Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The front pages are pretty bad for Hancock – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,988
    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    I cannot understand why there is even debate on this.

    Hancock has broken the law and yet is still a senior government minister.

    Extraordinary. As others have said this government is increasingly morally bankrupt.

    Specifically, what law has he broken? I mean law, not guidelines. And remember this was a work colleague and working could continue.
    I am not sure that qualifies as work in the Civil Service code.

    Damn, got me doing it as well now.

    I am so bored of people hypocritically moaning about hypocrisy.
    I think the point is that you don’t have to socially distance with work colleagues - or to the extent that you do it is guidance. What the “work activities” actually are is irrelevant.
    I don't think that is correct. The work activities need to be "reasonably necessary for work purposes" to create the exemption from gatherings.

    I can't see how that is the case?
    He may argue that since they were exempt for legitimate purposes and so gathered, a personal non legitimate gathering is not technically a breach since for Covid purposes theyd legitimately formed a close contact already.

    It would matter to the police, but not anyone else - the perception is what matters, and it looks bloody awful, hes even on camera talking about affairs. So technically a crime matters little even if so - I bet hes talked about spirit of the rules not just the letter.
    IANAL and there are several on this forum so perhaps they may elaborate but I fail to see how such an argument holds any water. The law was never that once you have formed a close contact you could gather indoors with them on an ongoing basis. It was that you could only gather indoors with someone specifically for an exempt reason, or if they were in your household or support bubble.
    The law said people could gather indoors for work, so Matt and Gina are OK on that score. The law is silent on whether, having so gathered, it was in order to put on a show to titillate security guards.
    The law said people could gather indoors for work if it was "reasonably necessary for work purposes", not that they could gather indoors regardless.
    If I follow that viewpoint Matt seems to be implying that Gina was providing "adult services" as part of the duties she performed.
    Yes, one of the strangest quirks of the lockdown laws was that paid sex indoors has been legal throughout, whereas in the first lockdown a married couple who had separate houses would be breaking the law if they got together indoors.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,650
    isam said:


    James O'Brien
    @mrjamesob
    ·
    1h
    It’s not the infidelity, it’s the sacrifices everyone else made because *he* told them to that might yet do for Hancock. This isn’t going away.

    Have to agree with James O’Brien here.
    If you take Hancock at his own word, his conduct has placed his 3 children in unnecessary danger during the middle of an emergency. Scum.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,529
    The only way I can see this not affecting Tory popularity is that people have it built in to their judgement that all politicians are wankers anyway. But surely the polls will move significantly in the next week or so?

    Batley and Spen has moved to 4.7-4.8 from 5.2-5.3ish
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 3,683
    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    and call me old fashioned if you like but covid hypocrisy apart wont most people get sacked if they conduct a sexual encounter whilst at work (if caught) ? Especially a government office.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    surprised batley and spen betting has not moved away from the tories because of this. Get on labour or even galloway i say

    Ironic to suggest in light of a sex scandal that people should get on Galloway...
  • eekeek Posts: 15,841
    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    If it had been a quick snog I don't think Gina's (ex) husband would have been helping with her bags in full view of a photographer.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,720

    Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

    For some Muslims it is clearly not optimal. That is one reason why Galloway has some traction. And Labour has a difficulty because it courts both the gay and the Muslim factions.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873


    James O'Brien
    @mrjamesob
    ·
    1h
    It’s not the infidelity, it’s the sacrifices everyone else made because *he* told them to that might yet do for Hancock. This isn’t going away.

    To be brutally realistic the sacrifices were generally good advice to stop people catching a dangerous virus.

    Hancock was infected last year and was at minimal risk subsequently.

    I suspect few previously infected people have been following covid restrictions with the rigour they would have if they hadn't been infected. Ditto for those vaccinated.
    yeah but the best way to get people to follow orders is to lead by example . He clearly has not done that and really it is incredulous he is still in the job
    Not disagreeing but since when did politicians lead by example ?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    I cannot understand why there is even debate on this.

    Hancock has broken the law and yet is still a senior government minister.

    Extraordinary. As others have said this government is increasingly morally bankrupt.

    Specifically, what law has he broken? I mean law, not guidelines. And remember this was a work colleague and working could continue.
    I am not sure that qualifies as work in the Civil Service code.

    Damn, got me doing it as well now.

    I am so bored of people hypocritically moaning about hypocrisy.
    I think the point is that you don’t have to socially distance with work colleagues - or to the extent that you do it is guidance. What the “work activities” actually are is irrelevant.
    I don't think that is correct. The work activities need to be "reasonably necessary for work purposes" to create the exemption from gatherings.

    I can't see how that is the case?
    He may argue that since they were exempt for legitimate purposes and so gathered, a personal non legitimate gathering is not technically a breach since for Covid purposes theyd legitimately formed a close contact already.

    It would matter to the police, but not anyone else - the perception is what matters, and it looks bloody awful, hes even on camera talking about affairs. So technically a crime matters little even if so - I bet hes talked about spirit of the rules not just the letter.
    IANAL and there are several on this forum so perhaps they may elaborate but I fail to see how such an argument holds any water. The law was never that once you have formed a close contact you could gather indoors with them on an ongoing basis. It was that you could only gather indoors with someone specifically for an exempt reason, or if they were in your household or support bubble.
    The law said people could gather indoors for work, so Matt and Gina are OK on that score. The law is silent on whether, having so gathered, it was in order to put on a show to titillate security guards.
    The law said people could gather indoors for work if it was "reasonably necessary for work purposes", not that they could gather indoors regardless.
    If I follow that viewpoint Matt seems to be implying that Gina was providing "adult services" as part of the duties she performed.
    Yes, one of the strangest quirks of the lockdown laws was that paid sex indoors has been legal throughout, whereas in the first lockdown a married couple who had separate houses would be breaking the law if they got together indoors.
    I think that's because, although prostitution is legal, the Government doesn't, as a matter of policy, do anything that implies it might approve of it. So banning prostitution for the duration would have implied legalising it again. Similarly, DWP will not investigate benefit claimants thought to be working as prostitutes, as it implies it is a legitimate occupation and the claimant ought to sign off and live on her earnings.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,988

    surprised batley and spen betting has not moved away from the tories because of this. Get on labour or even galloway i say

    They have moved from 1.25 to 1.35 so a little drift. Agree it can't be any use at all for their get out the vote and should have moved the market more than it has.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205


    James O'Brien
    @mrjamesob
    ·
    1h
    It’s not the infidelity, it’s the sacrifices everyone else made because *he* told them to that might yet do for Hancock. This isn’t going away.

    To be brutally realistic the sacrifices were generally good advice to stop people catching a dangerous virus.

    Hancock was infected last year and was at minimal risk subsequently.

    I suspect few previously infected people have been following covid restrictions with the rigour they would have if they hadn't been infected. Ditto for those vaccinated.
    yeah but the best way to get people to follow orders is to lead by example . He clearly has not done that and really it is incredulous he is still in the job
    Not disagreeing but since when did politicians lead by example ?
    Bad example?
  • isamisam Posts: 38,529
    felix said:

    Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

    For some Muslims it is clearly not optimal. That is one reason why Galloway has some traction. And Labour has a difficulty because it courts both the gay and the Muslim factions.
    It had to happen in the end. You can’t bang on about Islamophobia and homophobia whilst ignoring that Islam is quite homophobic forever, no matter how much you try to cock a deaf un
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    The problem Hancock(/ Johnson if he won’t sack him) has in many respects is that, as other people have pointed out, that the line about “private affair” doesn’t stack up when the Govt have over the past 15 months made everyone’s private affair public by default. And not just through guidance to act in certain ways, but actually legislated against it. Now it maybe that, just as in most cases the offence does not technically breach the law, or is anyway pretty unenforceable if it does, but that’s not really the point.

    When there are clips all over the place of Hancock enthusiastically encouraging the police to get involved in even the slightest misdemeanours then people have a right to get angry.

    I also haven’t been following totally closely, so I might have missed key things, but there appears to be a great deal of fudging about whether this was a one off incident rather than a long running affair. There was the statement that social distancing rules were broken “on this occasion”. But no statement about “a moment of weakness leading to a mistake in a high pressure situation and the end of one particularly stressful day”. If he could confidently say the latter then I think it would put him in a massively stronger position. But the fact that he can’t (assuming he hasn’t) is revealing. And problematic. Ferguson, for example was making regular trips to see his partner. Cummings, whilst totally cackhandedly handled, had the defence that he was looking out for his family.

    But Hancock?

    My assumption is it’s a long running affair

    It’s why she was appointed as an unofficial/unpaid aide

    And then when people asked what she was doing there was made a non-executive director at the department
    So it's an Arcuri situation...
    I’m not particularly worried about the unpaid aide - basically a workaround on the rules I guess but probably legitimate.

    Don’t know the process for NED appointment but they seem pretty marginal sinecures so if she was doing then work (and she’s clearly qualified) then 🤷‍♂️

    I don’t really care about the affair, I just feel very sorry for the injured parties.

    However I just don’t see how he has any authority or credibility on imposing (or maintaining) restrictions in future. Hence his effectiveness is undermined.

    I’d actually be favour of keeping him in place until the restrictions are lifted next month (I don’t see how he can extend them credibly, although it may make July 5 difficult because that would be a knee jerk reaction). Then reshuffle him to Siberia.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,650
    edited June 26

    Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

    What is wrong with Labour blithely picking a gay candidate but then lacking the morals to support her when attacked. Shambles.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 3,683
    ydoethur said:

    surprised batley and spen betting has not moved away from the tories because of this. Get on labour or even galloway i say

    Ironic to suggest in light of a sex scandal that people should get on Galloway...
    except it snot a sex scandal really is it? Its more fundamental
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,981
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Mr. kle4, not so much a deliberate design to copy the tedium as the fact street circuits are quicker to 'create' and countries that want to pay cash for marketing find them convenient.

    Unfortunately, Baku excepted, they tend to be very boring...

    If I'm likely to head to any race to watch in person, Baku would be my favourite option simply because I have zero other reason to go there.

    Now if Istanbul has a race in 2022 we will go there as it would tie in with a holiday round Istanbul.
    Monaco is, I believe, popular as a 'go to' with the backroom teams.
    Somewhere is a Jeremy Clarkson programme on Monaco where all the F1 drivers explain they live there because it is so convenient for the Grand Prix. So by a circular argument, there has to be a Grand Prix in Monaco or the drivers and team bosses would have to live in less convenient countries and pay income tax. :wink:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=_ObRzF8I5DE

    Rather amusing to see most of them come up with contrived reasons for loving Monaco, when the real reason so many touring sportspeople live year, is of course because they are what a former prime minister called citizens of nowhere, and there’s no income tax for foreign residents in Monaco.
    Didn't Hamilton I think point out he pays income tax in 23 different countries so removing cross border insanity on top starts to make sense.
    Yes, sportspeople do generally get taxed where they work, which is everywhere! There have been lots of rows over the years, in numerous countries, about not enough taxes being paid by non-resident competitors in sporting events.

