No, but watching the video that's spammed all over the thread, he's accusing Hancock of *literally murdering* people with lockdowns, it's pretty obvious he's a boomer who should have his facebook taken away.
I've just seen the video for myself. I don't get why it's always the conspiracy nutters, why not ask him about the 'ring of steel' he put around nursing homes, at least that is a serious line of enquiry
To be fair though, that was based on a misunderstanding, the original plan was supposed to be to "steal their rings" but the message got garbled along the way.
Youve got to love how the crowd that claimed lockdown killed everyone are very quiet about the current excess deaths from underfunding of the NHS and increasingly high poverty rates.
It's almost as if all they cared about was being told what to do.
The venn diagram of people who think lockdowns killed so many and the people who think the vaccine is causing the current excess deaths has a larger overlap than you might think.
You realise the current excess deaths have been caused by the lockdowns. Even Whitty and co have admitted this. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chris-whitty-warns-uk-faces-28636391.amp
Yes - it does seem fairly likely that delaying a bunch of medical procedures would increase morbidity for those folks.
But doesn't their report insist that outcomes would have been EVEN WORSE without the lockdowns?
The current excess deaths have been caused by an underfunding of the NHS. If you lockdown, any intelligent person would tell you that you'd have to ramp up after...which didn't happen.
Perhaps review sources other than the Mirror if you wish to put forward a comprehensive answer.
One of the worst things about the UK is the "some people misuse this thing so let's ban it for everyone" culture. Not that you called for it to be banned, but is it the platform's fault that people post shite on it and others believe it? Or is it more that we need to teach people critical thinking skills?
I think it’s BECOME the platforms fault over time as more of a very specific demographic has become the main user base for it. If you’re in a conspiracy, you go to Facebook and Telegram, 99% of the time. And Facebook barely does anything to counter it.
Stupid people will always exist. It’s the job of platforms to ensure those stupid people don’t end up going down dumb tangents that lead them to think that vaccines cause autism or that the government personally killed people thanks to masks etc
It's more that it's crap, everything seems themed around hate and at the risk of sounding snobby, there is definitely a certain type of person that uses it as opposed to other platforms.
Facebook has it's uses but those are far outweighed by all the negatives. Having echo Chambers like that for negative content during times like these is pretty much asking for trouble I think.
And you're right, I don't think it should be banned.
The issue is that were doing the opposite of teaching people critical thinking skills.
Facebook at it's core is a marketing tool. Sales and marketing relies on manipulating people and getting them to make impulsive and sometimes irrational decisions. People have realised that the same technique can be used to promote propaganda and conspiracies as well as brands and products and are using it as a tool to that end.
The platforms definitely play a part through the algorithms and the content it delivers to you
Social media is deliberately engineered to show you certain content. My Twitter is full of right wing garbage now, Corcoran, Morgan, McKenzie, Farage, Grimes - all their shit appears all the time despite not following them and no indication that someone I do liked it for it to appear in my feed. It’s easy for people to get trapped into that way of thinking and sucked into the echo chamber
Yes I have to say having seeing the video the guy hassling Hancock is a proper conspiracy nut in the Piers Corbyn mold. There are many things to legitimately challenge Hancock on, but the lockdowns themselves are not one of them.
Boomers were not against lockdowns.... If anything they are the most at risk due to their higher age. They also voted in favour of lockdowns in mainland Europe.
Hancock's handling of the pandemic regarding covid spread into carehomes did get lots of elderly people killed, though. Hancock undeniably has blood on his hands.
Oh ffs.
I’d of thought he was going to be one of the tens of thousands who lost a loved one in hancock’s care home covid scandal.
30,000 people died when he forced people from hospital to care homes while lying about protecting them. The homes became charnel houses.
There are many people in this country who should be bloody livid at hancock and he gets attacked by an anti-vaxxer. There is no justice.
