on this thread.
-
By the way, I've just listened to R4's Any Questions from before Hancock's resignation.
Absolute gem from Jenrick. He said that Hancock had apologised and as we need the Health Secretary to guide us through the pandemic, we should let him get back "on the job".
You could not script that.
Of course we need the Health Secetary to help guide us through the pandemic.
-
Belton will you please stop being toxic!
-
By the way, I've just listened to R4's Any Questions from before Hancock's resignation.
Absolute gem from Jenrick. He said that Hancock had apologised and as we need the Health Secretary to guide us through the pandemic, we should let him get back "on the job".
You could not script that.
Of course we need the Health Secetary to help guide us through the pandemic.
Shall I point out the funny bit with a flashing arrow?
-
Belton
I didn't say you had. I said you couldn't resist a couple of personal digs in your first two posts on this thread.
You said, or at least very strongly suggested, that I could play my part in this forum not being toxic by not ‘having a pop’ or making a comment to you that you that you accepted may well have been light hearted.
-
that's better belton, no beating about the bush aye?
-
BST, you really have got an amazing job as judge and jury in deciding what is light hearted and what is toxic on this forum. Who actually gave you the job?
-
BST, you really have got an amazing job as judge and jury in deciding what is light hearted and what is toxic on this forum. Who actually gave you the job?
:)
-
Put you choices here:
Not a bad stab in the dark, so to speak aye? with the country and the world in the middle of the worst health crisis in a century, hancock appears to have had his mind more on his cock than the portfolio to hand. One could be accused of being one eyed about all this but the evidence has left johnson, who is incidentally no stranger in living up to his name to force his resignation.
-
By the way, I've just listened to R4's Any Questions from before Hancock's resignation.
Absolute gem from Jenrick. He said that Hancock had apologised and as we need the Health Secretary to guide us through the pandemic, we should let him get back "on the job".
You could not script that.
this is a gem too
''In his resignation letter Hancock said: “We have worked so hard as a country to fight the pandemic. The last thing I would want is for my private life to distract attention from the single-minded focus that is leading us out of this crisis. I want to reiterate my apology for breaking the guidance, and apologise to my family and loved ones for putting them through this. I also need [to] be with my children at this time.”
According to the chronolgy of the story as published in several newspapers this morning, he woke his children up on Tursday evening, once he knew that the story would be published in The S*n latter, to tell them he was leaving them and their mother to go live with another woman. Saying one thing and doing another to the very end.
-
If you have ten minutes, listen to this interview on R4's Today programme this morning, with the Justice Secretary.
He basically says what I've been saying in here. Nick Robinson lists all the examples of ministerial misconduct which have gone unpunished, and he basically says "It doesn't matter. None of it matters. We can do what we want because we have the public on our side." And he would appear to be right.
This is literally how democracies fall apart, when people do not hold politicians to account. Democracy isn't about whether or not you have a vote. It is about whether you process what politicians are doing in your name, and whether you care enough to withdraw your support from ones who break the rules. If you don't then in all but name, democracy doesn't exist and we basically say "Do what you want lads and lasses".
Whole thing starts at 2.10.20 but the key bit is the 70-80 seconds from 2.16.50
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000xdx2
-
Guy has made a huge mistake. But some of the comments that have been made on social media are way ott. Makes you think the posters have serious issues.
-
Guy has made a huge mistake. But some of the comments that have been made on social media are way ott. Makes you think the posters have serious issues.
He made some considered deliberate breaches of social distancing, he employed a chum and didn't advertise the position using public money a sort of public prostitute if you like, and around £3 billion worth of contracts have been awarded to chums of the tory party. He and johnson are responsible for 10s of thousands of unnecessary deaths so I guess I can see why some maybe upset.
-
Guy has made a huge mistake. But some of the comments that have been made on social media are way ott. Makes you think the posters have serious issues.
I like your spirit, DRC, but don’t waste your time on here suggesting that Hancock deserves anything less than whatever hideous things you’ve seen on social media.
-
There was a bloke on Any Answers on R4 last Saturday. Said he was a retired senior civil servant. Almost broke down as he said he'd not been able to visit his wife in hospital as she died of cancer, because of social distancing. He deserved to be allowed to rant at Hancock's behaviour. But he didn't. He just said that he was content that he had done the right thing and he didn't understand how Hancock could begin to believe he cold stay in position.
That gets to the core of this issue. Millions of people have made massive sacrifices because it is the right thing to do for society. While Hancock was groping his old friend's arse in his office.
Which doesn't justify abuse. But equally, it doesn't justify the "meh" acceptance of some others, PM included.