    Someone like Hamilton would have several companies, and firms of accountants and lawyers to sort out his affairs. It’s much more difficult for the average pro tennis player or golfer, who doesn’t actually earn that much money and has a lot of expenses travelling the world to compete.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,650
    isam said:

    felix said:

    Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

    For some Muslims it is clearly not optimal. That is one reason why Galloway has some traction. And Labour has a difficulty because it courts both the gay and the Muslim factions.
    It had to happen in the end. You can’t bang on about Islamophobia and homophobia whilst ignoring that Islam is quite homophobic forever, no matter how much you try to cock a deaf un
    The same principle free attempt to turn a deaf ear is happening when it comes to anti-semitism again too. We all know why Keir is so unpopular with some parts of their voting coalition.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,988

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    I cannot understand why there is even debate on this.

    Hancock has broken the law and yet is still a senior government minister.

    Extraordinary. As others have said this government is increasingly morally bankrupt.

    Specifically, what law has he broken? I mean law, not guidelines. And remember this was a work colleague and working could continue.
    I am not sure that qualifies as work in the Civil Service code.

    Damn, got me doing it as well now.

    I am so bored of people hypocritically moaning about hypocrisy.
    I think the point is that you don’t have to socially distance with work colleagues - or to the extent that you do it is guidance. What the “work activities” actually are is irrelevant.
    I don't think that is correct. The work activities need to be "reasonably necessary for work purposes" to create the exemption from gatherings.

    I can't see how that is the case?
    He may argue that since they were exempt for legitimate purposes and so gathered, a personal non legitimate gathering is not technically a breach since for Covid purposes theyd legitimately formed a close contact already.

    It would matter to the police, but not anyone else - the perception is what matters, and it looks bloody awful, hes even on camera talking about affairs. So technically a crime matters little even if so - I bet hes talked about spirit of the rules not just the letter.
    IANAL and there are several on this forum so perhaps they may elaborate but I fail to see how such an argument holds any water. The law was never that once you have formed a close contact you could gather indoors with them on an ongoing basis. It was that you could only gather indoors with someone specifically for an exempt reason, or if they were in your household or support bubble.
    The law said people could gather indoors for work, so Matt and Gina are OK on that score. The law is silent on whether, having so gathered, it was in order to put on a show to titillate security guards.
    The law said people could gather indoors for work if it was "reasonably necessary for work purposes", not that they could gather indoors regardless.
    If I follow that viewpoint Matt seems to be implying that Gina was providing "adult services" as part of the duties she performed.
    Yes, one of the strangest quirks of the lockdown laws was that paid sex indoors has been legal throughout, whereas in the first lockdown a married couple who had separate houses would be breaking the law if they got together indoors.
    I think that's because, although prostitution is legal, the Government doesn't, as a matter of policy, do anything that implies it might approve of it. So banning prostitution for the duration would have implied legalising it again. Similarly, DWP will not investigate benefit claimants thought to be working as prostitutes, as it implies it is a legitimate occupation and the claimant ought to sign off and live on her earnings.
    Sure but they could have made an exemption for couples who live in separate homes to be allowed to see each other, if they were allowing millions of work colleagues and clients to meet up each day.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Cyclefree said:

    To me, giving a job to your mistress is even more blameworthy (if she is that and this was not just a one-off drunken squeeze) than not following rules he set for others.

    Anyway Eldest Son has just set off for work with a very nasty cut on head , expertly stitched by the docs at UC Hospital last night. Cycling accident, head hits pavement, blood everywhere but so far no signs of concussion etc. Passers-by rushed to his aid which was nice.

    He seems fine, which is a relief. His customers may end up buying some odd things from him though.

    Other son is suffering the after-effects of his first Pfizer jab.

    I, on the other hand, had my first face-to-face event with the fellow trustees of a charity I chair. It was unbelievably wonderful to be in the physical company of others. We humans need this.

    Even the Hancocks of this world.

    Well, he’s certainly been holding lots of face to face contacts recently...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,239

    .

    Good morning.

    Good to see DavidL posting, reasonably cheerfully too. And he's obviously found a phone charger! Which is also good!

    Someone up thread mentioned a video of Hancock's 'antics'; if something even moderately salacious gets about, surely his position will, as is said, become untenable.

    And I agree that Jeremy Hunt could probably get up to speed quickly. Isn't the No2 in the Department Helen Whatley, though? She ought to know what's going on.
    Although ......

    If Mancock has to resign then doesn't the pack turn on its next target? He has done nothing wrong* from the perspective of a party where everything is acceptable. His boss and colleagues have all done bad and the PM simply ignores it.

    If bad is now a resignation offence won't they all end up going one at a time? Mancock wasted money so lets go after the PM. Mancock broke the Ministerial Code so lets go after Patel and the PM. Mancock lied so lets go after the PM and Patel and Williamson and we'll be here all day.

    No wonder Shagger says "cased closed"...
    That is true. Johnson and Hancock need to front this out until Friday, by which time we will all be laughing hysterically at the hapless Starmer and Ledbetter.

    Electoral failure trumps corruption and infidelity any day of the week, particularly on the Friday after a by-election.
    Poor Kim Leadbeater. Either she is nor referred to as just "Jo Cox's sister", or her surname is misspelt.

    When I see a mob of anti-LGBT protesters heckling a politician for being a lesbian, I am waaaay, waaaay more likely to get out and vote for her.

    Just as for any mob, really.
    Believe it or not I corrected the name of Jo Cox's sister to Ledbetter, because I had seen it on PB, and I didn't want to be humiliated by misspelling the name as per the family from The Good Life.

    I wasn't aware Jo Cox's sister was part of the LGBT community. Fine by me, and surely George wouldn't try to exploit such a modern mainstream lifestyle choice for political advantage. It's not like she was involved in anything genuinely unpleasant, like say, being shill bidder for Sadam.
    What I can't quite get my head around is that all the far left, never-kissed-a-Tory, Tories are scum brigade who think Corbyn was getting dangerously deviationist are supporting Galloway, who happily admitted that he was going to vote Tory in the recent Scottish elections. These are the sort of people who would have convinced themselves that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a good thing.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    1st dose numbers have been exceeding 2nd doses for about a week. Hard to be sure how next few weeks will go but it looks promising that 9 in 10 UK adults will have had 1st dose & 2/3 both doses by 19th July, ‘terminus date’ in England

    https://twitter.com/BBCFergusWalsh/status/1408704827694190593?s=20

    Assuming that demand is maintained.

    Which if it is will, I suspect, only be because of there prevalence of Delta.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929
    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,814
    edited June 26


    On another subject, here's an illuminating and sympathetic account of why the AZ vaccine ran into generally underserved difficulty:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/26/the-oxford-vaccine-the-trials-and-tribulations-of-a-world-saving-jab

    That piece is OK as far as it goes, but there is a huge amount missing.

    And I think one fairly big mistake - the statement that Oxford initially partnered with Merck from Germany? Merck is 2 halves (US part expropriated in WW1?), and I think it was the US version.

    IMO woefully insufficient insight into internal EU politics and the assault on AZ from that direction, links to Brexit arguments, and links to the continuing negotiations and it stops too soon. It is only a couple of days ago that the EU Internal Markets Commissioner Thierry Breton was making dark hints about vaccine export halts to the UK in Le Figaro as a tool to force compliance with the EuCo version of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    The current EU / Euromedia position is that "AZ broke their contract" (said the Belgian judge, allegedly, in a judgement not published in English yet afaik so I can't judge in the round) by not treating UK plants as part of "Best Reasonable Efforts". Why is this not critiqued?

    And - for another - no mention of the US closing stopping AZ by closing down the joint AZ/JJ vaccine plant.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    .

    Good morning.

    Good to see DavidL posting, reasonably cheerfully too. And he's obviously found a phone charger! Which is also good!

    Someone up thread mentioned a video of Hancock's 'antics'; if something even moderately salacious gets about, surely his position will, as is said, become untenable.

    And I agree that Jeremy Hunt could probably get up to speed quickly. Isn't the No2 in the Department Helen Whatley, though? She ought to know what's going on.
    Although ......

    If Mancock has to resign then doesn't the pack turn on its next target? He has done nothing wrong* from the perspective of a party where everything is acceptable. His boss and colleagues have all done bad and the PM simply ignores it.

    If bad is now a resignation offence won't they all end up going one at a time? Mancock wasted money so lets go after the PM. Mancock broke the Ministerial Code so lets go after Patel and the PM. Mancock lied so lets go after the PM and Patel and Williamson and we'll be here all day.

    No wonder Shagger says "cased closed"...
    That is true. Johnson and Hancock need to front this out until Friday, by which time we will all be laughing hysterically at the hapless Starmer and Ledbetter.

    Electoral failure trumps corruption and infidelity any day of the week, particularly on the Friday after a by-election.
    Poor Kim Leadbeater. Either she is nor referred to as just "Jo Cox's sister", or her surname is misspelt.

    When I see a mob of anti-LGBT protesters heckling a politician for being a lesbian, I am waaaay, waaaay more likely to get out and vote for her.

    Just as for any mob, really.
    Believe it or not I corrected the name of Jo Cox's sister to Ledbetter, because I had seen it on PB, and I didn't want to be humiliated by misspelling the name as per the family from The Good Life.

    I wasn't aware Jo Cox's sister was part of the LGBT community. Fine by me, and surely George wouldn't try to exploit such a modern mainstream lifestyle choice for political advantage. It's not like she was involved in anything genuinely unpleasant, like say, being shill bidder for Sadam.
    What I can't quite get my head around is that all the far left, never-kissed-a-Tory, Tories are scum brigade who think Corbyn was getting dangerously deviationist are supporting Galloway, who happily admitted that he was going to vote Tory in the recent Scottish elections. These are the sort of people who would have convinced themselves that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a good thing.
    You’re looking for consistency in the minds of Bastani, Sarker, Pidcock etc?

    I politely suggest this may be a long and rather unprofitable search....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,541
    Do you remember Matt Hancock from his university days...? Email [email protected]
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,477

    isam said:

    Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

    British Muslims attitude to homosexuality is equivalent to perhaps the Victorians, according to surveys anyway, and in seats where they are a significant voting bloc, people are using the fact the Labour candidate is gay to stop them voting for her.
    One has to be very careful when explaining this to avoid waking Kinabalu by setting off his finely tuned ra-cist-dar
    Why not drop the softhead facetiousness and think properly about what we discussed? I answered all your questions impeccably and in a spirit of genuine desire to clarify and illuminate. It's all there at the end of the thread in question, "Trump at 25% chance". I can do no more.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929

    Cicero said:

    I guess that there is a certain kind of grim satisfaction in watching the Tories tie themselves into knots defending the indefensible. However, as low grade loathsome as Hancock is, the real story is not his pathetic little fling and the abject incompetence and dishonesty that it exposes.