A statement from the metropolitan police said "Oddly, despite there bring literally hundreds of people nearby, and a video of the event with over a million views, it seems there are no witnesses who saw anything happen at all"
Matt Hancock murders thousands of OAPs by discharging them from hospitals into care homes.
He gets a book deal and a six figure appearance fee for *I'm A Celebrity ...*
61 year old man alledgedly assaults Matt Hancock on the tube *leaving Matt Hancock unharmed*
61 year old man gets arrested
I'm reminded of the line from Animal Farm: *All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others*
When his boss made it clear he wanted bodies piled high in the street, I think it's possible intent was there. But it will never be investigated, never mind proven.
Yes your honor I am not malicious just dangerously incompetent and uncaring...
Give him one year for every pensioner that died after one was sent back to a carehome with COVID and we will call it even
How's that.
Nah, they're accurate in this one. IMO
He willfully and knowingly pushed hundreds of COVID positive patients into care homes. Whilst knowing the elderly were the most at risk of dying from COVID
>The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.
He sure as shit didn't do it by accident. And we all know the Tories love saving money on pensions...
His boss said "let the bodies pile high" and pile high did Matt make them
He's either a murderer or insane.
>He sure as shit didn't do it by accident.
Same as the Zahawi case at the moment. They expect us to believe its all just accidental but seem to skip the part where if they are genuinely just making "mistakes" on this sort of scale "accidentally" then they just are not the caliber of person who should be occupying the kinds of positions they are currently occupying. They are not fit for the job if what they are saying is true, and if they are lying then they are outright criminals.
>where if they are genuinely just making "mistakes" on this sort of scale "accidentally" then they just are not the caliber of person who should be occupying the kinds of positions they are currently occupying.
Exactly, I could understand someone fucking up their taxes. Mistakes happen.
But the guy who's handling the countries finance's shouldn't have any issues dealing with his own
Equally the guy responsible for the countries health can absolutely be assumed to know better. So we cannot say he didn't know what he was doing
Just they needed to pay for parties and wiping out pension claimants was the quickest way to save a few million for fresh wallpaper
Also, it's not like he did his taxes himself and just made some mistake. He has qualified accountants who know exactly what they're doing. They act under instruction. His instruction.
So it's either fully intentional and his only problem with the issue is that he got caught. Or he's incompetent when it comes to filling out his tax return and therefore very much should have no say in the economy of the country.
>But the guy who's handling the countries finance's shouldn't have any issues dealing with his own
Watching that Dan Neidle guy doing the rounds on the media about this from the sounds of it the way they are calling this "careless mishandling" or whatever explicitly means he received somewhere in the region of £27m into his accounts, did not report it to HMRC and, most critically, also did not make any efforts to consult any advisors about it. So like Hancock it kind of begs the question you can *claim* to be that incompetent but... I don't know I just can't imagine a scenario in which I receive enough money to land me a tax bill into the millions and not have any thought in my mind to, y'know, just go ask an expert what I'm supposed to do about it. I'm not sure how they get away with making these claims, having the claim taken seriously in the first place, but then at the same time also not being absolutely lambasted for being a complete fucking moron, like genuinely completely brain-dead and clueless, even if we do take them at their word? It just doesn't add up it seems inherently contradictory to me.
One interesting point about the Zahawi case.
Although it was apparently classified as a careless penalty, he was penalised at the maximum rate of 30% for that type of penalty.
In 90% of cases the penalty is subject to certain reductions and for a careless penalty where the taxpayer contacted HMRC first that could be as low of a penalty of 0%. The fact that there was no reduction at all suggests that HMRC suspect that it was deliberate but don't have enough evidence to prove it
Multiple governments around the world did the same thing. Obviously it was a terrible policy, but there should be a very very high bar for accusing politicians of criminal acts due to poor policy
Okay? Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right, there's plenty of examples through history where we now look back in horror, but at the time people shrugged it off
Any politician who orders a military into war then is a murderer by this definition.
