The Right Honourable Matt Hancock MP
Discussion
maz8062 said:
glazbagun said:
I think it's fascinating in a way that you don't often see. We've had D-Notices, etc for a long time, but you seldom get first hand accounts of people discussing the best way to spin/promote/repress something, even though they must be at it all the time.
Are there minutes of the meetings with Churchill / Atlee vs Halifax in the same room arguing about the possibility of asking the Italian Facists to help broker peace or what to tell the press about the loss of Prince of Wales & Repulse?
Are there minutes of the meetings with Churchill / Atlee vs Halifax in the same room arguing about the possibility of asking the Italian Facists to help broker peace or what to tell the press about the loss of Prince of Wales & Repulse?
Exactly. The unintended consequences of this is that the conversation will move away from the digital world to more secure and water tight forms of medium.WhatsApp as a communicating medium hasn’t come out of this well in my view. Ok, there’s end to end encryption and all that, but the actual messages live on long after the intended recipients have long forgotten about it and the problem with them is once they’re out, the author of the texts are bang to rights. Once you hit the send button, what you say can be used against you in a court of law, the press or whether, so don’t!
This type of communication, human communication and gossip, will just take another form, or these individuals will be a lot more careful what they share digitally.
There is *no* medium of communication that is proofed against idiots.
Ashfordian said:
What you have said here, and I agree, perfectly demonstrates that it wasn't about the virus and was all about justifying their actions when they inevitably will come under scrutiny.
I think that's way too simplistic.It can have been "about the virus" and about "justifying their actions" all at the same time. In fact you'd want it to be so. (Remember too that we are not seeing every message, and the timing of them is important too.
The problem wasn't so much the justifying of actions, it was that they flip flopped so much that the rationale they were giving started to look like Swiss cheese.
As mentioned before, a degree of that is understandable when you consider the multiple dimensions to the problem that needed to be balanced. But there was way too much of it happening.
I would not have wanted to be having to make the decisions they had to make....but if I were in that position I sure as f
k would not be giving someone like Oakeshott my phone afterwards.Murph7355 said:
maz8062 said:
glazbagun said:
I think it's fascinating in a way that you don't often see. We've had D-Notices, etc for a long time, but you seldom get first hand accounts of people discussing the best way to spin/promote/repress something, even though they must be at it all the time.
Are there minutes of the meetings with Churchill / Atlee vs Halifax in the same room arguing about the possibility of asking the Italian Facists to help broker peace or what to tell the press about the loss of Prince of Wales & Repulse?
Are there minutes of the meetings with Churchill / Atlee vs Halifax in the same room arguing about the possibility of asking the Italian Facists to help broker peace or what to tell the press about the loss of Prince of Wales & Repulse?
Exactly. The unintended consequences of this is that the conversation will move away from the digital world to more secure and water tight forms of medium.WhatsApp as a communicating medium hasn’t come out of this well in my view. Ok, there’s end to end encryption and all that, but the actual messages live on long after the intended recipients have long forgotten about it and the problem with them is once they’re out, the author of the texts are bang to rights. Once you hit the send button, what you say can be used against you in a court of law, the press or whether, so don’t!
This type of communication, human communication and gossip, will just take another form, or these individuals will be a lot more careful what they share digitally.
There is *no* medium of communication that is proofed against idiots.
Ashfordian said:
What you have said here, and I agree, perfectly demonstrates that it wasn't about the virus and was all about justifying their actions when they inevitably will come under scrutiny.
I think that's way too simplistic.It can have been "about the virus" and about "justifying their actions" all at the same time. In fact you'd want it to be so. (Remember too that we are not seeing every message, and the timing of them is important too.
The problem wasn't so much the justifying of actions, it was that they flip flopped so much that the rationale they were giving started to look like Swiss cheese.
As mentioned before, a degree of that is understandable when you consider the multiple dimensions to the problem that needed to be balanced. But there was way too much of it happening.
I would not have wanted to be having to make the decisions they had to make....but if I were in that position I sure as f
k would not be giving someone like Oakeshott my phone afterwards.youngsyr said:
Hopefully you wouldn't have broken some by far the most severe restrictions on freedom seen in this country in anyone's living memory, whilst telling the entire population to obey them either.
I like to think so too.But then I apply to that to anything MPs do. Their "one rule for us" has been going on for donkeys'
youngsyr said:
Hopefully you wouldn't have broken some by far the most severe restrictions on freedom seen in this country in anyone's living memory, whilst telling the entire population to obey them either.
Without wanting to relive the covid restrictions, it was also how he did it as well as what he did. At the time I felt Hancock loved the power, desired to be the centre of attention, and rather enjoyed telling people they "must" obey his instructions. This trove of leaked messages has validated that impression. And we saw through the pandemic it wasn't just Hancock - there were people in positions of power right across the country who loved being given the opportunity to fulfil their authoritarian wet-dreams.
