[mrjonathanr]

Incredible to see Boy George slate Hancock as a rule breaker. Boy George has done actual jail time after he tied a male escort to a radiator and beat him with a metal chain.

Ah, but Boy George wasn’t telling other people not to tie male escorts to radiators and beat them with metal chains, while he did it.

Also, Boy George was tried and punished for his behaviour, he served his time. Hancock.... has not.

Why is it acceptable to abandon your paid duties and do something else, remunerated or not? my P45 would be on its way pronto.

[Will Hunt]

I'm not defending Hancock, I'm wondering whether people who watch realty TV shows will soften their view on him.

[mrjonathanr]

And I'm wondering why going AWOL isn't gross misconduct, as it is in most jobs.

[SA Chris]

Surely he would have to have asked permission? From who though? Party leader?

I'm sure there are MPs who have been more truant, just with a lower profile while doing it.

[battery]

And I'm wondering why going AWOL isn't gross misconduct, as it is in most jobs.

Because he's promoting his dyslexia cause and because that would require them to interrogate Jonson and lots of other people's behaviours?

[mrjonathanr]

Don’t members of parliament have contractual obligations to their employer?

[TobyD]

Don’t members of parliament have contractual obligations to their employer?

No, they don't. They're answerable only to their constituents, otherwise Boris Johnson would have been fired years ago for never doing anything that wasn't about himself.
Parties can remove the whip, as has happened to Hancock but they remain MP for their constituency.

[James Malloch]

Don’t members of parliament have contractual obligations to their employer?

No, they don't. They're answerable only to their constituents, otherwise Boris Johnson would have been fired years ago for never doing anything that wasn't about himself.
Parties can remove the whip, as has happened to Hancock but they remain MP for their constituency.

Kathryn Stone (standards commissioner) was talking about this yesterday. She has had lots of complaints about Matt Hancock going away for such a long time, but as there’s no code of conduct for that kind of thing there’s nothing to actually investigate. She was pretty frustrated by it!

[Fultonius]

Don’t members of parliament have contractual obligations to their employer?

No, they don't. They're answerable only to their constituents, otherwise Boris Johnson would have been fired years ago for never doing anything that wasn't about himself.
Parties can remove the whip, as has happened to Hancock but they remain MP for their constituency.

Kathryn Stone (standards commissioner) was talking about this yesterday. She has had lots of complaints about Matt Hancock going away for such a long time, but as there’s no code of conduct for that kind of thing there’s nothing to actually investigate. She was pretty frustrated by it!

Long live the uncodified constitution! Let the "good chap" principle sort it out............

[TobyD]

Don’t members of parliament have contractual obligations to their employer?

No, they don't. They're answerable only to their constituents, otherwise Boris Johnson would have been fired years ago for never doing anything that wasn't about himself.
Parties can remove the whip, as has happened to Hancock but they remain MP for their constituency.

Kathryn Stone (standards commissioner) was talking about this yesterday. She has had lots of complaints about Matt Hancock going away for such a long time, but as there’s no code of conduct for that kind of thing there’s nothing to actually investigate. She was pretty frustrated by it!

Long live the uncodified constitution! Let the "good chap" principle sort it out............

I don't, to be honest have a big problem with Hancock doing what he's doing, his constituents can judge him on that, as I'm sure they will at the next election.
I have far more of an issue with Johnson  going on holiday and paid speaking tours all the time, whilst no doubt expecting another go at being PM at some point. Hancock is humiliating himself, on his way to obscurity; Johnson is a waddling threat to democracy.

[teestub]

Yeah I guess if they are actually pissed off, his local party could have a vote to deselect him before the next election

[petejh]

Presumably there are other politicians standing in Hanncock's constituency? Members of the public can freely vote for them if they don't like what Hanncock stands for. It doesn't appear to require a witch hunt, just an election.

[ali k]

Presumably there are other politicians standing in Hanncock's constituency? Members of the public can freely vote for them if they don't like what Hanncock stands for. It doesn't appear to require a witch hunt, just an election.

Yeh but even his constituents have to wait several years before they get the opportunity to do that. In the meantime every taxpayer across the country is jointly funding his salary while he uses the time to try and kickstart his post-politics career.

It’s like getting sacked from your job for being shit and then expecting your employer to pay for you to retrain.

[seankenny]

I don't, to be honest have a big problem with Hancock doing what he's doing, his constituents can judge him on that, as I'm sure they will at the next election.

It’s incredibly offensive and disrespectful behaviour on the part of both Hancock and ITV towards those of us who lost relatives in the pandemic. Hancock is discussing his actions and defending himself in front of a bunch of second rate celebs - this is a completely inappropriate place in which to be talking about the life and death decisions he made. There is no proper scrutiny, no informed questioning, and turning the mistakes which killed our loved ones into entertainment is just gross.

Saying this appalling behaviour is simply a matter for his constituents is deeply unfair on them too: what if they hate Hancock’s appearance on the show but happen to be centre right? Those people - and all the voters in his constituency - deserve a clean candidate to represent them.

[ali k]

Hancock is discussing his actions and defending himself in front of a bunch of second rate celebs - this is a completely inappropriate place in which to be talking about the life and death decisions he made. There is no proper scrutiny, no informed questioning, and turning the mistakes which killed our loved ones into entertainment is just gross.

You have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).

[teestub]

Saying this appalling behaviour is simply a matter for his constituents is deeply unfair on them too: what if they hate Hancock’s appearance on the show but happen to be centre right? Those people - and all the voters in his constituency - deserve a clean candidate to represent them.