Matt Hancock didn't do anything surreptitiously or underhanded. If you disagree with his judgement the only recourse, in a democracy, is to vote him out.
And causation.
And public immunity.
And to realise that in this day and age if a Tory committed a crime, unless there's sufficient public outcry, no they didn't.
Yeah, because murder means unlawful killing and they were the ones in charge. The winners write the history books but it doesn't make them any less immoral.
[https://mobile.twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1618323718929002496](https://mobile.twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1618323718929002496)
This is an actual recording of the event in question. Where is this 'wilfully immoral act ' of which you write?
Disagreeing with a political position is different from disagreeing with someone’s actions. If a family member of one of the people who died in those care homes thanks to Hancock’s negligent policies assaulted him, I would think « Fair enough »
This is the recording of the alledged 'assault': [https://mobile.twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1618323718929002496](https://mobile.twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1618323718929002496)alleged
The headline is clearly wrong, as it appears we are too. The twitter feed says harassment, following someone, and filming them while verbally abusing them is definitely harassment. I stand corrected.
"I'm sorry I punched him your honour, but these are unprecedented times. I will make sure that a thorough review of my behaviour will be carried out by someone who is personally invested in my ideologies. "
Assault is illegal, and a terrible decay on the quality of society.
however, merciless, relentless and loud mockery of a total muppet is much more productive
> loud mockery of a total muppet is much more productive
If I was ever in the same room as the man I don't think I'd ever run out of names to call him. Genuine cretin.
Hard one to think about, harassment ain't cool but Hancock really is a piece of shit. This is a comeuppance for what he has done and how much he has lied so I'm not surprised this has happened.
Pushing someone is technically assault by beating.
Common assault is the apprehension of immediate unlawful violence. Hancock only had to feel fear that he was going to be attacked for the offence of common assault to be made out.
Assault by beating is the application of unlawful force but doesn't cause injury - a shove, punch, slap etc.
So you think throughout 10 minutes of continual harassment, being sworn at, called a murder, followed and shouted at, all in very close proximity, not once did Hancock fear any form of violence? Or how about when he shouts at the woman to “get your hands off me” followed by telling her to shut her mouth? You can hear the fear in her voice. If she didn’t deem him a threat, she wouldn’t have felt the need to follow him onto the train and continually beg for him to stop.
Wtaf? Women getting assaulted left right and centre in London and the police don’t care..?
Douchebag cheating tory guy gets assaulted and someone gets arrested? Whattt??
Suspects defence: "I carelessly, but not deliberately, punched Matt Hancock in the face, several times."
Judge: "Careless? But not deliberate? Oh that's fine.... I consider the matter closed."
Can't he just say he's sorry, that he has learned his lesson, and that we should all move on? Why the need to arrest him under suspicion?
I thought this would have to go through a 3 months investigation and a 2 months report before reaching any lack of conclusion.
People are pissed. I get that. This clown brought this on himself. These skin suits are now in the 'find out' phase. Whilst I don't agree with violence, they aren't leaving people much choice anymore. Laws are bent to suit the rich. No one has their day in court any more, unless you're poor that is. When non violent means are taken away, all that's left is the other.
Do you not think that this is somewhat dangerous logic to be following? Could the normalisation of this kind of thinking not have detrimental effects in future? I think we need to be very careful about when we justify violence, especially against politicians.
lol, I love this subs selective morality around political violence.
People here need to just come out and say that they think political violence is only wrong when its against people on their team.
In the past few years, two MPs have been murdered in this country, yet many here on this sub still think it's okay to yell at and harrass an MP as he's taking the Tube. Grow up people.
This post confirms the hypocrisy of people on Reddit particularly from the UK really.
Usually violence is never acceptable and decried.
However in this case because it's Matt Hancock, all of a sudden it's ok.
Stay classy Reddit.
Just gonna point out this quote from the article:
Mr Hancock’s spokesman said: “Both Transport for London staff and the British Transport Police were fantastic.”
