Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Mark Saunders]

25 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 'Twas always thus?

 

I was reminded of the issue of Edwina Curry, and J Major?

 

Or, Blunkett & the hareem?

Paddy Ashdown was the exception as his popularity went up after the revelation!

 

Fifa rules have changed and away goals don’t count as double any more!

[APOLLO]

The Romans had a saying,

 

Bigus Dickus Regina Cranium.

 

Brit15

Edited June 27, 2021 by APOLLO

[Pete the Elaner]

56 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Look at the history of politics and how many people got away with the "crime" of having an affair, since when has it been a sackable offence.

 

As someone else said we don't know if they were actually allowed to be close, as in a work bubble.

 

All I see is mob rule, which I find abhorrent. They (you?) were out to get him, they've won, so who's next on the list? 

If he was defence secretary or chancellor in normal times, I would consider an affair irrelevant.

The problem is he was minister for health. with Covid such a topical problem & issue, It was his job to recommend measures to slow its spread & it was his job to be setting an example.

Many of us have been trying to observe safety protocols, including not visiting close friends or relatives in an attempt to help contain the problem. I am sure we all bend the rules a little at times, but why should we bother if the minister for health clearly doesn't care?

[alastairq]

The unspoken issue here with the goings-on is one of security in my mind?

 

I do hope a thorough investigation is conducted as to how these pictures were captured and passed on?

 

One of the points in a Civil Servant's contract of employment always concerned the question of 'loyalty' to State.

 

For a Civil Servant to whistleblow straight to the press is in my view, doubtful behaviour. especially as there have been, for years now, procedures available within the Civil Service to voice these things?

Remember, the Civil Service isn't about protecting political figures, or even, government...but of supporting State..which is, you & I.

I do wonder whether the outcomes of any properly conducted investigations are likely to be put into the public domain?

 

But it does raise the question of the integrity of members of the Civil Service, and how that integrity is measured , or guaranteed?

In other words, does the Civil Service employ people who are happy to put political views, or personal gain, before the Country's security??  

 

Or, indeed, where does it stop?

 

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

It's quite simple, if he hadn't employed somone he fancied, if he had not been paying that woman tax payers money, if he hadn't been flaunting the relationship in front of civil servants and suchlike then there would not have been a video, he would still be SoS and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  My understanding is that it is believed it is an actual camera in his office, there are pictures of it.

 

It's more than just an affair, he set the rules which he lambasted others for breaking and then broke them himself.

 

My mother in law stayed indoors for 12 months because Matt Hancock told her to, she couldn't see her grandchildren, had to depend on me to shop for her.  But the rules only applied to her, not him, he could do what he wanted and did.

 

He also put his manhood before the country, he was carrying on with someone, orchestrating an affair whilst he was meant to be saving lives.

 

However, you put this and I am not bringing other alleged incidents by him into this, or the fact he is being investigated for how contracts were awarded elsewhere into the argument, it's plain and simply because he was the biggest hypocrite of them all.

 

I am in agreement that the person who handed over the imagery may be in trouble, but had they simply informed Government, might this whole thing have been covered up, his boss has form so why would you expect him to sack someone else for doing the same thing.

 

The real victims here are the families involved, I guess its hard enough dealing with a relationship breakdown let alone having to deal with it in the public gaze. As for those who are so quick to criticize actions some of us feel are incorrect, I only hope that when they err in life ( as we all tend to do ) they don't have to suffer quite so publicly.

 

Some how we expect our public servants to be saints, its probably good they are not as they have to make difficult decisions that affect millions, and without the benefit of hindsight. I don't envy anybody being in this position having to face up to the long lasting consequences of their actions. I do find some of the comments on here being very hypocritical.   

 

I expect most of the country have done their best at following the rules, every now and then we all let our guard down, its natural.  Some are just more observant than others.  

Edited June 27, 2021 by hayfield

[Joseph_Pestell]

12 minutes ago, alastairq said:

The unspoken issue here with the goings-on is one of security in my mind?

 

I do hope a thorough investigation is conducted as to how these pictures were captured and passed on?

 

One of the points in a Civil Servant's contract of employment always concerned the question of 'loyalty' to State.

 

For a Civil Servant to whistleblow straight to the press is in my view, doubtful behaviour. especially as there have been, for years now, procedures available within the Civil Service to voice these things?

