Matt Hancock to enter the jungle in I’m a Celebrity

@maddyone

We never know what goes on behind closed doors

Well you do when there’s a CCTV security camera on the wall
No doubt they agreed with your sentiment maddyone - and found out different very quickly!

MawtheMerrier 😂

You'd think he'd have known ...

Did someone say earlier that MH's children rejected him because of the cctv pictures with his girlfriend? I've just listened to his coming out interview of "firsts" and he says that the first people he will speak to are his children. It seems there is still a strong bond.
At least he didn't have them out there with private tutors to teach them, (like the Tindalls), or there would be hell to pay.

I read that Mike got £265,000 for his appearance so he should be well able to afford a private tutor for his children.

So many saints and pearl clutchers on this thread😇

Joseanne

Did someone say earlier that MH's children rejected him because of the cctv pictures with his girlfriend? I've just listened to his coming out interview of "firsts" and he says that the first people he will speak to are his children. It seems there is still a strong bond.
At least he didn't have them out there with private tutors to teach them, (like the Tindalls), or there would be hell to pay.

Presumably the Hancock children were at home with their mother. Why should we even consider they might be out in Australia?

And tutors for the little Tindalls? Did we read that somewhere? Only Mia is school age the others are 4 and 1.

Mia and Lena both attend school Maw. I know which one it is. 😉

My father married three times after my Mum, I loved him dearly. He was a brilliant Dad but a shit Husband

Joseanne

Mia and Lena both attend school Maw. I know which one it is. 😉

As she is 4 I realise she would be, presumably starting in Reception in September

But to be fair as he has banned them from social media they most definitely probably hate him anyway

JaneJudge

But to be fair as he has banned them from social media they most definitely probably hate him anyway

I suspect they aren’t very old - he was married in 2006, and his youngest child was born in 2013 according to Google. So maybe aged between 9 and 15? They will know exactly what’s happening though because all their friends will have phones, banning teenagers from social media is a futile act.

JaneJudge

But to be fair as he has banned them from social media they most definitely probably hate him anyway

So has he banned them from social media because he thinks it's unhealthy and dangerous or because they would be able to read all about him and opinions about him?

Good luck to any parent wanting to ban a 15 year old from social media .

Doodledog

Good luck to any parent wanting to ban a 15 year old from social media .

Especially when Dad doesn't live with them and has been 10,500 miles away for a few weeks!

Indeed!

Aveline

So you have Dickens!

I think the reason why we are judging this man is because he's an MP and basically, people expect him to do his job for which he's paid out of the public purse. What he has done, and is still doing, is distracting from that because the media will make sure he remains in the limelight.

It may be an unreasonable expectation but MPs are expected to behave with a sense of decorum / integrity - whatever you might want to call it. If Hancock were just Mr-Ordinary, I doubt most of us would give him a second thought, I mean, why would we even care about his private life... But he's made his private life very public. Marriages break up and there's two sides to every story - but it's very unprofessional to make yourself the centre of attention on that basis. Personally, I don't care, or care to know, what goes on in his private life, it's none of my business - I just want him to do his job, and he isn't doing that. And yes, I do feel sorry for his children. I feel sorry for all the children of public figures who've hogged the limelight for all the wrong reasons. I'm not clutching at pearls or having the vapours, I'm just depressed about the fact that at a time when the nation is facing what feels like unprecedented economic problems, a paid public servant is indulging himself.

Don't forget that Boris was indulging himself in paid time in the Caribbean too.

Aveline

Don't forget that Boris was indulging himself in paid time in the Caribbean too.

I purposely didn't mention Johnson because (a) this is not about him - and he's paid for the consequences, and (b) this is not a pile-on to 'have a go' at various members of the Tory government.

It's about Hancock and his self-indulgent behaviour.

Dickens Boris was in the West Indies while Westminster was open and he was supposed to be working. He's still an MP.

I think there should be rules against any MPs being on holiday or otherwise unavailable when parliament is sitting. There is plenty of time for them to take holidays outside of those dates.
I also think that there should be a finite number of days that they can take as leave, as with most occupations.

It shouldn't be necessary, but as the example was set from the top in the case of Johnson, it seems as though as is so often the case, the actions of a few spoil it for the many.

Aveline

Dickens Boris was in the West Indies while Westminster was open and he was supposed to be working. He's still an MP.

... so let's have a separate discussion about him.

Oreo

So many saints and pearl clutchers on this thread😇

I don't think so! I think that you many of you are being rather sanctimonious with such opinions. Also the references to not wanting to be judge and jury. Have you not seen the various reports which will lead to court cases (and not just in the Guardian)? Unfortunately it can take a long time for such cases to eventually get to court?

I think that some of you may be too young or are such strong Tory supporters that you either don't know or aren't interested in the party's pronouncements over the years that they are the party that upholds the sanctity of marriage.

Two examples, the wives of both publicly stood by them. First Cecil Parkinson. I've copied this from Wikipedia to save me typing it out, but it is all fact. I'm old enough to remember the events, particularly in regard to Flora Keays.

"Parkinson was forced to resign on 14 October 1983 after it was revealed that Keays was bearing his child, Flora Keays.[1] Subsequently, as a result of a dispute over child maintenance payments, Parkinson (with Keays' initial consent) was able to gain an injunction in 1993, forbidding the British media from making any reference to their daughter.

At the time of the revelation of his relationship with Sara Keays in 1983, Parkinson made much of what he described as the volume of supportive letters which he had received. By 2001, however, the media focused more upon Flora and her difficulties than in protecting Parkinson's reputation, so more voices were raised in criticism of Parkinson.[2]"

His affair with Sara Keays was a long running joke in Private Eye (10 years). His wife stood by him.

The other was David Mellor who wife divorced him 3 years after his former mistress Antonia de Sancha sold her story to The Sun.

There are others of course. John Major springs to mind and no doubt I could find more. I really don't give a s--t about who does what to whom, as long as they aren't too faced about it and keep it quiet. I get the impression that some of you don't think that Hancock's family would be very harmed by the revelations about his mistress. We can't know whether his wife knew or not. it's very easy for people to keep affairs quiet, especially of one is an MP. All those late night sittings, etc etc etc.

Dickens

Aveline

Dickens Boris was in the West Indies while Westminster was open and he was supposed to be working. He's still an MP.

... so let's have a separate discussion about him.

We've already done that. Old news.

Doodledog

I think there should be rules against any MPs being on holiday or otherwise unavailable when parliament is sitting. There is plenty of time for them to take holidays outside of those dates.
I also think that there should be a finite number of days that they can take as leave, as with most occupations.

It shouldn't be necessary, but as the example was set from the top in the case of Johnson, it seems as though as is so often the case, the actions of a few spoil it for the many.

Yes! It doesn't matter which side. Teachers couldn't do it because they work term time, so politicians should be the same and put their work first.

Oreo

So many saints and pearl clutchers on this thread😇

..."pearl clutchers" implies elderly ladies who are shocked by the behaviour of the younger generation.

I seriously doubt there are many, if any, of those Victorian throwbacks on here.

I doubt also that we regard ourselves as saintly.

I think you are not understanding the anger at yet another paid public servant indulging himself. It's nothing to do with being prudish or clutching at pearls.