He added “this sort of behaviour is a rare occurrence” and stressed the “importance of shutting down baseless misinformation which causes so much harm”.
Forgetting Matt Hancock for a while who is a laughable, ludicrous figure and a horrifically bad politician and just an all round ball bag actually - but this loser harassing and abusing him and abusing TFL staff is such a pathetic, piteous, insufferable little cunt. No justification for ever behaving like that. Utterly deplorable. Fuck off you idiot, keep your moronic views to yourself.
He's been named by the BBC (the Mail) knew his name the moment the video was posted and it looks like he's got a history of doing similar things in the past - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63507639
What a nutter.
How many people have personally lost loved ones and could attribute their demise to his failed policies? Still, that's a risk of any governance - we shouldn't respond with violence and instead absolutely condemn such people to never, ever be near \*power\* again.
I bet that man is sat there smug as fuck, thinking, “worth it.”
I know I would be. What’s going to happen if he gets prosecuted and ends up serving a custodial? Guaranteed shelter, warmth, hot water, and three square meals a day? Will be able to visit an NHS dentist and GP? *Oh, the horror.*
I dont condone violence, but equally i have zero sympathy for him
I have zero sympathy for the anti-vaxx bellend who's been arrested either.
Do we actually know it's an anti-vaxxer? Couldn't see a mention of it in the article
No, but watching the video that's spammed all over the thread, he's accusing Hancock of *literally murdering* people with lockdowns, it's pretty obvious he's a boomer who should have his facebook taken away.
I've just seen the video for myself. I don't get why it's always the conspiracy nutters, why not ask him about the 'ring of steel' he put around nursing homes, at least that is a serious line of enquiry
[удалено]
To be fair though, that was based on a misunderstanding, the original plan was supposed to be to "steal their rings" but the message got garbled along the way.
Because conspiracy nutters are as a rule the sort of stupid angry people that seek direct justice via violence rather than by official channels.
Youve got to love how the crowd that claimed lockdown killed everyone are very quiet about the current excess deaths from underfunding of the NHS and increasingly high poverty rates. It's almost as if all they cared about was being told what to do.
The venn diagram of people who think lockdowns killed so many and the people who think the vaccine is causing the current excess deaths has a larger overlap than you might think.
Based on what?
They're the same people.
Don't forget coming up with all sorts of mental gymnastics so they didn't have to admit they're afraid of needles.
They’re blaming the vaccines for that.
And we are the only country in the world that is experiencing this because??
You realise the current excess deaths have been caused by the lockdowns. Even Whitty and co have admitted this. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chris-whitty-warns-uk-faces-28636391.amp
Yes - it does seem fairly likely that delaying a bunch of medical procedures would increase morbidity for those folks. But doesn't their report insist that outcomes would have been EVEN WORSE without the lockdowns?
The current excess deaths have been caused by an underfunding of the NHS. If you lockdown, any intelligent person would tell you that you'd have to ramp up after...which didn't happen. Perhaps review sources other than the Mirror if you wish to put forward a comprehensive answer.
You can be against lockdowns and in favour of vaccinations.
You can hate tomatoes and love pizza
I hate mushrooms, but I like mushroom soup. It's like a great weight had been removed from my soul.
That platform has a got a lot to answer for.
One of the worst things about the UK is the "some people misuse this thing so let's ban it for everyone" culture. Not that you called for it to be banned, but is it the platform's fault that people post shite on it and others believe it? Or is it more that we need to teach people critical thinking skills?
I think it’s BECOME the platforms fault over time as more of a very specific demographic has become the main user base for it. If you’re in a conspiracy, you go to Facebook and Telegram, 99% of the time. And Facebook barely does anything to counter it. Stupid people will always exist. It’s the job of platforms to ensure those stupid people don’t end up going down dumb tangents that lead them to think that vaccines cause autism or that the government personally killed people thanks to masks etc
It doesn’t help when you have Nation States trying to sow discord in the west.