    The real story is who released the CCTV and associated corroboration and why? It could, of course, be more of the brutal, but ultimately shallow revenge of Cummings. However it seems that the source may be elsewhere. Murdoch flexing his muscles re:GB News? Except that Rupes is distracted elsewhere (and is 90 after all) and it seems that this was not an in house sting from The Sun. More to the point BoJo has been a pretty big player in the media world and knows that he can probably face it down (albeit at a cost of buckets of shit hitting his head for a few weeks, which he figures he can brazen out as he has done so many times before).

    Actually like Roger I don't think the fling itself is that pathetic - without knowing the marital circumstances it's impossible to judge the ethics, but the embrace itself looked sweetly affectionate. I do think that his previous record of condeming someone else for the same thing and insisting on rules for everyone else warrant resignation, but that's as far as I'd go.

    But cui bono on the video? First, opportunity. Neither Boris nor any other politician seems likely to have access to CCTV (still less to long-distance paparazzi pictures). MI5? not really - they struggle to keep track of suspected terrorists, hard to imagine they assign people to peruse Westminster corridors. But some junior officer monitors CCTV, and that seems the first place to look. Second, motive. Might it not simply be money? I could well imagine the Sun paying £100K for it.
    Ferguson wasn’t quite the same thing as he was regularly travelling across London on public transport so exposing innocent passers by as well.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,827
    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    I agree with much of what you say, and Philip and Robert are both oddly incapable of mental flexibility, especially when they need to see new truths in contentious areas. Check the way Robert reacted to my posting the potential location of a BSL2 lab in Wuhan, he said it wasn't Wuhan, he said such a lab didn't exist, he said the map showed Swindon, he said the indicated location was wrong, he laughed that I believed in this mad theory - and then it turned out HE was wrong on all points, and he retreated with some humiliation.

    He's a super smart guy, why did he leap to the false but orthodox conclusion? He lacks creative breadth of vision, perhaps: he has the kind of brain which is great for focussing on narrow facts, geeky corners of science, accepted versions of logic, but a brain which is less good at seeing hidden clues, implicit stories, and wider implications.

    However, while I agree with you that this report subtly points to some pretty outrageous conclusions, for those able to read it that way, there is clearly a danger the USG will let this slip, having done its tiny job, and we all move on, and this bizarre question will return to the shadows.

    And we will never know if anything really is out there (which is still far from proven). Shame

    It takes all sort of intelligence types to build effective organisations and societies. The problem is that the Western political system doesn’t tend to attract too many unorthodox thinkers. And their motivations are not always aligned correctly.

    What this report does is clearly validate the subject as a legitimate one for further study and debate. There’s even a section about how the “sociocultural stigma” has hampered effective data collection.

    This is a huge huge event in itself. Given that there are very many broad thinkers with curious minds out there, you’d expect progress to follow if there’s anything to find. We’re at the point where senior scientists at NASA have happily talked about it to the press and said they will investigate from a civilian perspective.

    When George W Bush was asked recently if he would share evidence if he had seen it, he said “no, I’m afraid it would spin you into orbit”.

    What we’re witnessing is the end to that universal paternalistic approach by the establishment, and hopefully a new age of serious investigation and research by civilian science. It will soon for example, be relatively trivial to crowd fund a satellite web with the express purpose of monitoring international waters for UAPs and USOs on behalf of civilian science. James Webb will be open to civilian academia, some of whom will try and directly image exoplanets to check for biomarkers. And before the decade is out, a commercial enterprise is likely to put boots on Mars, where I expect it’s more likely than not that they’ll find evidence of past or present microbial life.

    The game is moving so fast that this will be busted open soon. In an ideal world the establishment would no doubt prefer the journey to be: a) past or present microbial life on Mars, b) distant exoplanet with CFCs, indicating intelligent life, then finally c) confirmation that UFO’s are a non human intelligence.

    The problem is there’s now a strong chance that schedule will happen in reverse. I find that exciting. Others will find it frightening so compartmentalise it away. But what I have learned is that most people do not think philosophically about very much at all (even very smart people) and let events drive them and their thinking the way the ocean currents carry an empty bottle.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,541
    Sayeeda Warsi, a former Conservative Party chairman, attacked the failure to sack Mr Hancock, saying: 'It's a bad decision by Matt and a bad decision by the PM. He's got a huge amount of questions to answer in relation to Covid contracts, access to parliament, giving out jobs. Is there anything anybody could do any more which would make them resign?"
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,541
    Daily Mail: Matt Hancock is clinging to his job as he waits to hear if serial adulterer Boris Johnson will sack him.

    But some have suggested that the PM's own chequered love life, including a series of affairs might prevent him giving the Health Secretary the push. When he was Mayor of London he made Jennifer Arcuri his lover, and the Prime Minister even sent his former mistress a text message saying 'I miss you and I need you' while courting current fiancee Carrie Symonds, it is alleged.

    When he was at City Hall, Boris Johnson is said to have had a four-year affair with Ms Arcuri – a pole-dancing American businesswoman.

    In a new biography about the Prime Minister called The Gambler, by Tom Bower, it is claimed Miss Arcuri ended their relationship as his second term as mayor came to an end in May 2016.
    The biography claims his last text message to her was sent on December 29, 2018. He allegedly wrote: 'I miss you and I need you.' She deleted the text.

    By then, Mr Johnson was divorcing his wife Marina Wheeler and had already been courting Miss Symonds since February of that year. No 10 declined to comme
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    IanB2 said:

    Daily Mail:Matt Hancock is clinging to his job

    Among other things.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,981
    edited June 26

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    and call me old fashioned if you like but covid hypocrisy apart wont most people get sacked if they conduct a sexual encounter whilst at work (if caught) ? Especially a government office.
    Snogging someone at work, consensually and in a private office, is probably okay in most places.

    More serious offences are:
    1. Hiring a lover in the first place, which makes the timeline of the relationship important.
    2. Compliance with any departmental rules on reporting of relationships.
    3. That he’s the health secretary, responsible for the rules on distancing during the pandemic.
    4. Theft of the CCTV footage from a government building.
    5. Anything that’s not yet in the public domain.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,841
    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    Because it's completely implausible. If wither Russia or China had such a thing money would be more than enough reason to

    1st dose numbers have been exceeding 2nd doses for about a week. Hard to be sure how next few weeks will go but it looks promising that 9 in 10 UK adults will have had 1st dose & 2/3 both doses by 19th July, ‘terminus date’ in England

    https://twitter.com/BBCFergusWalsh/status/1408704827694190593?s=20

    Assuming that demand is maintained.

    Which if it is will, I suspect, only be because of there prevalence of Delta.
    I can't see why it wouldn't be - all the youngsters I know who are old enough to get jabs have booked in for them.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358
    Classic Dom!
  • borisatsunborisatsun Posts: 188
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

    British Muslims attitude to homosexuality is equivalent to perhaps the Victorians, according to surveys anyway, and in seats where they are a significant voting bloc, people are using the fact the Labour candidate is gay to stop them voting for her.
    One has to be very careful when explaining this to avoid waking Kinabalu by setting off his finely tuned ra-cist-dar
    Why not drop the softhead facetiousness and think properly about what we discussed? I answered all your questions impeccably and in a spirit of genuine desire to clarify and illuminate. It's all there at the end of the thread in question, "Trump at 25% chance". I can do no more.
    So why don't you answer CHB's question

    "Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously"

    for us, in a way that doesn't skirt around the obvious truth but contains no "tells"?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,827
    edited June 26
    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    But it hasn’t sunk in for you has it. With all their electronic, satellite and human intel, the US has not one shred of evidence of it coming from an adversary.

    Let’s assume it is a Russian or Chinese programme. Would that not worry you at all? That the safeguard of your security and mine has been caught asleep at the wheel? That by the very words of the Pentagon’s own report, they need scientific advances to even try and explain this technology? That suddenly there’s a huge imbalance in military and technology capability but we don’t know the first thing about what it is, who developed it and how?

    I thought Tories were supposed to care about security and defence?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929
    IanB2 said:

    Rumours that Coladangelo's brother was given some of the lucrative PPE contracts by the NHS....

    Facts are somewhat different… he runs an outsourcing company specialises in healthcare that has been working on various CCCG contracts - including South Hampshire Ambulances - for the last 11 years
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,315
    edited June 26
    IanB2 said:

    Daily Mail: Matt Hancock is clinging to his job as he waits to hear if serial adulterer Boris Johnson will sack him.

    But some have suggested that the PM's own chequered love life, including a series of affairs might prevent him giving the Health Secretary the push. When he was Mayor of London he made Jennifer Arcuri his lover, and the Prime Minister even sent his former mistress a text message saying 'I miss you and I need you' while courting current fiancee Carrie Symonds, it is alleged.

    When he was at City Hall, Boris Johnson is said to have had a four-year affair with Ms Arcuri – a pole-dancing American businesswoman.

    In a new biography about the Prime Minister called The Gambler, by Tom Bower, it is claimed Miss Arcuri ended their relationship as his second term as mayor came to an end in May 2016.
    The biography claims his last text message to her was sent on December 29, 2018. He allegedly wrote: 'I miss you and I need you.' She deleted the text.

    By then, Mr Johnson was divorcing his wife Marina Wheeler and had already been courting Miss Symonds since February of that year. No 10 declined to comme

    This is not about the affair but being the person responsible for covid regulations, including the threat of a £10,000 fine to my son and his partner if they fail to enforce social distancing rules at their wedding on the 31st July

    He cannot hold another covid conference nor look down the camera and tell us what to do

    He has caused his own demise and if he had an ounce of decency he would resign
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    .

    Good morning.

    Good to see DavidL posting, reasonably cheerfully too. And he's obviously found a phone charger! Which is also good!

    Someone up thread mentioned a video of Hancock's 'antics'; if something even moderately salacious gets about, surely his position will, as is said, become untenable.

    And I agree that Jeremy Hunt could probably get up to speed quickly. Isn't the No2 in the Department Helen Whatley, though? She ought to know what's going on.
    Although ......

    If Mancock has to resign then doesn't the pack turn on its next target? He has done nothing wrong* from the perspective of a party where everything is acceptable. His boss and colleagues have all done bad and the PM simply ignores it.

    If bad is now a resignation offence won't they all end up going one at a time? Mancock wasted money so lets go after the PM. Mancock broke the Ministerial Code so lets go after Patel and the PM. Mancock lied so lets go after the PM and Patel and Williamson and we'll be here all day.

    No wonder Shagger says "cased closed"...
    That is true. Johnson and Hancock need to front this out until Friday, by which time we will all be laughing hysterically at the hapless Starmer and Ledbetter.