Remember, the Civil Service isn't about protecting political figures, or even, government...but of supporting State..which is, you & I.

I do wonder whether the outcomes of any properly conducted investigations are likely to be put into the public domain?

 

But it does raise the question of the integrity of members of the Civil Service, and how that integrity is measured , or guaranteed?

In other words, does the Civil Service employ people who are happy to put political views, or personal gain, before the Country's security??  

 

Or, indeed, where does it stop?

 

 

You might want to look up "Yes, Prime Minister" with regards the purpose of a leak enquiry.

[AY Mod]

36 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

On the TV this morning is was reporting that one paper recons the source/part of the chain is someone who is a prominent anti vaxer

 

Maybe so but they didn't make him do it.

 

I wondered what she saw in him until this pic.

 

 

It's not 2.0m but maybe it explains a lot and at least it's got PPE.

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

I expect most of the country have done their best at following the rules, every now and then we all let our guard down, its natural.  Some are just more observant than others.  

I am sorry Hayfield but I find that coming from the person who compared people who didn't socially distance as being akin to drink drivers and was vehemently against people who broke the rules rather hypocritical as well.

 

Can you not see how damaging his actions have been?  He's not a hero or a saint, but be was SoS for Health, he set the rules and then diregarded them.  There is no rule for us and different rules for them, we were all meant to be in this together and clearly we weren't.

[Bulleidboy100]

It will all become clear, when the BBC obtains one of its regularly "obtained" documents.

[Mark Saunders]

2 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 

Or, indeed, where does it stop?

 

Or where did it start 

[hayfield]

47 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I am sorry Hayfield but I find that coming from the person who compared people who didn't socially distance as being akin to drink drivers and was vehemently against people who broke the rules rather hypocritical as well.

 

Can you not see how damaging his actions have been?  He's not a hero or a saint, but be was SoS for Health, he set the rules and then diregarded them.  There is no rule for us and different rules for them, we were all meant to be in this together and clearly we weren't.

 

Other than the families involved who have they damaged ? I bet many who have tried to keep to the rules, have on occasion broken the rules either by accident or design.  

 

As for the likes of the antivaxxers demonstrating yesterday,  Individuals and groups against the rules partying away in close proximity with each other especially when they have had a positive test, yes it can be as dangerous as drink driving. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by hayfield

[lapford34102]

My only comment is feeling sorry for the children of both of them, can't be easy

Stu

[chris p bacon]

I do find the moralising from people funny.  Having worked in hundreds of private houses over the years what may look like a happy family on the outside, is far from it within.

 

[Reorte]

19 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

Other than the families involved who have they damaged ? I bet many who have tried to keep to the rules, have on occasion broken the rules either by accident or design. 

 

Sure, which is why, if he's not doing it all the time, it would be a very minor thing for anyone else - including a lot of senior positions in government. It's the position he was in that makes his actions significantly more noteworthy than for just about anyone else.

 

[alastairq]

I'm an opinionated boogah with regards to families, divorces, etc.

 [Having had the experience of 3 of them]

The effect divorce has on children is entirely down to the post-split responses of parents concerned.  Followed by the interfering responses of close 'family'.

Indeed, it is, in my view, better for children not to be trapped within an unharmonious 'marriage!'

The problems arise in my view, because of the responses of the parents, towards each other, and towards the family unit as a whole.

So many times I hear of acrimony between ex-partners...and this is detected easily by any kids involved.

Acrimony is so un-adult!  So blinkering!  Sh#t happens in relationships....get over it.....think of the bigger picture?  Better that Mum & Dad don't live together, but in separate homes, and the kids can shuttle around between them...than to live in one home with all the  bad feeling that can be generated & detected.

 

What does cause me dismay [in the extreme] is how Society [OUR society?] views stuff like Divorce, compared to stuff like Bankruptcy.

[Our?] society pays more heed, vilifies more, someone who petitions Bankruptcy than it does to Divorce.

How come 'money' becomes more important than the 'kids' welfare' so often mentioned above?

 

How come Society vilifies more, someone who has dealt equitably with their financial problems..... than it does to vilify someone who has failed with marriage?

What sort of Society is it that places more emphasis on finance than it does on peoples' feelings?

Money comes before kids welfare.....in our world.

 

What a shyte state of affairs we have arrived at?

[hayfield]

9 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Sure, which is why, if he's not doing it all the time, it would be a very minor thing for anyone else - including a lot of senior positions in government. It's the position he was in that makes his actions significantly more noteworthy than for just about anyone else.