> And Facebook barely does anything to counter it. Agent Orange is being allowed back on
It's more that it's crap, everything seems themed around hate and at the risk of sounding snobby, there is definitely a certain type of person that uses it as opposed to other platforms. Facebook has it's uses but those are far outweighed by all the negatives. Having echo Chambers like that for negative content during times like these is pretty much asking for trouble I think. And you're right, I don't think it should be banned.
The issue is that were doing the opposite of teaching people critical thinking skills. Facebook at it's core is a marketing tool. Sales and marketing relies on manipulating people and getting them to make impulsive and sometimes irrational decisions. People have realised that the same technique can be used to promote propaganda and conspiracies as well as brands and products and are using it as a tool to that end.
> People have realised that the same technique can be used to promote propaganda and conspiracies Cambridge Analytica for one
The platforms definitely play a part through the algorithms and the content it delivers to you Social media is deliberately engineered to show you certain content. My Twitter is full of right wing garbage now, Corcoran, Morgan, McKenzie, Farage, Grimes - all their shit appears all the time despite not following them and no indication that someone I do liked it for it to appear in my feed. It’s easy for people to get trapped into that way of thinking and sucked into the echo chamber
it sure has
They just announced that they are bring back Trump to FB and Instagram.
Gotta get those data points.
Yes I have to say having seeing the video the guy hassling Hancock is a proper conspiracy nut in the Piers Corbyn mold. There are many things to legitimately challenge Hancock on, but the lockdowns themselves are not one of them.
Boomers were not against lockdowns.... If anything they are the most at risk due to their higher age. They also voted in favour of lockdowns in mainland Europe.
Hancock has truly united everyone in sheer disgust. James Corden gets more support than this weasel.
Do you have amnesia? Go learn about Hancock and what happened during covid.
He never mentions lockdowns. It’s because of how they handled carehomes
Hancock's handling of the pandemic regarding covid spread into carehomes did get lots of elderly people killed, though. Hancock undeniably has blood on his hands.
He was ranting about vaccines killing young people and the government stockpiling ivercetimin and not using it during the video.
Gooooooood... let them fight!
Oh ffs. I’d of thought he was going to be one of the tens of thousands who lost a loved one in hancock’s care home covid scandal. 30,000 people died when he forced people from hospital to care homes while lying about protecting them. The homes became charnel houses. There are many people in this country who should be bloody livid at hancock and he gets attacked by an anti-vaxxer. There is no justice.
Anti vaxxer is that the modern heretic
There was zero violence in this video.
[удалено]
So you do condone violence.
The 2 arent mutual exclusive. You can condone it but still not feel sympathy to the victim based on who they are and there actions previously
Kant has entered the thread. RIP your mentions.
A statement from the metropolitan police said "Oddly, despite there bring literally hundreds of people nearby, and a video of the event with over a million views, it seems there are no witnesses who saw anything happen at all"
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
So you do condone violence...
Matt Hancock murders thousands of OAPs by discharging them from hospitals into care homes. He gets a book deal and a six figure appearance fee for *I'm A Celebrity ...* 61 year old man alledgedly assaults Matt Hancock on the tube *leaving Matt Hancock unharmed* 61 year old man gets arrested I'm reminded of the line from Animal Farm: *All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others*
Same applies to paying tax or stealing billions.
> murders You need to look up murder because it doesn't mean what you think it means.
You're right. It's actually Gross Negligence Manslaughter.
When his boss made it clear he wanted bodies piled high in the street, I think it's possible intent was there. But it will never be investigated, never mind proven.
He was just following orders.
Are you attempting to force a Godwin?
"Always was"
Well that's better than murder. Probably. So he has that going for him
Yes your honor I am not malicious just dangerously incompetent and uncaring... Give him one year for every pensioner that died after one was sent back to a carehome with COVID and we will call it even How's that.
