advertisement


Hancock...You've been a Naughty Boy!

The biggest issue we have is lack of credible and effective opposition. The govt can get away with virtually anything. Despite all the shenanigans, I’m certain if there was a GE tomorrow, the majorly would be 100+.
The only uncertainty with that statement would be the size of the Tory majority; even the Tory haters on pfm would not vote for Labour.
 
Angela Rayner on R4 this morning nailing the real issues.

She said she was not interested in his personal peccadilloes but wanted to know about the corruption of the appointment of Gina Coledeangelo and the secret email account and the missing £billions.

Has any other Labour bod come out and similarly nailed the essential issues?
 
Interesting to see how the whole issue is being shifted by the Tory/right to one of security, i.e. the positioning of the camera. To recap: gross incompetence that kills tens of thousands = fine. Government corruption and tax theft to the tune of £bns = fine. Whistleblowing = not fine.
 
Another view from a Tory sympathiser in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...uge-questions-over-hancock-affair-says-labour
Caroline Slocock, who founded the Civil Exchange thinktank and was private secretary to Margaret Thatcher, told the Guardian she had “quite significant concerns” that the focus on Hancock’s breach of Covid rules had “let him off the hook” for “potentially an abuse of public money”.

She claimed there had been a “murky series of events” and that, given Coladangelo worked as a communications director, “it’s quite hard to see” how she was qualified to advise DHSC on its central policy areas of health and social care.

Slocock said Hancock had “at best, essentially appointed an old chum”, and added: “To get your mistress to be marking your homework is not acceptable.”
 
'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' is the line that has been used to excuse successive invasions of our privacy.
Yes, but it’s worse than that insofar as Hancock was advised to use government emails in order to be in line with government guidelines and to allow proper scrutiny. The question is, if Hancock was actively avoiding scrutiny, what was he trying to conceal?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/matt-hancock-private-email-covid-b1873466.html
 
This all adds up to a viable plot for another "Carrie On" movie.

You just need to add a few things from Lord Barnard Castle and the aspirations of Dildo what's it to be head of the NHS and Netflix would buy it. They would probably pay as much as they did for the Californian couple.
 
The worrying thing about all this is not that ministers are crooks, that`s par for the course, it`s that this lot are really incompetent crooks.
 
B78Qv3B.jpg
 
Boris Johnson got a track record for breaking marriage vows so it sort of reasonable to assume he is not totally honest with British public. However Matt Hancock for me represented such a voice of reason, patience and care, but he totally disrespected his present wife and family. I don't think I would trust them with allowed 'expenses'... Ironically it is confirmed on the internet that Matt Hancock forbids his three children to use social media. Such contradictions in play...!
 
Interesting to see how the whole issue is being shifted by the Tory/right to one of security, i.e. the positioning of the camera. To recap: gross incompetence that kills tens of thousands = fine. Government corruption and tax theft to the tune of £bns = fine. Whistleblowing = not fine.
They took the smoke detector/spy cam off and a dead cat fell out? His human rights have been breached- maybe he can go to the ECHR..
 
Interesting to see how the whole issue is being shifted by the Tory/right to one of security, i.e. the positioning of the camera. To recap: gross incompetence that kills tens of thousands = fine. Government corruption and tax theft to the tune of £bns = fine. Whistleblowing = not fine.
The only crime is getting caught, which may always have been the Tory mantra.
 


advertisement


Back
Top