    Electoral failure trumps corruption and infidelity any day of the week, particularly on the Friday after a by-election.
    Poor Kim Leadbeater. Either she is nor referred to as just "Jo Cox's sister", or her surname is misspelt.

    When I see a mob of anti-LGBT protesters heckling a politician for being a lesbian, I am waaaay, waaaay more likely to get out and vote for her.

    Just as for any mob, really.
    Believe it or not I corrected the name of Jo Cox's sister to Ledbetter, because I had seen it on PB, and I didn't want to be humiliated by misspelling the name as per the family from The Good Life.

    I wasn't aware Jo Cox's sister was part of the LGBT community. Fine by me, and surely George wouldn't try to exploit such a modern mainstream lifestyle choice for political advantage. It's not like she was involved in anything genuinely unpleasant, like say, being shill bidder for Sadam.
    What I can't quite get my head around is that all the far left, never-kissed-a-Tory, Tories are scum brigade who think Corbyn was getting dangerously deviationist are supporting Galloway, who happily admitted that he was going to vote Tory in the recent Scottish elections. These are the sort of people who would have convinced themselves that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a good thing.
    Self justification truly is a universal skill, but it'd be interesting to see it put to those types - as I imagine they just aren't thinking about it, and so would get pretty creative as to why it doesn't matter if forced to think about it.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,691
    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    IanB2 said:

    Daily Mail: Matt Hancock is clinging to his job as he waits to hear if serial adulterer Boris Johnson will sack him.

    But some have suggested that the PM's own chequered love life, including a series of affairs might prevent him giving the Health Secretary the push. When he was Mayor of London he made Jennifer Arcuri his lover, and the Prime Minister even sent his former mistress a text message saying 'I miss you and I need you' while courting current fiancee Carrie Symonds, it is alleged.

    When he was at City Hall, Boris Johnson is said to have had a four-year affair with Ms Arcuri – a pole-dancing American businesswoman.

    In a new biography about the Prime Minister called The Gambler, by Tom Bower, it is claimed Miss Arcuri ended their relationship as his second term as mayor came to an end in May 2016.
    The biography claims his last text message to her was sent on December 29, 2018. He allegedly wrote: 'I miss you and I need you.' She deleted the text.

    By then, Mr Johnson was divorcing his wife Marina Wheeler and had already been courting Miss Symonds since February of that year. No 10 declined to comme

    The issue is that he broken covid laws that literally have his name written on them.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358
    edited June 26

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
    Yeah the camera was put in his office without his knowledge... now I wonder who would hate him so much they'd do that... I wonder... ;)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
    The method of being caught is irrelevant to whether he should resign, though would be something else to look into, but I am a bit confused by some of this camera talk - it's not like all CCTV cameras are big, box like things, might have been a tennis ball sized black sphere stuck on the ceiling skirting or something, which is obvious once pointed out to you but which you filter out day to day, especially since people don't look up as much as we might think.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,691
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
    The method of being caught is irrelevant to whether he should resign, though would be something else to look into, but I am a bit confused by some of this camera talk - it's not like all CCTV cameras are big, box like things, might have been a tennis ball sized black sphere stuck on the ceiling skirting or something, which is obvious once pointed out to you but which you filter out day to day, especially since people don't look up as much as we might think.
    If you work in a ministerial office, you'd expect to be told where all the cameras were as part of a security briefing, surely?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,981

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
    Yes. If it turns out not to be a CCTV leak, but the output of a hidden camera placed in the office to get him, that opens up a massive can of worms - and there will be spooks all over the building today.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    The problem Hancock(/ Johnson if he won’t sack him) has in many respects is that, as other people have pointed out, that the line about “private affair” doesn’t stack up when the Govt have over the past 15 months made everyone’s private affair public by default. And not just through guidance to act in certain ways, but actually legislated against it. Now it maybe that, just as in most cases the offence does not technically breach the law, or is anyway pretty unenforceable if it does, but that’s not really the point.

    When there are clips all over the place of Hancock enthusiastically encouraging the police to get involved in even the slightest misdemeanours then people have a right to get angry.

    I also haven’t been following totally closely, so I might have missed key things, but there appears to be a great deal of fudging about whether this was a one off incident rather than a long running affair. There was the statement that social distancing rules were broken “on this occasion”. But no statement about “a moment of weakness leading to a mistake in a high pressure situation and the end of one particularly stressful day”. If he could confidently say the latter then I think it would put him in a massively stronger position. But the fact that he can’t (assuming he hasn’t) is revealing. And problematic. Ferguson, for example was making regular trips to see his partner. Cummings, whilst totally cackhandedly handled, had the defence that he was looking out for his family.

    But Hancock?

    My assumption is it’s a long running affair

    It’s why she was appointed as an unofficial/unpaid aide

    And then when people asked what she was doing there was made a non-executive director at the department
    So it's an Arcuri situation...
    I’m not particularly worried about the unpaid aide - basically a workaround on the rules I guess but probably legitimate.

    Don’t know the process for NED appointment but they seem pretty marginal sinecures so if she was doing then work (and she’s clearly qualified) then 🤷‍♂️

    I don’t really care about the affair, I just feel very sorry for the injured parties.

    However I just don’t see how he has any authority or credibility on imposing (or maintaining) restrictions in future. Hence his effectiveness is undermined.

    I’d actually be favour of keeping him in place until the restrictions are lifted next month (I don’t see how he can extend them credibly, although it may make July 5 difficult because that would be a knee jerk reaction). Then reshuffle him to Siberia.
    Seems that one side effect of this is that it would be near impossible not to lift restrictions on 19th now.

    Hancock was the leading voice for keeping them in the mini-Cabinet that makes all the decisions, along with Gove. The latter is now out numbered presumably with Hancock sidelined and his 'vote' now just laughable.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    edited June 26
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    Because it's completely implausible. If wither Russia or China had such a thing money would be more than enough reason to

    1st dose numbers have been exceeding 2nd doses for about a week. Hard to be sure how next few weeks will go but it looks promising that 9 in 10 UK adults will have had 1st dose & 2/3 both doses by 19th July, ‘terminus date’ in England

    https://twitter.com/BBCFergusWalsh/status/1408704827694190593?s=20

    Assuming that demand is maintained.

    Which if it is will, I suspect, only be because of there prevalence of Delta.
    I can't see why it wouldn't be - all the youngsters I know who are old enough to get jabs have booked in for them.
    Current level of first doses in England by age:

    90+ 93.93%
    85-89 95.48%
    80-84 95.48%
    75-79 95.38%
    70-74 94.36%
    65-69 92.09%
    60-64 90.04%
    55-59 87.98%
    50-54 85.24%
    45-49 79.82%
    40-44 73.29%
    35-39 65.44%
    30-34 58.51%
    25-29 49.41%
    18-24 38.61%

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=England

    A definite reduction per age band.

    Now the under 30s haven't had much opportunity yet to get vaccinated but what's the excuse for those over 40 ? And those over 50 have been able to get vaccinated since March.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    Christopher Snowdon
    @cjsnowdon
    Judging by the number of boomer memes circulating on WhatsApp, the Hancock story has “landed” with the general public.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    The problem Hancock(/ Johnson if he won’t sack him) has in many respects is that, as other people have pointed out, that the line about “private affair” doesn’t stack up when the Govt have over the past 15 months made everyone’s private affair public by default. And not just through guidance to act in certain ways, but actually legislated against it. Now it maybe that, just as in most cases the offence does not technically breach the law, or is anyway pretty unenforceable if it does, but that’s not really the point.

    When there are clips all over the place of Hancock enthusiastically encouraging the police to get involved in even the slightest misdemeanours then people have a right to get angry.

    I also haven’t been following totally closely, so I might have missed key things, but there appears to be a great deal of fudging about whether this was a one off incident rather than a long running affair. There was the statement that social distancing rules were broken “on this occasion”. But no statement about “a moment of weakness leading to a mistake in a high pressure situation and the end of one particularly stressful day”. If he could confidently say the latter then I think it would put him in a massively stronger position. But the fact that he can’t (assuming he hasn’t) is revealing. And problematic. Ferguson, for example was making regular trips to see his partner. Cummings, whilst totally cackhandedly handled, had the defence that he was looking out for his family.

    But Hancock?

    My assumption is it’s a long running affair

    It’s why she was appointed as an unofficial/unpaid aide

    And then when people asked what she was doing there was made a non-executive director at the department
    So it's an Arcuri situation...
    I’m not particularly worried about the unpaid aide - basically a workaround on the rules I guess but probably legitimate.

    Don’t know the process for NED appointment but they seem pretty marginal sinecures so if she was doing then work (and she’s clearly qualified) then 🤷‍♂️

    I don’t really care about the affair, I just feel very sorry for the injured parties.

    However I just don’t see how he has any authority or credibility on imposing (or maintaining) restrictions in future. Hence his effectiveness is undermined.

    I’d actually be favour of keeping him in place until the restrictions are lifted next month (I don’t see how he can extend them credibly, although it may make July 5 difficult because that would be a knee jerk reaction). Then reshuffle him to Siberia.
    Seems that one side effect of this is that it would be near impossible not to lift restrictions on 19th now.

    Hancock was the leading voice for keeping them in the mini-Cabinet that makes all the decisions, along with Gove. The latter is now out numbered presumably with Hancock sidelined and his 'vote' now just laughable.
    In that case, all I can say is it’s a real pity they weren’t caught three weeks ago.

    Not that restrictions are being rigorously observed any more anyway, and after the last 48 hours compliance will be down even further.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,814
    edited June 26

    Why does it matter if the Labour candidate is gay? Who cares, what is wrong with people seriously

    Because a gay candidate is less likely to support the noble Muslim cause of preventing their primary school children from getting a gay education?
    Horse

    Batley Grammar was the scene of the protests outside a school where a teacher used a couple (?) of the Motoons in a lesson, followed by protests and a stooshie. Not sure what happened to the teacher.

    So controversy wrt Islam is already there and current under the surface.

    Plus we have a video of an apparent protestor berating Kim L about lgbt.

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1408431105485705217

    Plus in this country we are not very good at publicly holding the line of our professed principles.

    Galloway? Of course he would exploit it.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    The problem Hancock(/ Johnson if he won’t sack him) has in many respects is that, as other people have pointed out, that the line about “private affair” doesn’t stack up when the Govt have over the past 15 months made everyone’s private affair public by default. And not just through guidance to act in certain ways, but actually legislated against it. Now it maybe that, just as in most cases the offence does not technically breach the law, or is anyway pretty unenforceable if it does, but that’s not really the point.

    When there are clips all over the place of Hancock enthusiastically encouraging the police to get involved in even the slightest misdemeanours then people have a right to get angry.