-
Guy has made a huge mistake. But some of the comments that have been made on social media are way ott. Makes you think the posters have serious issues.
I like your spirit, DRC, but don’t waste your time on here suggesting that Hancock deserves anything less than whatever hideous things you’ve seen on social media.
I don't believe in mob rule but I can understand it, I don't do social media, this forum is the exception. If you have lower standards that's fine belton.
-
Guy has made a huge mistake. But some of the comments that have been made on social media are way ott. Makes you think the posters have serious issues.
Huge mistakes!!! He has lied to his family, lied to the country, employed his mistress to a job she wasn't qualified for, conducted government business - which involved awarding billions of pounds of contracts - via private email address as well as being a huge hypocrite on the laws he himself drafted - all on your money! Noe of it was a mistake - it was all done deliberately and arrogantly.
But don't worry, some people will still excuse him. Oh look...
-
Quite disrespectful to suggest the poor man has a ‘meh’ attitude.
Who is anyone to take a person’s way of dealing with personal heartache and call it an unjustified response that is the core of the issue?
-
Go away Belton.
I wasn't talking about that man. I was talking about the mass of Tory supporters who will not criticise Hancock. And I cannot begin to fathom what is going on in your head for you to come to that conclusion. Your utter obsession with reading my posts in a way that confirms your prejudices is now way beyond a joke. Just have some sense man.
-
That man is happy that Hancock has resigned and wants to leave it at that.
So do I.
You don’t.
Those who don’t, in your very vocal opinion, have a ‘meh’ attitude.
You brought the poor man in to your argument and you were disrespectful to do so.
Oh, and I’m going nowhere.
And here comes the ‘mental issues’ argument.
-
Guy has made a huge mistake. But some of the comments that have been made on social media are way ott. Makes you think the posters have serious issues.
Huge mistakes!!! He has lied to his family, lied to the country, employed his mistress to a job she wasn't qualified for, conducted government business - which involved awarding billions of pounds of contracts - via private email address as well as being a huge hypocrite on the laws he himself drafted - all on your money! Noe of it was a mistake - it was all done deliberately and arrogantly.
But don't worry, some people will still excuse him. Oh look...
Wilts. In what way does DRC’s post excuse what he’s done?
-
Belton.
Sit down. Stop typing. Read my post again. And then ask yourself what is going on in your head that leads you to conclude that I'm being disrespectful to the man who lost his wife.
I absolutely and totally admire the man. He's an example to us all. I was NOT referring to him in criticising the "meh" brigade.
Your interpretation and response is so far beyond ridiculous it is frightening.
-
Belton.
Sit down. Stop typing. Read my post again. And then ask yourself what is going on in your head that leads you to conclude that I'm being disrespectful to the man who lost his wife.
I absolutely and totally admire the man. He's an example to us all. I was NOT referring to him in criticising the "meh" brigade.
Your interpretation and response is so far beyond ridiculous it is frightening.
How is it my error if you don’t mean what you write?
And why can’t you do what he did?
-
If you have ten minutes, listen to this interview on R$'s Today programme this morning, with the Justice Secretary.
He basically says what I've been saying in here. Nick Robinson lists all the examples of ministerial misconduct which have gone unpunished, and he basically says "It doesn't matter. None of it matters. We can do what we want because we have the public on our side." And he would appear to be right.
This is literally how democracies fall apart, when people do not hold politicians to account. Democracy isn't about whether or not you have a vote. It is about whether you process what politicians are doing in your name, and whether you care enough to withdraw your support from ones who break the rules. If you don't then in all but name, democracy doesn't exist and we basically say "Do what you want lads and lasses".
Whole thing starts at 2.10.20 but the key bit is the 70-80 seconds from 2.16.50
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000xdx2
It is the way of johnson, ride it out and distract the children.
-
Belton.
Sit down. Stop typing. Read my post again. And then ask yourself what is going on in your head that leads you to conclude that I'm being disrespectful to the man who lost his wife.
I absolutely and totally admire the man. He's an example to us all. I was NOT referring to him in criticising the "meh" brigade.
Your interpretation and response is so far beyond ridiculous it is frightening.
How is it my error if you don’t mean what you write?
And why can’t you do what he did?
No Belton.
You have chosen to make a bizarre interpretation of what I wrote, in a way that could only be meant if I was a moral monster. You have done that multiple times before and I am sick to the back teeth of it.
I have no idea if you do this because you are a truly vile, unpleasant troublemaker, or if you have become so unhinged by your interactions with me that you're unable to see straight. I've tried to address this by ignoring you, but you have continued to troll me. I've only ever blocked one person before on this site, but you have stretched my patience to snapping. GO and find someone else to troll now. You're blocked.
-
Billy. Everyone makes mistakes. If you poorly worded your post, then fine. Say so and I will accept it.
It seems there’s a lot of protesting going on from yo. Too much, perhaps.
I’m not sure what blocking me means on here, but go for it, if that’s what you want.
-
I didn’t think he’d go unless he was fired. I guess it all got too hot for him. If I’m being honest, he was found to be out of his depth many, many months ago albeit nobody can deny that the job must have been incredibly difficult due to Covid.
However, he’s just another in a long line of politicians on both sides of the house who have serious capability issues. Even Andrew Neil referred to the cabinet as nothing more than a ‘C’ list cabinet.Equally, the Labour front bench doesn’t fill me with confidence either. Whilst the Tory cabinet is useless, the Labour front bench is insipid. Hancock is just a creation of this culture of hopelessness without consequences. It seems a million miles from the great parliamentarians of the past such as Heseltine, Clarke, Healey and John Smith. When, even if you disagreed with them, you could rest at night in the knowledge that they were at least competent. I can’t say the same for most of the current lot I’m afraid.
-
Absolutely that, Herbert.
-
Absolutely that, Herbert.
Indeed absolutely that…..but I doubt very much that many on here will agree with all of that post.
-
I didn’t think he’d go unless he was fired. I guess it all got too hot for him. If I’m being honest, he was found to be out of his depth many, many months ago albeit nobody can deny that the job must have been incredibly difficult due to Covid.
However, he’s just another in a long line of politicians on both sides of the house who have serious capability issues. Even Andrew Neil referred to the cabinet as nothing more than a ‘C’ list cabinet.Equally, the Labour front bench doesn’t fill me with confidence either. Whilst the Tory cabinet is useless, the Labour front bench is insipid. Hancock is just a creation of this culture of hopelessness without consequences. It seems a million miles from the great parliamentarians of the past such as Heseltine, Clarke, Healey and John Smith. When, even if you disagreed with them, you could rest at night in the knowledge that they were at least competent. I can’t say the same for most of the current lot I’m afraid.
Couldn't agree more HA. I've said for years that we live in an age of political pygmies.
Years ago, the top of both major parties was dominated by people of very high intellect with long records of serious thought and/or responsibility before entering Parliament. Whatever you thought of their politics, they were people of substance, intellectually and practically.
Harold Wilson and Rab Butler both taught at Oxbridge before becoming MPs. Clem Attlee taught economics at the LSE. Enoch Powell was a Professor of History at the age of 25! Ernie Bevin had run the TUC and Nye Bevan worked tirelessly as a mining shop steward. Most of them, and many, many others, had served as officers in the War, with all the responsibility that entailed.
Now, very few MPs have any track record of anything outside politics before they become MPs. Many of those that do have been Murdoch journalists or city traders. [1]
I reckon it is the natural consequence of generations of belittling and abusing MPs. Why should anyone of real talent want to put themselves through that mill for the money that they get? I've always thought a country gets the politicians it deserves. If we as a people don't treat it seriously, why should serious people devote their lives to the calling?
[1] PS: Something just struck me on this. The job of opinion journalists like Gove and Johnson (and people in the Law - like Blair - who are also disproportionately over represented in Parliament) is to convince someone to agree with them, whatever the truth of the matter. The job of city spivs (like Javed) is to take risks and bend the rules as far as you can get away with to make a pile for you and your team.
Look at it like that, and the things I despair about in modern politics are inevitable.
-
Thinking about the last politicians who I really admired (without necessarily agreeing with them) I’d have to go for Alan Johnson for Labour and Steve Norris for the Conservatives. Alan Johnson was the leader who got away for me. I think he’d a been a great PM but I suspect he saw the way politics was going and didn’t like it. Steve Norris always spoke with clarity, conviction and compassion. Even if I disagreed with his views, which was often, I thought he showed a great balance in his opinions and wasn’t afraid to hold unpopular views for the time.
-
Among current Tories, I have a lot of admiration for the thoughtful approach of Jesse Norman and Andrew Tyrie, again, while often (usually) differing from them on their political stance.
On Labour's side, I actuallly came very much to admire John McDonnell, who would have made an infinitely better leader than Corbyn for the Left. He understood the way that Capitalism works far better than any recent Tory Chancellor, and he also understood that you getting nothing on the Left by impressing other people on the Left. Corbyn's massive failure was that the first people he wanted to impress were his ideologically sound compadres, like Milne, never seeming to understand how that made him look to the rest of the country. Towards the end, McDonnell was barely disguising his frustration at the navel gazing on the Corbynite Left over anti-Semitism and Brexit. Fascinating alternative history in the branch where McDonnell was the one who stood and won the Labour leadership in 2015.