I think it’s a matter for them as they are the only ones who can change his standing if he’s not actually breaking any parliamentary rules? The local conservative party could vote to deselect him and stand another candidate

[petejh]

You have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).

That's the obvious conclusion. Distasteful as it is.

For the bit in bold - what are you suggesting? That fundamentally he *isn't* a decent but flawed human like the rest of us? And that he wanted to do his worst?

[seankenny]

Saying this appalling behaviour is simply a matter for his constituents is deeply unfair on them too: what if they hate Hancock’s appearance on the show but happen to be centre right? Those people - and all the voters in his constituency - deserve a clean candidate to represent them.

I think it’s a matter for them as they are the only ones who can change his standing if he’s not actually breaking any parliamentary rules? The local conservative party could vote to deselect him and stand another candidate

Well sure, we have a set of rules designed to work with one group of people and their norms, and instead we have a different group of people in power with very different norms. So the problem is the rules as they stand, in addition to talentless chancers like Hancock taking advantage of them.

[ali k]

what are you suggesting? That fundamentally he *isn't* a decent but flawed human like the rest of us? And that he wanted to do his worst?

I don’t think he intentionally tried to kill people but IMO he almost certainly made decisions with other interests in mind (procurement contracts with Tory donors, links to horse racing / Cheltenham festival, dido harding appointment, optics of people dying in hospital vs hidden away in care homes, etc etc) - rather than purely in the public interest.

IF that is the case then he’s certainly not a decent human being. But all of these decisions should be scrutinised by the independent inquiry. Not chewed over on a reality TV show FFS. And the decent thing for him to do in the meantime would be to work hard as a backbench MP doing what he’s paid to do until the results of the inquiry are published.

[Paul B]

I don’t think he intentionally tried to kill people but IMO he almost certainly made decisions with other interests in mind (procurement contracts with Tory donors, links to horse racing / Cheltenham festival, dido harding appointment, optics of people dying in hospital vs hidden away in care homes, etc etc) - rather than purely in the public interest.

Let's not forget his 'protective ring' which was complete and utter horse shit. Given this was a widely held view, it's hard to imagine that he didn't know this was untrue when presenting it to parliament (18/05). Given the circumstances, it's not a nice thing to have been misleading about.

https://fullfact.org/health/matt-hancock-protective-ring-care-homes/

[Bradders]

You have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).

That's the obvious conclusion. Distasteful as it is.

For the bit in bold - what are you suggesting? That fundamentally he *isn't* a decent but flawed human like the rest of us? And that he wanted to do his worst?

Decency is not an excuse for incompetence. We have a gross negligence manslaughter law when it comes to death in the course of someone's employment, this doesn't strike me as being all that different; as in a manager who causes the death of an employee through incompetence and / or negligence can be prosecuted and jailed, regardless of the decency of their intentions. If it were proven that Matt Hancock's actions were the cause of covid deaths (and an ITV reality show is clearly not the forum through which that can be judged), then he should face the same fate in my view.

[mrjonathanr]

You have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).

That's the obvious conclusion. Distasteful as it is.

For the bit in bold - what are you suggesting? That fundamentally he *isn't* a decent but flawed human like the rest of us? And that he wanted to do his worst?

I think you can be nice to your mum and old ladies and a stalwart of the Rotary Club and commit appalling acts in other contexts… but my specific bewilderment is with the idea - as it was with Dorries in the jungle and Johnson in every Sandals style shack he gets a free jolly- that people can effectively walk away from their jobs for a period, draw their wage and suffer no consequence, unless if distantly, at the ballot box, it comes round to bite them. The plebs, of course, have to work.

[Paul B]

this doesn't strike me as being all that different; as in a manager who causes the death of an employee through incompetence and / or negligence can be prosecuted and jailed, regardless of the decency of their intentions. If it were proven that Matt Hancock's actions were the cause of covid deaths (and an ITV reality show is clearly not the forum through which that can be judged), then he should face the same fate in my view.

For me I see it differently. It's not a case of where all harm could be avoided; the 'cure' could have been worse than the 'disease' for certain courses of action whilst simultaneously being incredibly difficult to actually put a number on. That's not to say I think Hancock and others did a good job (or didn't seriously screw up at times), I just don't see it as clear cut as I wold with H&S issues at work which cause significant harm.

[Will Hunt]

You have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).

That's the obvious conclusion. Distasteful as it is.

For the bit in bold - what are you suggesting? That fundamentally he *isn't* a decent but flawed human like the rest of us? And that he wanted to do his worst?

Decency is not an excuse for incompetence. We have a gross negligence manslaughter law when it comes to death in the course of someone's employment, this doesn't strike me as being all that different; as in a manager who causes the death of an employee through incompetence and / or negligence can be prosecuted and jailed, regardless of the decency of their intentions. If it were proven that Matt Hancock's actions were the cause of covid deaths (and an ITV reality show is clearly not the forum through which that can be judged), then he should face the same fate in my view.

I'm doubtful that any incompetence will cross the threshold of gross negligence. We'll learn more during the inquiry, but there will have been times when the government didn't have any good options and were forced to try the least bad option. The full impact of those decisions, positive or negative, won't always have been possible to know at the time. For instance, if you look on social media you'll see lots of people complaining that Hancock enforced a lockdown or that he prevented them from seeing their dying relatives - all measures which would have saved lives but which had consequences of their own.

I'm not saying they should get a free pass but I doubt any criminal behaviour leading to deaths will be found.

Edit: what Paul said.

[shark]

Hancock is discussing his actions and defending himself in front of a bunch of second rate celebs

Bit harsh on Mike Tindall and Jill Scott