    I also haven’t been following totally closely, so I might have missed key things, but there appears to be a great deal of fudging about whether this was a one off incident rather than a long running affair. There was the statement that social distancing rules were broken “on this occasion”. But no statement about “a moment of weakness leading to a mistake in a high pressure situation and the end of one particularly stressful day”. If he could confidently say the latter then I think it would put him in a massively stronger position. But the fact that he can’t (assuming he hasn’t) is revealing. And problematic. Ferguson, for example was making regular trips to see his partner. Cummings, whilst totally cackhandedly handled, had the defence that he was looking out for his family.

    But Hancock?

    My assumption is it’s a long running affair

    It’s why she was appointed as an unofficial/unpaid aide

    And then when people asked what she was doing there was made a non-executive director at the department
    So it's an Arcuri situation...
    I’m not particularly worried about the unpaid aide - basically a workaround on the rules I guess but probably legitimate.

    Don’t know the process for NED appointment but they seem pretty marginal sinecures so if she was doing then work (and she’s clearly qualified) then 🤷‍♂️

    I don’t really care about the affair, I just feel very sorry for the injured parties.

    However I just don’t see how he has any authority or credibility on imposing (or maintaining) restrictions in future. Hence his effectiveness is undermined.

    I’d actually be favour of keeping him in place until the restrictions are lifted next month (I don’t see how he can extend them credibly, although it may make July 5 difficult because that would be a knee jerk reaction). Then reshuffle him to Siberia.
    Seems that one side effect of this is that it would be near impossible not to lift restrictions on 19th now.

    Hancock was the leading voice for keeping them in the mini-Cabinet that makes all the decisions, along with Gove. The latter is now out numbered presumably with Hancock sidelined and his 'vote' now just laughable.
    Said the same yesterday.

    The Sun has done us all a big favour.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    The problem Hancock(/ Johnson if he won’t sack him) has in many respects is that, as other people have pointed out, that the line about “private affair” doesn’t stack up when the Govt have over the past 15 months made everyone’s private affair public by default. And not just through guidance to act in certain ways, but actually legislated against it. Now it maybe that, just as in most cases the offence does not technically breach the law, or is anyway pretty unenforceable if it does, but that’s not really the point.

    When there are clips all over the place of Hancock enthusiastically encouraging the police to get involved in even the slightest misdemeanours then people have a right to get angry.

    I also haven’t been following totally closely, so I might have missed key things, but there appears to be a great deal of fudging about whether this was a one off incident rather than a long running affair. There was the statement that social distancing rules were broken “on this occasion”. But no statement about “a moment of weakness leading to a mistake in a high pressure situation and the end of one particularly stressful day”. If he could confidently say the latter then I think it would put him in a massively stronger position. But the fact that he can’t (assuming he hasn’t) is revealing. And problematic. Ferguson, for example was making regular trips to see his partner. Cummings, whilst totally cackhandedly handled, had the defence that he was looking out for his family.

    But Hancock?

    My assumption is it’s a long running affair

    It’s why she was appointed as an unofficial/unpaid aide

    And then when people asked what she was doing there was made a non-executive director at the department
    So it's an Arcuri situation...
    I’m not particularly worried about the unpaid aide - basically a workaround on the rules I guess but probably legitimate.

    Don’t know the process for NED appointment but they seem pretty marginal sinecures so if she was doing then work (and she’s clearly qualified) then 🤷‍♂️

    I don’t really care about the affair, I just feel very sorry for the injured parties.

    However I just don’t see how he has any authority or credibility on imposing (or maintaining) restrictions in future. Hence his effectiveness is undermined.

    I’d actually be favour of keeping him in place until the restrictions are lifted next month (I don’t see how he can extend them credibly, although it may make July 5 difficult because that would be a knee jerk reaction). Then reshuffle him to Siberia.
    Seems that one side effect of this is that it would be near impossible not to lift restrictions on 19th now.

    Hancock was the leading voice for keeping them in the mini-Cabinet that makes all the decisions, along with Gove. The latter is now out numbered presumably with Hancock sidelined and his 'vote' now just laughable.
    Said the same yesterday.

    The Sun has done us all a big favour.
    Jessica Elgot
    @jessicaelgot
    ·
    12h
    If the group chat tonight is anything to go by, I don’t think Matt Hancock is going to be able to deliver vital public health messages anytime soon and be taken seriously.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,988

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    The problem Hancock(/ Johnson if he won’t sack him) has in many respects is that, as other people have pointed out, that the line about “private affair” doesn’t stack up when the Govt have over the past 15 months made everyone’s private affair public by default. And not just through guidance to act in certain ways, but actually legislated against it. Now it maybe that, just as in most cases the offence does not technically breach the law, or is anyway pretty unenforceable if it does, but that’s not really the point.

    When there are clips all over the place of Hancock enthusiastically encouraging the police to get involved in even the slightest misdemeanours then people have a right to get angry.

    I also haven’t been following totally closely, so I might have missed key things, but there appears to be a great deal of fudging about whether this was a one off incident rather than a long running affair. There was the statement that social distancing rules were broken “on this occasion”. But no statement about “a moment of weakness leading to a mistake in a high pressure situation and the end of one particularly stressful day”. If he could confidently say the latter then I think it would put him in a massively stronger position. But the fact that he can’t (assuming he hasn’t) is revealing. And problematic. Ferguson, for example was making regular trips to see his partner. Cummings, whilst totally cackhandedly handled, had the defence that he was looking out for his family.

    But Hancock?

    My assumption is it’s a long running affair

    It’s why she was appointed as an unofficial/unpaid aide

    And then when people asked what she was doing there was made a non-executive director at the department
    So it's an Arcuri situation...
    I’m not particularly worried about the unpaid aide - basically a workaround on the rules I guess but probably legitimate.

    Don’t know the process for NED appointment but they seem pretty marginal sinecures so if she was doing then work (and she’s clearly qualified) then 🤷‍♂️

    I don’t really care about the affair, I just feel very sorry for the injured parties.

    However I just don’t see how he has any authority or credibility on imposing (or maintaining) restrictions in future. Hence his effectiveness is undermined.

    I’d actually be favour of keeping him in place until the restrictions are lifted next month (I don’t see how he can extend them credibly, although it may make July 5 difficult because that would be a knee jerk reaction). Then reshuffle him to Siberia.
    Seems that one side effect of this is that it would be near impossible not to lift restrictions on 19th now.

    Hancock was the leading voice for keeping them in the mini-Cabinet that makes all the decisions, along with Gove. The latter is now out numbered presumably with Hancock sidelined and his 'vote' now just laughable.
    I am still expecting a hybrid - the govt will claim to be going ahead with step 4, but it will be far from the removal of all legal restrictions.

    Big events and the night-time economy wont be allowed to get back to normal yet, but existing restrictions will be loosened up.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    edited June 26
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    The problem Hancock(/ Johnson if he won’t sack him) has in many respects is that, as other people have pointed out, that the line about “private affair” doesn’t stack up when the Govt have over the past 15 months made everyone’s private affair public by default. And not just through guidance to act in certain ways, but actually legislated against it. Now it maybe that, just as in most cases the offence does not technically breach the law, or is anyway pretty unenforceable if it does, but that’s not really the point.

    When there are clips all over the place of Hancock enthusiastically encouraging the police to get involved in even the slightest misdemeanours then people have a right to get angry.

    I also haven’t been following totally closely, so I might have missed key things, but there appears to be a great deal of fudging about whether this was a one off incident rather than a long running affair. There was the statement that social distancing rules were broken “on this occasion”. But no statement about “a moment of weakness leading to a mistake in a high pressure situation and the end of one particularly stressful day”. If he could confidently say the latter then I think it would put him in a massively stronger position. But the fact that he can’t (assuming he hasn’t) is revealing. And problematic. Ferguson, for example was making regular trips to see his partner. Cummings, whilst totally cackhandedly handled, had the defence that he was looking out for his family.

    But Hancock?

    My assumption is it’s a long running affair

    It’s why she was appointed as an unofficial/unpaid aide

    And then when people asked what she was doing there was made a non-executive director at the department
    So it's an Arcuri situation...
    I’m not particularly worried about the unpaid aide - basically a workaround on the rules I guess but probably legitimate.

    Don’t know the process for NED appointment but they seem pretty marginal sinecures so if she was doing then work (and she’s clearly qualified) then 🤷‍♂️

    I don’t really care about the affair, I just feel very sorry for the injured parties.

    However I just don’t see how he has any authority or credibility on imposing (or maintaining) restrictions in future. Hence his effectiveness is undermined.

    I’d actually be favour of keeping him in place until the restrictions are lifted next month (I don’t see how he can extend them credibly, although it may make July 5 difficult because that would be a knee jerk reaction). Then reshuffle him to Siberia.
    Seems that one side effect of this is that it would be near impossible not to lift restrictions on 19th now.

    Hancock was the leading voice for keeping them in the mini-Cabinet that makes all the decisions, along with Gove. The latter is now out numbered presumably with Hancock sidelined and his 'vote' now just laughable.
    In that case, all I can say is it’s a real pity they weren’t caught three weeks ago.

    Not that restrictions are being rigorously observed any more anyway, and after the last 48 hours compliance will be down even further.
    I suspect it may be the last straw for many people who were wondering why we are doing all this now the vulnerable have been fully vaccinated and Delta has proved to not be the threat to all life in the universe that was originally modelled.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    Because it's completely implausible. If wither Russia or China had such a thing money would be more than enough reason to
    Implausibility isn’t enough to categorically rule something out - once you rule out the alternatives, the implausible becomes likely

    I totally agree that it’s not Russia/China. But @moonshine wants us to prove a negative
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,315
    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
    Yeah the camera was put in his office without his knowledge... now I wonder who would hate him so much they'd do that... I wonder... ;)
    But even then why would he play into their hands other than his mind is not on covid but other things
  • ajbajb Posts: 26
    Sandpit said:


    More serious offences are:
    1. Hiring a lover in the first place, which makes the timeline of the relationship important.
    2. Compliance with any departmental rules on reporting of relationships.
    [...]

    At a previous job, at one meeting of the accounts committee , supposedly one of the accountants stood up and announced that she was recusing herself from the committee because she was having an affair with the CFO. Which was considerably more excitement than the other attendees were expecting. She then left to fly off with him for a naughty (we surmise) holiday.

    It did show an interesting light on exactly which rules different people hold most sacred.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,605
    If anyone still needs convincing that Galloway is a thoroughly nasty piece of work (though tbf, not many here seem to need to be convinced of it) you could watch the curtailed C4 News interview with Liz Bates from earlier in the week.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    The slowdown in French first doses continues:

    w/e 24/06 1.45m
    w/e 17/06 1.89m
    w/e 10/06 2.34m
    w/e 03/06 2.44m
    w/e 27/05 2.48m

    https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,814

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Macron and Merkel decided to have an EU-Putin summit, when Macrel and Merkin would represent the EU position, thus showing *EU strategic autonomy from the USA*

    ... except the rest of the EU told them to sit down and STFU, Paris and Berlin are *not* Europe. The Eastern Europeans disagreed with cuddling up to Putin, Rome, Warsaw and Madrid disliked the arrogance form France and Germany. Lol


    Couldn't happen to a nicer couple

    "#Merkel and #Macron were visibly annoyed today about the rejection of their idea for an EU summit with #Putin.

    "But while #Biden speaking for Europe might have been implicit, for Merkel and Macron's summit it would have been explicit. And many capitals didn't like that."

    https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1408423051495084032?s=20

    Why would they so publlicly float such an idea without checking that more of the other nations, especially those closer to the Russian border, were on board? That's just incompetent.
    Arrogance as they believe the rest will bow to their will
    Internal tensions. The old establishment (perhaps EU-6 is a good definition, though Netherlands are currently a little wobbly and not sure wrt Italy) want to control the agenda, and think they are entitled.

    The Conference on the Future of Europe went quiet remarkably quickly once 'non-core' member countries started submitting ideas. Unless I missed it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
    Yes. If it turns out not to be a CCTV leak, but the output of a hidden camera placed in the office to get him, that opens up a massive can of worms - and there will be spooks all over the building today.
    If it turns out to be his wife's PI...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929
    moonshine said:

    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    But it hasn’t sunk in for you has it. With all their electronic, satellite and human intel, the US has not one shred of evidence of it coming from an adversary.

    Let’s assume it is a Russian or Chinese programme. Would that not worry you at all? That the safeguard of your security and mine has been caught asleep at the wheel? That by the very words of the Pentagon’s own report, they need scientific advances to even try and explain this technology? That suddenly there’s a huge imbalance in military and technology capability but we don’t know the first thing about what it is, who developed it and how?

    I thought Tories were supposed to care about security and defence?
    I’ve zero evidence that the moon isn’t made of cheese. But it doesn’t keep me up at night.

    The US & Five Eyes have very good intel about Russia & China.

    They have not one shred of evidence.

    So we have two options:

    (1) they are right - it’s not Russia/China
    (2) let’s assume they are wrong. OMG! They’re wrong! That’s a DISASTER! What else don’t they know? We’re all FUCKED!

    I’m going with option 1
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    The problem Hancock(/ Johnson if he won’t sack him) has in many respects is that, as other people have pointed out, that the line about “private affair” doesn’t stack up when the Govt have over the past 15 months made everyone’s private affair public by default. And not just through guidance to act in certain ways, but actually legislated against it. Now it maybe that, just as in most cases the offence does not technically breach the law, or is anyway pretty unenforceable if it does, but that’s not really the point.

    When there are clips all over the place of Hancock enthusiastically encouraging the police to get involved in even the slightest misdemeanours then people have a right to get angry.

    I also haven’t been following totally closely, so I might have missed key things, but there appears to be a great deal of fudging about whether this was a one off incident rather than a long running affair. There was the statement that social distancing rules were broken “on this occasion”. But no statement about “a moment of weakness leading to a mistake in a high pressure situation and the end of one particularly stressful day”. If he could confidently say the latter then I think it would put him in a massively stronger position. But the fact that he can’t (assuming he hasn’t) is revealing. And problematic. Ferguson, for example was making regular trips to see his partner. Cummings, whilst totally cackhandedly handled, had the defence that he was looking out for his family.

    But Hancock?

    My assumption is it’s a long running affair

    It’s why she was appointed as an unofficial/unpaid aide

    And then when people asked what she was doing there was made a non-executive director at the department
    So it's an Arcuri situation...
    I’m not particularly worried about the unpaid aide - basically a workaround on the rules I guess but probably legitimate.

    Don’t know the process for NED appointment but they seem pretty marginal sinecures so if she was doing then work (and she’s clearly qualified) then 🤷‍♂️

    I don’t really care about the affair, I just feel very sorry for the injured parties.

    However I just don’t see how he has any authority or credibility on imposing (or maintaining) restrictions in future. Hence his effectiveness is undermined.

    I’d actually be favour of keeping him in place until the restrictions are lifted next month (I don’t see how he can extend them credibly, although it may make July 5 difficult because that would be a knee jerk reaction). Then reshuffle him to Siberia.
    Seems that one side effect of this is that it would be near impossible not to lift restrictions on 19th now.

    Hancock was the leading voice for keeping them in the mini-Cabinet that makes all the decisions, along with Gove. The latter is now out numbered presumably with Hancock sidelined and his 'vote' now just laughable.
    Said the same yesterday.

    The Sun has done us all a big favour.
    Jessica Elgot
    @jessicaelgot
    ·
    12h
    If the group chat tonight is anything to go by, I don’t think Matt Hancock is going to be able to deliver vital public health messages anytime soon and be taken seriously.
    Of course he fucking can't. It's why Calderwood had to go at the start of the pandemic in Scotland.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    The problem Hancock(/ Johnson if he won’t sack him) has in many respects is that, as other people have pointed out, that the line about “private affair” doesn’t stack up when the Govt have over the past 15 months made everyone’s private affair public by default. And not just through guidance to act in certain ways, but actually legislated against it. Now it maybe that, just as in most cases the offence does not technically breach the law, or is anyway pretty unenforceable if it does, but that’s not really the point.

    When there are clips all over the place of Hancock enthusiastically encouraging the police to get involved in even the slightest misdemeanours then people have a right to get angry.

    I also haven’t been following totally closely, so I might have missed key things, but there appears to be a great deal of fudging about whether this was a one off incident rather than a long running affair. There was the statement that social distancing rules were broken “on this occasion”. But no statement about “a moment of weakness leading to a mistake in a high pressure situation and the end of one particularly stressful day”. If he could confidently say the latter then I think it would put him in a massively stronger position. But the fact that he can’t (assuming he hasn’t) is revealing. And problematic. Ferguson, for example was making regular trips to see his partner. Cummings, whilst totally cackhandedly handled, had the defence that he was looking out for his family.

    But Hancock?

    My assumption is it’s a long running affair

    It’s why she was appointed as an unofficial/unpaid aide

    And then when people asked what she was doing there was made a non-executive director at the department
    So it's an Arcuri situation...
    I’m not particularly worried about the unpaid aide - basically a workaround on the rules I guess but probably legitimate.

    Don’t know the process for NED appointment but they seem pretty marginal sinecures so if she was doing then work (and she’s clearly qualified) then 🤷‍♂️

    I don’t really care about the affair, I just feel very sorry for the injured parties.

    However I just don’t see how he has any authority or credibility on imposing (or maintaining) restrictions in future. Hence his effectiveness is undermined.

    I’d actually be favour of keeping him in place until the restrictions are lifted next month (I don’t see how he can extend them credibly, although it may make July 5 difficult because that would be a knee jerk reaction). Then reshuffle him to Siberia.
    Seems that one side effect of this is that it would be near impossible not to lift restrictions on 19th now.

    Hancock was the leading voice for keeping them in the mini-Cabinet that makes all the decisions, along with Gove. The latter is now out numbered presumably with Hancock sidelined and his 'vote' now just laughable.
    Agreed - but it may make an early lift on July 5 harder
  • eekeek Posts: 15,841
    edited June 26

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    Because it's completely implausible. If wither Russia or China had such a thing money would be more than enough reason to

    1st dose numbers have been exceeding 2nd doses for about a week. Hard to be sure how next few weeks will go but it looks promising that 9 in 10 UK adults will have had 1st dose & 2/3 both doses by 19th July, ‘terminus date’ in England

    https://twitter.com/BBCFergusWalsh/status/1408704827694190593?s=20

    Assuming that demand is maintained.

    Which if it is will, I suspect, only be because of there prevalence of Delta.
    I can't see why it wouldn't be - all the youngsters I know who are old enough to get jabs have booked in for them.
    Current level of first doses in England by age:

    90+ 93.93%
    85-89 95.48%
    80-84 95.48%
    75-79 95.38%
    70-74 94.36%
    65-69 92.09%
    60-64 90.04%
    55-59 87.98%
    50-54 85.24%
    45-49 79.82%
    40-44 73.29%
    35-39 65.44%
    30-34 58.51%
    25-29 49.41%
    18-24 38.61%

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=England

    A definite reduction per age band.

    Now the under 30s haven't had much opportunity yet to get vaccinated but what's the excuse for those over 40 ? And those over 50 have been able to get vaccinated since March.
    That's lower than I expected for 44 downwards. I was expecting 40-49 to be 75-80% and for younger groups to (eventually) hit 70% or so...

    On those figures we are only going to hit decent herd immunity via people catching covid.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,981
    Cummings has been furiously bashing away at the typewriter again. Fair to say he’s not a big fan of Matt Hancock.

    https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/more-evidence-on-how-the-pms-and

    Can’t help thinking that, whilst I agree with most of what Cummings has to say about disfunctional government and whole departments needing to be replaced, the way he’s going about publishing things is dangerously close to being in breach of the Official Secrets Act.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,827
    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    Because it's completely implausible. If wither Russia or China had such a thing money would be more than enough reason to
    Implausibility isn’t enough to categorically rule something out - once you rule out the alternatives, the implausible becomes likely

    I totally agree that it’s not Russia/China. But @moonshine wants us to prove a negative
    No I don’t. This is about drawing conclusions from the limited evidence available to you and me, and drawing inferences from what has been said by some people with top level security clearance, and many others with direct access to those people.

    If you don’t think it’s Russia or China (at least not the more interesting incidents), the US has confirmed yesterday it was not them and likely not a recording glitch and in at least 18 cases not aerial debris, then just what do you think it might be? “I don’t know” is for now the properly correct answer of course, and the Pentagon amusingly uses the term “catch all other bin” for this category.

    But can’t you see how this is answer is simply not good enough? We must spend an appropriate portion of society’s energies and treasure to try and find out. And that portion is far far greater than what has been expended to date.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,239
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
    The method of being caught is irrelevant to whether he should resign, though would be something else to look into, but I am a bit confused by some of this camera talk - it's not like all CCTV cameras are big, box like things, might have been a tennis ball sized black sphere stuck on the ceiling skirting or something, which is obvious once pointed out to you but which you filter out day to day, especially since people don't look up as much as we might think.
    Perhaps as with speed cameras it should be legislated that they be marked with diagonal red & fluorescent yellow stripes so the hapless idiots can’t say they weren’t warned.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358
    edited June 26

    Christopher Snowdon
    @cjsnowdon
    Judging by the number of boomer memes circulating on WhatsApp, the Hancock story has “landed” with the general public.

    Well it's just the latest example of one law for us and one law for them.

    First there was the G7 and Boris showing off in front the global elite - none of them bothering with the quarantine, social distancing and masks we've all been forced to put up with.

    Then Boris goes swanning off to the NATO summit while the majority of people back home can't even have a few days in the sun in Magaluf

    We have VIP's from FIFA flying in for EURO 2020.

    And now we have moron Matt Hancock and his shenanigans. All at the same time people haven't even been able to offer comfort and reassurance to their relatives at funerals (who remembers the story of the sons that wanted to sit with their elderly mother at their fathers funeral and got into trouble)

    People are sick of it. People have had enough. If Labour was a half decent opposition this government would be in very deep trouble!
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740
    Charles said:

    Cicero said:

    I guess that there is a certain kind of grim satisfaction in watching the Tories tie themselves into knots defending the indefensible. However, as low grade loathsome as Hancock is, the real story is not his pathetic little fling and the abject incompetence and dishonesty that it exposes.

    The real story is who released the CCTV and associated corroboration and why? It could, of course, be more of the brutal, but ultimately shallow revenge of Cummings. However it seems that the source may be elsewhere. Murdoch flexing his muscles re:GB News? Except that Rupes is distracted elsewhere (and is 90 after all) and it seems that this was not an in house sting from The Sun. More to the point BoJo has been a pretty big player in the media world and knows that he can probably face it down (albeit at a cost of buckets of shit hitting his head for a few weeks, which he figures he can brazen out as he has done so many times before).

    Actually like Roger I don't think the fling itself is that pathetic - without knowing the marital circumstances it's impossible to judge the ethics, but the embrace itself looked sweetly affectionate. I do think that his previous record of condeming someone else for the same thing and insisting on rules for everyone else warrant resignation, but that's as far as I'd go.

    But cui bono on the video? First, opportunity. Neither Boris nor any other politician seems likely to have access to CCTV (still less to long-distance paparazzi pictures). MI5? not really - they struggle to keep track of suspected terrorists, hard to imagine they assign people to peruse Westminster corridors. But some junior officer monitors CCTV, and that seems the first place to look. Second, motive. Might it not simply be money? I could well imagine the Sun paying £100K for it.
    Ferguson wasn’t quite the same thing as he was regularly travelling across London on public transport so exposing innocent passers by as well.
    Also, Ferguson was in the middle of the first lockdown, when we were all shit scared of this thing and Covid was going gang busters. The Hancock Clinch was on the 7 May this year, 11 days later it would have been Okl under the guidelines, Covid cases were coming down nicely and I guess many people were pushing the rules a bit. I know I had drunk inside a pub by then. Now I am not saying that makes any difference in terms of hypocrisy/law/guidelines but it might make a difference how people see it. If one of my work colleagues had offered me a snog I think I may have obliged her (depending on who it was of course).
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,827
    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    But it hasn’t sunk in for you has it. With all their electronic, satellite and human intel, the US has not one shred of evidence of it coming from an adversary.

    Let’s assume it is a Russian or Chinese programme. Would that not worry you at all? That the safeguard of your security and mine has been caught asleep at the wheel? That by the very words of the Pentagon’s own report, they need scientific advances to even try and explain this technology? That suddenly there’s a huge imbalance in military and technology capability but we don’t know the first thing about what it is, who developed it and how?

    I thought Tories were supposed to care about security and defence?
    I’ve zero evidence that the moon isn’t made of cheese. But it doesn’t keep me up at night.

    The US & Five Eyes have very good intel about Russia & China.

    They have not one shred of evidence.

    So we have two options:

    (1) they are right - it’s not Russia/China
    (2) let’s assume they are wrong. OMG! They’re wrong! That’s a DISASTER! What else don’t they know? We’re all FUCKED!

    I’m going with option 1
    This area of research could conceivably usher in a new renaissance with effects almost beyond imagination. And your attitude, meh who cares. Let’s talk about Matt Hancock’s affair and Megan Markle.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,988
    Sandpit said:

    Cummings has been furiously bashing away at the typewriter again. Fair to say he’s not a big fan of Matt Hancock.

    https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/more-evidence-on-how-the-pms-and

    Can’t help thinking that, whilst I agree with most of what Cummings has to say about disfunctional government and whole departments needing to be replaced, the way he’s going about publishing things is dangerously close to being in breach of the Official Secrets Act.

    Why should he care? Ministers routinely breach the official secrets act to brief against each other as well. There is no way they want the precedent that means they can go to jail for such behaviour.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,814
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
    The method of being caught is irrelevant to whether he should resign, though would be something else to look into, but I am a bit confused by some of this camera talk - it's not like all CCTV cameras are big, box like things, might have been a tennis ball sized black sphere stuck on the ceiling skirting or something, which is obvious once pointed out to you but which you filter out day to day, especially since people don't look up as much as we might think.
    Agreed.

    However the leaking of the recording is a likely offence under a number of different laws.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,988
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    Because it's completely implausible. If wither Russia or China had such a thing money would be more than enough reason to

    1st dose numbers have been exceeding 2nd doses for about a week. Hard to be sure how next few weeks will go but it looks promising that 9 in 10 UK adults will have had 1st dose & 2/3 both doses by 19th July, ‘terminus date’ in England

    https://twitter.com/BBCFergusWalsh/status/1408704827694190593?s=20

    Assuming that demand is maintained.

    Which if it is will, I suspect, only be because of there prevalence of Delta.
    I can't see why it wouldn't be - all the youngsters I know who are old enough to get jabs have booked in for them.
    Current level of first doses in England by age:

    90+ 93.93%
    85-89 95.48%
    80-84 95.48%
    75-79 95.38%
    70-74 94.36%
    65-69 92.09%
    60-64 90.04%
    55-59 87.98%
    50-54 85.24%
    45-49 79.82%
    40-44 73.29%
    35-39 65.44%
    30-34 58.51%
    25-29 49.41%
    18-24 38.61%

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=England

    A definite reduction per age band.

    Now the under 30s haven't had much opportunity yet to get vaccinated but what's the excuse for those over 40 ? And those over 50 have been able to get vaccinated since March.
    That's lower than I expected for 44 downwards. I was expecting 40-49 to be 75-80% and for younger groups to (eventually) hit 70% or so...

    On those figures we are only going to hit decent herd immunity via people catching covid.
    40-49 is within your 75-80% expectations! The numbers are fine.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,886
    DavidL said:

    I just ask out of boredom on this too hot and noisy night but is the Minister and his civil servants in some sort of a bubble? I am sure that at the least they are tested regularly. Was close contact with a member of staff a wrong in the COVID sense?

    Our puriant obsession with the love life of our politicians is actually pretty pathetic. I feel sorry for his wife. And her husband. I think less of him. Shame is evidently a concept known only to these coy aliens. But I really struggle to give a shit.

    The financial side is to me more interesting and important.

    I am a bit reluctant to opine on the marriage / adultery issue. Only the people involved know what is going in a marriage. I would only say this based on my own experiences and those of people I know well: you can hear of behaviour which, prima facie, seems awful. But then when you hear more about what has been happening and why, well, matters don't always look quite so straightforward. Perception and blame can end up shifting around a bit.

    Still, whatever a spouse gets up to there is one golden rule: don't publicly humiliate the other spouse or children.

    All I really want is for these blasted restrictions to end so that normal life can resume.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    So, who has access to the CCTV room at the DoH, and doesn’t like Mr Hancock?

    Next question, how much more do the papers have on him?

    Presumably Hancock knows what they might have on him?

    I mean, if he's been getting really saucy at the office with his aide (or someone else?!) then he'll know that might also have been filmed and surely would have resigned by now?
    That would be the likely conversation between the minister and the PM.

    If it’s a quick snog that happened once in the office, he probably gets away with it (apart from with his wife, of course!), but if there’s more of, or more serious, footage to come, then he’s in trouble and probably doesn’t last the weekend.
    There's something about these pictures that don't add up. They aren't completely steady as if someone has taken a video of a screen, but they don't really look like CCTV. Presumably they are a crop from a wider angle view?

    In the video Matt Hancock checks there's nobody in the corridor before engaging, so why would he stand directly in front of a camera? The only explanation is that he didn't know it was there.

    It bears all the hallmarks of a hidden camera on the ceiling - a smoke detector or the like. Which would raise a lot more questions than whether he should resign or not (he should).
    Yeah the camera was put in his office without his knowledge... now I wonder who would hate him so much they'd do that... I wonder... ;)
    But even then why would he play into their hands other than his mind is not on covid but other things
    I think we all know what his "mind" was on Big G. Cock by name.. Cock by nature... ;)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,915
    Sandpit said:

    Cummings has been furiously bashing away at the typewriter again. Fair to say he’s not a big fan of Matt Hancock.

    https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/more-evidence-on-how-the-pms-and

    Can’t help thinking that, whilst I agree with most of what Cummings has to say about disfunctional government and whole departments needing to be replaced, the way he’s going about publishing things is dangerously close to being in breach of the Official Secrets Act.

    Arrests under the OSA are rare and successful prosecutions are even rarer.

    The Fireplace Salesman leaked National Security Council information to The Telegraph and wasn't troubled by the OSA. In fact, Johnson restored him to the cabinet. So Cummings has absolutely nothing to worry about on that score.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cummings has been furiously bashing away at the typewriter again. Fair to say he’s not a big fan of Matt Hancock.

    https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/more-evidence-on-how-the-pms-and

    Can’t help thinking that, whilst I agree with most of what Cummings has to say about disfunctional government and whole departments needing to be replaced, the way he’s going about publishing things is dangerously close to being in breach of the Official Secrets Act.

    Arrests under the OSA are rare and successful prosecutions are even rarer.

    The Fireplace Salesman leaked National Security Council information to The Telegraph and wasn't troubled by the OSA. In fact, Johnson restored him to the cabinet. So Cummings has absolutely nothing to worry about on that score.
    Shame. Hancock sacked for breaking his own laws and Cummings locked up would be one hell of a result.

    We just need to get Williamson, Patel, Gove and Jenrick in somehow...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,981

    Sandpit said:

    Cummings has been furiously bashing away at the typewriter again. Fair to say he’s not a big fan of Matt Hancock.

    https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/more-evidence-on-how-the-pms-and

    Can’t help thinking that, whilst I agree with most of what Cummings has to say about disfunctional government and whole departments needing to be replaced, the way he’s going about publishing things is dangerously close to being in breach of the Official Secrets Act.

    Why should he care? Ministers routinely breach the official secrets act to brief against each other as well. There is no way they want the precedent that means they can go to jail for such behaviour.
    Except that he’s not elected, he was a member of staff who clearly took all the emails with him when he left the job. If someone wanted to make an issue of it, he could be in a whole world of trouble.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Four-time Olympic champion Mo Farah will not defend his 10,000m title in Tokyo after falling short in a last-gasp shot at the qualifying time.

    I think that is the end for Mr Mobot.

    he has made too much cash and no drive left
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    If anyone still needs convincing that Galloway is a thoroughly nasty piece of work (though tbf, not many here seem to need to be convinced of it) you could watch the curtailed C4 News interview with Liz Bates from earlier in the week.