 

 

I just live in the real world, I used to play golf with one of my old doctors, after a round of golf I was having a black coffee (I was on a massive weight loss drive) he had half a shandy. During our chat said he thought he drank too much, well a doctor should know. In his defence he was never a drinker at the golf club and I rarely ever saw him with more than half a pint. Its so easy to expect others to be far better than they really are. It was not that he was infected and going round infecting others. 

 

Two families are in pieces not being able to watch the TV or listen to the radio without their problems being discussed.

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

I just live in the real world, I used to play golf with one of my old doctors, after a round of golf I was having a black coffee (I was on a massive weight loss drive) he had half a shandy. During our chat said he thought he drank too much, well a doctor should know. In his defence he was never a drinker at the golf club and I rarely ever saw him with more than half a pint. Its so easy to expect others to be far better than they really are. It was not that he was infected and going round infecting others. 

 

Two families are in pieces not being able to watch the TV or listen to the radio without their problems being discussed.

That's a little bad but nowhere near as much I think. If that doctor was a prominent promoter of being teetotal it would be a bit closer. What we've got with Hancock though is a person who was heavily involved in creating rules and guidelines that he was telling everyone in the country they have to follow - the impact of those has been felt on everyone here, and he's been very rigid about saying that.

 

Whilst the family aspect is a terrible part of it that bit I really do think is an entirely private matter for them though.

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

But it does raise the question of the integrity of members of the Civil Service, and how that integrity is measured , or guaranteed?

In other words, does the Civil Service employ people who are happy to put political views, or personal gain, before the Country's security??  

Some of us fail to understand how civil servants, at least at senior level, can function as human beings. After all, Government A says black is black and white is white, and you implement that policy within the ambit of your post. Then, after a period of purdah while the country goes to the polls, in comes Government B, which has been elected on a platform of black being white and vice versa. So now you are required to unpick all your knitting and go 180 degrees from before on that policy. As a thinking person, how do you deal with that, since you probably think one or other is 'right', but you have no say? Your career effectively proceeds on the basis of being unprincipled except for obeying the elected members, many of whom, you know through your dealings with them, are inept at everything. And you know as you implement the new mandate you 'know' is wrong, you are affecting the lives of up to 67 million people. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

16 minutes ago, alastairq said:

I'm an opinionated boogah with regards to families, divorces, etc.

 [Having had the experience of 3 of them]

The effect divorce has on children is entirely down to the post-split responses of parents concerned.  Followed by the interfering responses of close 'family'.

Indeed, it is, in my view, better for children not to be trapped within an unharmonious 'marriage!'

The problems arise in my view, because of the responses of the parents, towards each other, and towards the family unit as a whole.

So many times I hear of acrimony between ex-partners...and this is detected easily by any kids involved.

Acrimony is so un-adult!  So blinkering!  Sh#t happens in relationships....get over it.....think of the bigger picture?  Better that Mum & Dad don't live together, but in separate homes, and the kids can shuttle around between them...than to live in one home with all the  bad feeling that can be generated & detected.

 

What does cause me dismay [in the extreme] is how Society [OUR society?] views stuff like Divorce, compared to stuff like Bankruptcy.

[Our?] society pays more heed, vilifies more, someone who petitions Bankruptcy than it does to Divorce.

How come 'money' becomes more important than the 'kids' welfare' so often mentioned above?

 

How come Society vilifies more, someone who has dealt equitably with their financial problems..... than it does to vilify someone who has failed with marriage?

What sort of Society is it that places more emphasis on finance than it does on peoples' feelings?

Money comes before kids welfare.....in our world.

 

What a shyte state of affairs we have arrived at?

 

The "justice" system does indeed handle divorce very badly. But so has Parliament, with endless delay in bringing in "no-fault" divorces.

 

Finance is important, both for the separated partners and their ability to continue a proper relationship with the children.

 

Ex-SWMBO and I don't have any children. Court still managed to completely screw up causing unnecessary delay which has cost me about £150k.

