Your choice. I find Hancock's reaction to the various situations he and his colleagues created beneath contempt.

As usual, you misunderstand, or more probably, misrepresent. I am not complaining about anything. I am pointing it out, so the hypocrisy can be seen. It's your right to be hypocritical, and I don't complain about that. It's also my right to point it out.

I have already told you why I won't ask serious questions of you. You have a history of providing answers that cannot be taken seriously, and to add more would just prolong the disagreements.

I enjoy mockery. It can be amusing. You don't mock. You try to obscure your own failings with sarcasm.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I have little time for Hancock. I have an ongoing dispute with the DHSC over statements that he and Johnson made in 2019, which has cost me £10,000 and which I am fighting with the help of my MP.

However, I think this event just shows that Ministers are human and when under pressure don't always think straight or behave well. Why then is it a surprise that supposedly private messages between colleagues are less than diplomatic and display human frailties? It's natural.

What is truly beneath contempt is the behaviour of the journalist involved, Isabel Oakeshott. Given sight of private correspondence to assist in writing a book that helps explain some of the events during the government's response to a pandemic, and signing a confidentiality agreement, she has decided, without consultation or permission, that releasing them is "in the public interest". Whilst knowing that an objective, comprehensive, enquiry is to be held that will ignore tittle-tattle and concentrate on facts.

That the release is of interest to the public doesn't mean it's in the public interest. Who in public life will ever trust a journalist again with background information if this is what happens? It's not in the public interest. It's designed to sell newspapers and advance the career of a journalist. She has, to my mind, gone much too far and made a bad miscalculation which could yet see her, and the Telegraph, in Court.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Laughing at people suffering under conditions they themselves expect to ignore with impunity isn't "less than diplomatic". It's contemptible.
The fact that the journalist involved revealed the messages concerned doesn't speak well of the vetting process.

But we don't put in place laws to penalise people for what we ourselves subsequently do. And then laugh about it.

Oddly enough in one way a single word was at the heart of it, although I doubt anyone could dispute it's meaning. That word was "all" which has an unequivocal meaning.

The real issue is the way the civil service have responded to a complaint I raised, arguing that what Ministers announce cannot be regarded as a statement of policy. As their announcement was confirmed by a press release and no corrections made in it, this is difficult to understand, but they have steadfastly refused to budge, leaving the nest option a judicial review, which is very expensive. The Ombudsman refuses to get involved. So I have my MP on the case, who is both understanding and supportive.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.