At least with Boris, you got the sense he didn't relish applying restrictions.
jameswills said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
This is quite funny.... Hancock looks to have found a rather pompous lawyer to try and threaten Oakeshott for breaking their NDA. The lawyer was then invited onto GB News to give his view on whether Hancock might have a case. But as part of the intro, and to put the lawyer's perspective into some context, the presenter introduced the guest as having being asked to act on behalf of Hancock.
At which point the lawyer has a mini-melt down, saying how unprofessional it was that this information had been divulged to the viewers. He went onto make some spurious comparison suggested there was a comparison between a lawyer leaking breaking an NDA to leak personal details during a marital breakdown with the Hancock leaks about his handling of the covid pandemic.
Then after several minutes of the lawyer basically ranting and telling the presenter he was asking the "wrong questions" their producer found the lawyer's original email when he specifically requested it was mentioned he was acting on behalf on Hancock... doh!
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1632475157695455...
What an idiot. Who cares, this is information we all have a right to know, in fact we should demand to know as it affected all our lives. It should be of public discourse by our constitutional right. At which point the lawyer has a mini-melt down, saying how unprofessional it was that this information had been divulged to the viewers. He went onto make some spurious comparison suggested there was a comparison between a lawyer leaking breaking an NDA to leak personal details during a marital breakdown with the Hancock leaks about his handling of the covid pandemic.
Then after several minutes of the lawyer basically ranting and telling the presenter he was asking the "wrong questions" their producer found the lawyer's original email when he specifically requested it was mentioned he was acting on behalf on Hancock... doh!
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1632475157695455...
I mean the 1990s was absolutely stuffed with exactly those examples where public interest was served by showing how absolutely contemptible the public vs private behaviour of some MPs was. Christ sake Martin Bell fought an entire by-election on that principle.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Without wanting to relive the covid restrictions, it was also how he did it as well as what he did. At the time I felt Hancock loved the power, desired to be the centre of attention, and rather enjoyed telling people they "must" obey his instructions. This trove of leaked messages has validated that impression.
And we saw through the pandemic it wasn't just Hancock - there were people in positions of power right across the country who loved being given the opportunity to fulfil their authoritarian wet-dreams.
At least with Boris, you got the sense he didn't relish applying restrictions.
Yes, Hancock was Boris’ boss and could do what he wanted without having to check in first. Oh, wait.And we saw through the pandemic it wasn't just Hancock - there were people in positions of power right across the country who loved being given the opportunity to fulfil their authoritarian wet-dreams.
At least with Boris, you got the sense he didn't relish applying restrictions.
EddieSteadyGo said:
This is quite funny.... Hancock looks to have found a rather pompous lawyer to try and threaten Oakeshott for breaking their NDA. The lawyer was then invited onto GB News to give his view on whether Hancock might have a case. But as part of the intro, and to put the lawyer's perspective into some context, the presenter introduced the guest as having being asked to act on behalf of Hancock.
At which point the lawyer has a mini-melt down, saying how unprofessional it was that this information had been divulged to the viewers. He went onto make some spurious comparison suggested there was a comparison between a lawyer leaking breaking an NDA to leak personal details during a marital breakdown with the Hancock leaks about his handling of the covid pandemic.
Then after several minutes of the lawyer basically ranting and telling the presenter he was asking the "wrong questions" their producer found the lawyer's original email when he specifically requested it was mentioned he was acting on behalf on Hancock... doh!
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1632475157695455...
That is fvcking deliciousAt which point the lawyer has a mini-melt down, saying how unprofessional it was that this information had been divulged to the viewers. He went onto make some spurious comparison suggested there was a comparison between a lawyer leaking breaking an NDA to leak personal details during a marital breakdown with the Hancock leaks about his handling of the covid pandemic.
Then after several minutes of the lawyer basically ranting and telling the presenter he was asking the "wrong questions" their producer found the lawyer's original email when he specifically requested it was mentioned he was acting on behalf on Hancock... doh!
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1632475157695455...
EddieSteadyGo said:
At least with Boris, you got the sense he didn't relish applying restrictions.
Until he was told it might make him look bad compared to Sturgeon/Starmer/Burnham etc who was calling for greater restrictions then he was entirely happy to do so.....Edited by isaldiri on Monday 6th March 07:44
Ridgemont said:
ColdoRS said:
I cannot believe what I'm reading.
Mugs like you are the reason these kind of politicians continue to be elected into power.
I am not sure whether maz actually may be Hancock in disguise.Mugs like you are the reason these kind of politicians continue to be elected into power.