    I saw that - he is an awful excuse of a human being
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,650
    Are offenses under Hancock's covid laws open to private prosecutions?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    GIN1138 said:

    Christopher Snowdon
    @cjsnowdon
    Judging by the number of boomer memes circulating on WhatsApp, the Hancock story has “landed” with the general public.

    Well it's just the latest example of one law for us and one law for them.

    First there was the G7 and Boris showing off in front the global elite - none of them bothering with the quarantine, social distancing and masks we've all been forced to put up with.

    Then Boris goes swanning off to the NATO summit while the majority of people back home can't even have a few days in the sun in Magaluf

    We have VIP's from FIFA flying in for EURO 2020.

    And now we have moron Matt Hancock and his shenanigans. All at the same time people haven't even been able to offer comfort and reassurance to their relatives at funerals (who remembers the story of the sons that wanted to sit with their elderly mother at their fathers funeral and got into trouble)

    People are sick of it. People have had enough. If Labour was a half decent opposition this government would be in very deep trouble!
    Imagine Gordon Brown or Robin Cook in their Opposition days tearing into this shower of a government?

    It would have been a joy to watch.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    maaarsh said:

    Are offenses under Hancock's covid laws open to private prosecutions?

    THIS. 1000x THIS.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,650
    malcolmg said:

    Four-time Olympic champion Mo Farah will not defend his 10,000m title in Tokyo after falling short in a last-gasp shot at the qualifying time.

    I think that is the end for Mr Mobot.

    he has made too much cash and no drive left
    Hard to expect him to perform after his coach was banned.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cummings has been furiously bashing away at the typewriter again. Fair to say he’s not a big fan of Matt Hancock.

    https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/more-evidence-on-how-the-pms-and

    Can’t help thinking that, whilst I agree with most of what Cummings has to say about disfunctional government and whole departments needing to be replaced, the way he’s going about publishing things is dangerously close to being in breach of the Official Secrets Act.

    Arrests under the OSA are rare and successful prosecutions are even rarer.

    The Fireplace Salesman leaked National Security Council information to The Telegraph and wasn't troubled by the OSA. In fact, Johnson restored him to the cabinet. So Cummings has absolutely nothing to worry about on that score.
    Shame. Hancock sacked for breaking his own laws and Cummings locked up would be one hell of a result.

    We just need to get Williamson, Patel, Gove and Jenrick in somehow...
    Jenrick will be gone soon. Someone has to take the fall for the coming u-turn on planning laws.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526

    I think Hancock should go. Not because of an inter-office romance, even if it might perhaps have breached some keep-your-distance regs his department is tasked with putting out.

    The wider concern is the contracts awarded to people in his orbit. Now, having to knock all that on the head might be problematic for senior members of the Government - especially those who have a similar attitude to "rewarding friends for being friends". But it is the greatest risk to the chances of this government being re-elected. They need a stern reminder that Government's lose elections - and letting this continue unchecked is the way they will lose.

    I'm delighted that you are concerned about the cronyism in awarding contracts issue, and that you disapprove of "rewarding friends for being friends".

    However, I'm disappointed that it has taken Hancock's misdemeanours for you to raise this concern, when such cronyism, some of which is tantamount to corruption, has been evident in the awarding of contracts since the start of the pandemic. You and other Tories have defended the government on this for the last year when people like me have raised it - what's changed?
    I was only talking about in the context of the current Hancock situation.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    First Tory openly calls for Matt Hancock to resign
    Duncan Baker, Conservative MP for North Norfolk, has called for Matt Hancock to resign.

    Telegraph blog



    Come on backbench guys. You can do this!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,742
    moonshine said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    Because it's completely implausible. If wither Russia or China had such a thing money would be more than enough reason to
    Implausibility isn’t enough to categorically rule something out - once you rule out the alternatives, the implausible becomes likely

    I totally agree that it’s not Russia/China. But @moonshine wants us to prove a negative
    No I don’t. This is about drawing conclusions from the limited evidence available to you and me, and drawing inferences from what has been said by some people with top level security clearance, and many others with direct access to those people.

    If you don’t think it’s Russia or China (at least not the more interesting incidents), the US has confirmed yesterday it was not them and likely not a recording glitch and in at least 18 cases not aerial debris, then just what do you think it might be? “I don’t know” is for now the properly correct answer of course, and the Pentagon amusingly uses the term “catch all other bin” for this category.

    But can’t you see how this is answer is simply not good enough? We must spend an appropriate portion of society’s energies and treasure to try and find out. And that portion is far far greater than what has been expended to date.
    But isn't that roughly what the report said and what you denied it said? Crudely put, there are some observations that can't be explained so the Navy needs oodles more cash to buy better instruments and make better observations.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358

    First Tory openly calls for Matt Hancock to resign
    Duncan Baker, Conservative MP for North Norfolk, has called for Matt Hancock to resign.

    Telegraph blog



    Come on backbench guys. You can do this!


    He'll be gone by Monday IMO.
  • Nunu3Nunu3 Posts: 169
    Charles said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    glw said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone watching Ch4 News would bet the house on Hancock going. Probably tonight. It's a firing squad

    The problem is *if* Johnson has a similar skeleton in a similarly socially undistanced cupboard, and should it come to light, he would surely be obliged to go too. And Johnson being Johnson, that is not beyond the realms of probability.

    Can I hear the sound of distant violins?
    I'd be surprised is Boris hasn't been cheating on Carrie.
    I know someone who cheated on the day of his wedding with the brides best female...friend... nothing is impossible..
    I know the diametric opposite. A bride who fucked the best man on the wedding day

    The human comedy is nothing if not diverse and egalitarian
    I can trump that: A wedding were the bride left her mum's ashes at the venue - and went home with her groom's adult son. She literally fucked her own son-in-law on her wedding night.
    These are starting to sound apocalyptic.
    A friend of mine was at one wedding where the Best Man proclaimed his love for the groom, and his anger at the fact that the bride was stealing him. He got flung out.

    And, I was Best Man at a wedding where, unbeknown to me, one of the bridesmaids intended to proclaim her lesbian passion for the bride, (this came as a complete surprise to the bride) only to get shut up by her friends.
    I clearly move in the wrong circles 😳
    Or the right ones......
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    C&N 2008 byelection for PBers who like a trip down memory lane:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr5ALLF5TpM
  • eekeek Posts: 15,841
    maaarsh said:

    malcolmg said:

    Four-time Olympic champion Mo Farah will not defend his 10,000m title in Tokyo after falling short in a last-gasp shot at the qualifying time.

    I think that is the end for Mr Mobot.

    he has made too much cash and no drive left
    Hard to expect him to perform after his coach was banned.
    And that's the problem for him, regardless of innocence or guilt by failing to qualify without his coach people may wonder.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    moonshine said:

    Charles said:

    moonshine said:

    Does anyone know how many senators will be shown the classified section of the UAP Taskforce report? All of them? Or just the intelligence committee and gang of 8?

    I’m astounded (I really shouldnt be) that Philip and Robert can think the report no big deal. In plain language it states that they are a risk to flight safety and may be a risk to national security. Forget the rest, just consider that. They are a real physical phenomena that is categorically a risk to flight safety.

    It goes on to say that they have no evidence they are from foreign adversaries. With all the trillions spent on military hardware, electronic surveillance, human sources etc… there’s “no evidence” they are from Russia or China. Let that part sink in.

    And finally that at least 18 incidents showed “unusual flight characteristics”, namely very fast acceleration with no visible signs of propulsion.

    These are incidents only recorded since 2004 and only by the Navy. Neither the Air Force or CIA cooperated with the report. In essence there are 18 (!) episodes equivalent to the famous Nimitz case involving David Fravor. That’s just the Navy and just those that were formally recorded.

    And to Philip’s lament that “oh no they’re asking for more money”. When figures were last reported, the task force had an annual budget of just $22m. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the US military budget to spend further investigating physical objects around US military assets, that not only display technological signatures but have been categorised as: “clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security”?

    “There’s no evidence they are from Russia and China.

    Let that sink it”

    Yup. It’s sunk in. It means that there’s no evidence that they’re from Russia or China. Can you categorically rule out that Russia or China have a super-dooper top secret whizz-bang programme that no one in the world apart from President Xi and girlfriend #4 (Wednesday) know about? No, you can’t. But is there any evidence that’s the case? Nope.
    But it hasn’t sunk in for you has it. With all their electronic, satellite and human intel, the US has not one shred of evidence of it coming from an adversary.

    Let’s assume it is a Russian or Chinese programme. Would that not worry you at all? That the safeguard of your security and mine has been caught asleep at the wheel? That by the very words of the Pentagon’s own report, they need scientific advances to even try and explain this technology? That suddenly there’s a huge imbalance in military and technology capability but we don’t know the first thing about what it is, who developed it and how?

    I thought Tories were supposed to care about security and defence?
    A couple of things I would add to that

    These advanced technologies have been around since at least what 2004 and probably earlier.

    Do we really think nothing would have leaked - or made its way into more mainstream use by now.

    The one thing the report omitted to discuss was that - whatever these are, they are very interested in nuclear sites - so that's a pretty big security issue all on its own.

    Honestly, I thought the report went further than I expected

    I have no idea what these things are or who is deploying them - but all these people claiming faulty sensors, just a view of a plane in the distance etc have been shown to be wrong.

    The Americans are admitting they are real, have no idea where they come from (even with some of the less performance capable ones) and in some cases we do not yet have the science to explain what they can do.

    This may be military tech from a US adversary - but that would leave the West hopelessly outmatched in a shooting war.

    I also have an interest in military matters so even that would be interesting.

    No chemical propulsion system or even rotors - think what that might mean for our world in the future - (unless there are other harmful emissions we don't know about)

    Even Extinction Rebellion would approve

    So - we don't even need to consider "others" for this to be a very interesting development
  • eekeek Posts: 15,841

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cummings has been furiously bashing away at the typewriter again. Fair to say he’s not a big fan of Matt Hancock.

    https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/more-evidence-on-how-the-pms-and

    Can’t help thinking that, whilst I agree with most of what Cummings has to say about disfunctional government and whole departments needing to be replaced, the way he’s going about publishing things is dangerously close to being in breach of the Official Secrets Act.

    Arrests under the OSA are rare and successful prosecutions are even rarer.

    The Fireplace Salesman leaked National Security Council information to The Telegraph and wasn't troubled by the OSA. In fact, Johnson restored him to the cabinet. So Cummings has absolutely nothing to worry about on that score.
    Shame. Hancock sacked for breaking his own laws and Cummings locked up would be one hell of a result.

    We just need to get Williamson, Patel, Gove and Jenrick in somehow...
    Jenrick will be gone soon. Someone has to take the fall for the coming u-turn on planning laws.
    Have they actually been formally announced (not that I need to care, Mrs Eek works for a national park so different rules apply).
This discussion has been closed.