[petethemole]

4 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Some of us fail to understand how civil servants, at least at senior level, can function as human beings. After all, Government A says black is black and white is white, and you implement that policy within the ambit of your post. Then, after a period of purdah while the country goes to the polls, in comes Government B, which has been elected on a platform of black being white and vice versa. So now you are required to unpick all your knitting and go 180 degrees from before on that policy. As a thinking person, how do you deal with that, since you probably think one or other is 'right', but you have no say? Your career effectively proceeds on the basis of being unprincipled except for obeying the elected members, many of whom, you know through your dealings with them, are inept at everything. And you know as you implement the new mandate you 'know' is wrong, you are affecting the lives of up to 67 million people. 

 

They don't always cope.  My late father was in the then Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, before it merged with the National Assistance Board and became Social Security, and he remained on the Pensions side.  He was part of a team preparing a new pensions policy for the then govt. (I can't remember which, but it's not relevant).  It was almost ready for announcement when there was an election and the govt. changed.  The new party immediately scrapped the proposed policy.  The team leader committed suicide.

[4630]

41 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Some of us fail to understand how civil servants, at least at senior level, can function as human beings. After all, Government A says black is black and white is white, and you implement that policy within the ambit of your post. Then, after a period of purdah while the country goes to the polls, in comes Government B, which has been elected on a platform of black being white and vice versa. So now you are required to unpick all your knitting and go 180 degrees from before on that policy. 

It’s a similar experience in local government too by all accounts.

 

My father in law was, before his retirement several years ago, chief finance officer for one of the metropolitan borough councils (MBC) here in West Yorkshire.

 

From an electoral point of view, the MBC was effectively a three-way marginal which meant that during the annual budget round the finance team had to prepare 3 separate budget proposals to satisfy the political ambitions and ‘flavour of the month’ issues of the different prospective governing parties.  With, of course, an amended ‘final’ compromise budget when the inevitable coalition came to pass at election time.  
 

Whilst acknowledging their legitimate political aspirations, the constant reworking and sometimes conflicting objectives did little to improve the short term (and long term) financial stability of the council for the benefit of local council tax payers and citizens.  It didn’t do much to improve my fil’s health at the time either.  

Edited June 27, 2021 by 4630
clarity

[alastairq]

All of which goes to demonstrate how unfairly Civil Servants are looked upon by the rest of our society?

 

Without a Civil Service, our society as we know it would collapse.

 

Neither are the majority of Civil Servants paid exorbitantly. Not all of us had knighthoods, or worked to political masters. Yet, mention one is a retired Civil Servant, and immediately there is a preconceived idea of what we did, or how well off we are.

 

The only 'Civil' servants one see's are in Yes Minister.

The rest of us proles in the Civil Service were, and probably still are, very UNcivil servants.

Who all work within an Employment Contract , the terms of which would make the average private sector worker blanche at the prospect. [ That is, is one actually bothered to read them properly?]

Imagine getting sacked for not buying a bicycle, when one was supposed to buy a bicycle?

[4630]

Deleted - duplicate post.

Edited June 27, 2021 by 4630
Deleted

[MJI]

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

The unspoken issue here with the goings-on is one of security in my mind?

 

I do hope a thorough investigation is conducted as to how these pictures were captured and passed on?

 

One of the points in a Civil Servant's contract of employment always concerned the question of 'loyalty' to State.

 

For a Civil Servant to whistleblow straight to the press is in my view, doubtful behaviour. especially as there have been, for years now, procedures available within the Civil Service to voice these things?

Remember, the Civil Service isn't about protecting political figures, or even, government...but of supporting State..which is, you & I.

I do wonder whether the outcomes of any properly conducted investigations are likely to be put into the public domain?

 

But it does raise the question of the integrity of members of the Civil Service, and how that integrity is measured , or guaranteed?

In other words, does the Civil Service employ people who are happy to put political views, or personal gain, before the Country's security??  

 

Or, indeed, where does it stop?

 

 

 

Problem is that many people (including me) have no loyalty whatsoever to what they would class as state, but are loyal to the old lady residing in Windsor Castle, and to the place they consider home.

 

She has more care for the country than a bunch of politicians.

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

One of the points in a Civil Servant's contract of employment always concerned the question of 'loyalty' to State.

The whole thing, hypocritical behaviour, and means of exposure, may be distasteful, but on the civil service question:

 

- the images may have been obtained by a security contractor, rather than a civil servant, or indeed at some point quite distant from the source, like a remote monitoring or data centre, operated by any number of agencies or their contractors; or, 

 

- by external hacking; and,

 

- “the state” hasn’t been put in jeopardy, just the job of one minister.