I can see why anyone with an ounce of intelligence stated to view the general public with a sense of contempt. E.g. Let them have what they want (lockdowns, restrictions etc) but why should I join in with this nonsense.
It was almost inevitable the government would become hypocritical in that scenario.
ClaphamGT3 said:
One for the Council thread, bloody hell don't they have any shame at all...dundarach said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
One for the Council thread, bloody hell don't they have any shame at all...k have I just watched?It’s one thing knowing that channel actually exists and another seriously thinking they ‘nailed it’.
Grumps. said:
dundarach said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
One for the Council thread, bloody hell don't they have any shame at all...k have I just watched?It’s one thing knowing that channel actually exists and another seriously thinking they ‘nailed it’.
ClaphamGT3 said:
CringeThe media response to the Hancock stuff, for all it has been very limited, has been tiresomely predictable - and very often split on party political grounds. The Tory press complain (often in a somewhat muted manner, sans the Telegraph) that Hancock broke the economy and the Labour press moan that he cared too little for the vulnerable. You could be forgiven for thinking "what could the politicians do" against this backdrop. But you then need to reflect on the role of the state and media in fostering the polarising narratives that became so entrenched.
The overall stats still show that, even today, the majority of the public (see the Times, 3rd March and their Gallup Poll) still think that lockdown was better than a more measured approach (more so for left leaning folk admittedly).
Ultimately, lots of people were going to die, come what may. But selling that message is far from easy because, lets face it, most of the electorate don't want to know about trade-offs. They can't face it and lots of them can't be bothered to understand it, so simple messaging was always going to find favour. Prioritising health was always going to be the easier winner, especially when most of the trade-offs were largely latent. Even today that remains the case.
Simplistic, moral, messaging is the order of business for much of the press on chosen issues. Sure plurality can be found in the odd contrary position printed or heard, but it is a minority voice. The media\government unity of approach in respect of Ukraine is being dealt with in the same manner. Across the spectrum, the (entirely correct) moral position of Ukraine being wronged dominates a clammer for ever greater military intervention. As with the covid debate, such limited analysis serves us poorly and presents a choice as being unavoidable.
Hancock shows us no more than we knew. The apathy in response tells him he was correct to behave as he did.
Our constitutional checks and balances do not exist. Our democracy is illusory in times of "crisis" - or at least so it would seem. I doubt it is a new thing either.....
As a final thought about Hancock, I could understand his desire for restrictions until the population was vaccinated. Fair enough.
But as we approached the point where everyone had been vaccinated, the thorny issue of vaccine escape and diminished transmission efficacy came to the fore, where was the clamour for packing in restrictions because "this is as good as it gets...."
Secondly, the scientists must have understood the limitations on transmission efficacy from the outset. Why did few of them point out that a vaccine would ultimately save lives but offer limited protection against transmission.
I find these matters more troubling still.
The overall stats still show that, even today, the majority of the public (see the Times, 3rd March and their Gallup Poll) still think that lockdown was better than a more measured approach (more so for left leaning folk admittedly).
Ultimately, lots of people were going to die, come what may. But selling that message is far from easy because, lets face it, most of the electorate don't want to know about trade-offs. They can't face it and lots of them can't be bothered to understand it, so simple messaging was always going to find favour. Prioritising health was always going to be the easier winner, especially when most of the trade-offs were largely latent. Even today that remains the case.
Simplistic, moral, messaging is the order of business for much of the press on chosen issues. Sure plurality can be found in the odd contrary position printed or heard, but it is a minority voice. The media\government unity of approach in respect of Ukraine is being dealt with in the same manner. Across the spectrum, the (entirely correct) moral position of Ukraine being wronged dominates a clammer for ever greater military intervention. As with the covid debate, such limited analysis serves us poorly and presents a choice as being unavoidable.
Hancock shows us no more than we knew. The apathy in response tells him he was correct to behave as he did.
Our constitutional checks and balances do not exist. Our democracy is illusory in times of "crisis" - or at least so it would seem. I doubt it is a new thing either.....
As a final thought about Hancock, I could understand his desire for restrictions until the population was vaccinated. Fair enough.
But as we approached the point where everyone had been vaccinated, the thorny issue of vaccine escape and diminished transmission efficacy came to the fore, where was the clamour for packing in restrictions because "this is as good as it gets...."
Secondly, the scientists must have understood the limitations on transmission efficacy from the outset. Why did few of them point out that a vaccine would ultimately save lives but offer limited protection against transmission.
I find these matters more troubling still.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Nail it? Managed less than 20 seconds of that cringefest
Just when you think Hancock couldn't get any lower. 100% behind this plan apparently though it didn't seem to go any further as someone else no doubt talked some sense into him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/06/matt-h...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/06/matt-h...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff