Will Matt Hancock lose his job?

Plenty of cronyism under Corbyn.

Labours Covid strategy is to do everything harder and longer than the Government. If they offered even the slightest whiff of opposition then they would soon batter any Tory majority in the poles down.

 

Soooo.. Corbyn gave billions of pounds worth of public money to friends and donors in a manner ajudged to be illegal by an English court?

Thought not.

 

No but that isnt to say he wasnt above a bit of the old ill scratch your back...

 

And no one ever mentions it

And I’m no expert, but I think the answer is technically no

 

You're going to have to provide examples and evidence and elaborate, otherwise bringing Corbyn into this thread as a comparison is a bit silly.

 

Not defending what he has done and should stand down/be removed as a result.
But he hasn’t acted illegally in the awarding of contracts.
What he is guilty of is not publishing details of the said contracts, two different things.

 

Go on then, when, what ,where. What Cronyism did he partake in and who’s pockets did he line for either personal financial gain or for Party donations?

 

Did anybody have ‘but Blair’ for a full house??

 

Doesn't the fact that they're not willing to make the details public and open to scrutiny strongly suggest therefore that there may have been foul play if not illegalities in the awarding of the contracts?

 

You’ll be along in a minute with a shedload of examples, yeah?

 

It’s completely symptomatic of everything this Tory government has done since the start of the pandemic. At every turn they’ve ridden roughshod over all traditional ideas that we have of Parliamentary and ethical process and the Democratic procedure.

If Starmer had any ****** or any principles at all he’d be pointing out that this is symptomatic of how they’ve behaved and it calls into question the legality of many of the obscenely draconian measures they’ve put into place, keeping children out of school, imprisoning people in homes, preventing children from attending their parents funerals and sentencing the elderly to die alone in care homes.

Unfortunately he’s both unwilling and unable to because of the toadying, cuckold role he’s taken in passively allowing their evil policy making to pass.

 

It could, it could also be an oversight, highly unlikely though.
But let’s at least criticise them for what they have done and not made up things.

 

Hmm an oversight, did you see ITV’s Tonight programme last week, with the whole Protective equipment procurement. Specialists Companies overlooked when handing the contracts out. Thousands of Cargo containers full of the stuff stacked in giant yards in Surrey, much of it no good as its substandard and doesn’t meet regulations. Oh, and just for balance, amongst News at Ten’s opening headlines Corbyn’s brother in trouble with plod for some sort of illegal protesting. Oh I almost omitted to mention the photo they showed of Hancock and a friend who live in the same village, yes you’ve guessed it, awarded a contract

 

A government minister could be sent to prison, and Johnson would ask them to work remotely before asking them to resign.

 

No, I didn’t see it, but I am aware that independent reviews have highlighted a high number of suspect deals(can’t remember exact amount). BUT my comments were not about that, but about the fact despite some on here claiming that a Court did not find him guilty of these deals but not revealing the details within 30 days as required.
I also said he should be held responsible for that.

 

There's plenty of information out there that makes some of the contracts look exceedingly dodgy without need to make anything up.

Just one example being the £2.5million PPE contract awarded without tender to a diamond dealing firm with one employee.

 

£11bn for a track and trace system that was the equivalent of paying £500 for a ps5 and getting a spray painted box of frosties.

 

I wish I disagreed pal. What a f****** state we are in.

 

But he was t found guilty of it in an English court of law like claimed was he?

 

No, because that isn't what was brought to court.

It remains to be seen whether there may be any further legal action taken when details of the contracts are published as they now legally must be.