-
This current sub-topic deserves its own thread before it gets swallowed up with what do do with Hancock and Johnson.
-
I thought there was a good point made by a former secretary to Margaret Thatcher interviewed on the news today.
There's a lot of good mps who do great work for the right reasons and you hear nothing about on all sides. Many of these despite being different parties have similar views on most things and that shouldn't be forgotten.
-
That is an all to well forgotten point, Big. It would be interesting to know who would be happier with a government not of their party choice who were, fundamentally, ‘good’ politicians and ‘good’ people, rather than not-so-good politicians of their own party.
I know I would.
-
I thought there was a good point made by a former secretary to Margaret Thatcher interviewed on the news today.
There's a lot of good mps who do great work for the right reasons and you hear nothing about on all sides. Many of these despite being different parties have similar views on most things and that shouldn't be forgotten.
I don't doubt that many are reasonably diligent. I do question whether they are particularly able.
Two of my contemporaries at university made it to become quite senior MPs, one of them a minister. I can tell you with my hand on my heart that neither of them has a stellar intellect and neither of them was particularly knowledgeable. One of them, during a student union debate about South Africa, referred repeatedly to "Steve Riko" and couldn't understand why peope were laughing on such a serious topic, until someone shouted out "It's BIKO you pillock."
Neither of them were the sort you would mark down for great things. Except they did have one talent. The ability to dominate a discussion through force of personality.
As for MPs having similar views, I think I'd differ on that to some extent. Certainly on core issues like the big picture way that you run an economy, there is a ocean of difference between Left and Right. There was probably much closer agreement in the 50s-70s. The term Butskellism was coined to reflect the similar approaches of the Tory Chancellor Rab Butler and the Labour Shadow Chancellor Hugh Gaitskell. Then a massive division when Thatcher took the Tories to neoliberalism in the 1980s. Then probably closer agreement in the 90s and 00s when Blair took Labour in the same direction. But since the GFC, there has been a huge gulf between Labour and the Tories on how to run the economy.
-
Apparently Gove is the next one to have been caught with his pants down. If there's a video of that it's definitely niche.
-
Apparently Gove is the next one to have been caught with his pants down. If there's a video of that it's definitely niche.
I can’t believe there are two people in the Country that would let that weasle shag them
-
Gove and Vine divorcing. Can you begin to imagine which one would be more guilty of unreasonable behaviour?
-
Apparently Gove is the next one to have been caught with his pants down. If there's a video of that it's definitely niche.
The Guardian article I saw about this says that both parties claim no one else is involved in their separation.
-
Gove likes the two cream crackers and a diary slice.
-
He certainly likes the Columbian marching powder. While his Govt sends people who have lived in the UK since they were toddlers back to Jamaica for selling drugs.
-
Apparently Gove is the next one to have been caught with his pants down. If there's a video of that it's definitely niche.
The Guardian article I saw about this says that both parties claim no one else is involved in their separation.
Supporting what filo said I think that would be the safest bet on the planet atm
-
Apparently Gove is the next one to have been caught with his pants down. If there's a video of that it's definitely niche.
The Guardian article I saw about this says that both parties claim no one else is involved in their separation.
Supporting what filo said I think that would be the safest bet on the planet atm
That may be the case but I was going by what the Guardian said.
Don’t they always report the truth.
-
Hound, if you report accurately what people say, then the Paper is reporting the truth. If the people saying it are untruthful, then their words may later rebound on them, just think how many times Trump lied, but the papers reported what he said.
-
Very true.
I must be very gullible then if I believe what is said in the Guardian.
-
Very true.
I must be very gullible then if I believe what is said in the Guardian.
I was agreeing with your post hound, don't be so defensive
-
Very true.
I must be very gullible then if I believe what is said in the Guardian.
I was agreeing with your post hound, don't be so defensive
SR, I was replying to Hounslow.
It isn’t all about you pal.
-
tell you what though hound anytime you can show where the guardian wrote something not true and didn't apologise I will double whatever you pay into the foodbank.
-
Sydney, now who is being defensive.
-
it's an open bet take it or leave it don't make every pound a prisoner
-
More riddles?
-
The rumours apparently are that he has been living with his gentleman friend for a few months.
-
who, hound?
-
who, hound?
Gove loves a bit of Dom Cum