The queen say's matt hancock is full of ..................

[belton rover]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.
My mistake. 3) Should have read snipe at people BECAUSE they choose 2.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you can point out where I have sniped at someone for contributing a substantive point, I'll take the rap on the knuckles.

[Ldr]

As someone who works in the NHS all I can say is good f**king riddance

[Glyn_Wigley]

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

[belton rover]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB
I suggest you have a look at the first 6 posts of this thread and get back to me.

[Bentley Bullet]

Yes, and I meant every word of it.

[belton rover]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[wilts rover]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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

[Bentley Bullet]

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?

[SydneyRover]

and it looks like queenie was right all along ............... poor man

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[belton rover]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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!

[SydneyRover]

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.

[belton rover]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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!

[belton rover]

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.

[SydneyRover]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

 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).

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

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?

[SydneyRover]

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

[Bentley Bullet]

What?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.