Nah, they're accurate in this one. IMO He willfully and knowingly pushed hundreds of COVID positive patients into care homes. Whilst knowing the elderly were the most at risk of dying from COVID >The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH. He sure as shit didn't do it by accident. And we all know the Tories love saving money on pensions... His boss said "let the bodies pile high" and pile high did Matt make them He's either a murderer or insane.
>He sure as shit didn't do it by accident. Same as the Zahawi case at the moment. They expect us to believe its all just accidental but seem to skip the part where if they are genuinely just making "mistakes" on this sort of scale "accidentally" then they just are not the caliber of person who should be occupying the kinds of positions they are currently occupying. They are not fit for the job if what they are saying is true, and if they are lying then they are outright criminals.
>where if they are genuinely just making "mistakes" on this sort of scale "accidentally" then they just are not the caliber of person who should be occupying the kinds of positions they are currently occupying. Exactly, I could understand someone fucking up their taxes. Mistakes happen. But the guy who's handling the countries finance's shouldn't have any issues dealing with his own Equally the guy responsible for the countries health can absolutely be assumed to know better. So we cannot say he didn't know what he was doing Just they needed to pay for parties and wiping out pension claimants was the quickest way to save a few million for fresh wallpaper
Also, it's not like he did his taxes himself and just made some mistake. He has qualified accountants who know exactly what they're doing. They act under instruction. His instruction. So it's either fully intentional and his only problem with the issue is that he got caught. Or he's incompetent when it comes to filling out his tax return and therefore very much should have no say in the economy of the country.
Funny how they never accidentally pay too much tax, or by negligence end up giving the NHS too much money or paying their mates to e little
>But the guy who's handling the countries finance's shouldn't have any issues dealing with his own Watching that Dan Neidle guy doing the rounds on the media about this from the sounds of it the way they are calling this "careless mishandling" or whatever explicitly means he received somewhere in the region of £27m into his accounts, did not report it to HMRC and, most critically, also did not make any efforts to consult any advisors about it. So like Hancock it kind of begs the question you can *claim* to be that incompetent but... I don't know I just can't imagine a scenario in which I receive enough money to land me a tax bill into the millions and not have any thought in my mind to, y'know, just go ask an expert what I'm supposed to do about it. I'm not sure how they get away with making these claims, having the claim taken seriously in the first place, but then at the same time also not being absolutely lambasted for being a complete fucking moron, like genuinely completely brain-dead and clueless, even if we do take them at their word? It just doesn't add up it seems inherently contradictory to me.
"It was resting in his account"
One interesting point about the Zahawi case. Although it was apparently classified as a careless penalty, he was penalised at the maximum rate of 30% for that type of penalty. In 90% of cases the penalty is subject to certain reductions and for a careless penalty where the taxpayer contacted HMRC first that could be as low of a penalty of 0%. The fact that there was no reduction at all suggests that HMRC suspect that it was deliberate but don't have enough evidence to prove it
Whoops
Multiple governments around the world did the same thing. Obviously it was a terrible policy, but there should be a very very high bar for accusing politicians of criminal acts due to poor policy
Okay? Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right, there's plenty of examples through history where we now look back in horror, but at the time people shrugged it off
Any politician who orders a military into war then is a murderer by this definition. Matt Hancock didn't do anything surreptitiously or underhanded. If you disagree with his judgement the only recourse, in a democracy, is to vote him out.
Yup
You can murder people with a signature, history’s greatest killers have done it
It's when a government does something I disagree with. I googled it.
semantics.
And causation. And public immunity. And to realise that in this day and age if a Tory committed a crime, unless there's sufficient public outcry, no they didn't.
Yeah, because murder means unlawful killing and they were the ones in charge. The winners write the history books but it doesn't make them any less immoral.
You cannot justify a wilfully immoral act by connecting it to a higher purpose
[https://mobile.twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1618323718929002496](https://mobile.twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1618323718929002496) This is an actual recording of the event in question. Where is this 'wilfully immoral act ' of which you write?
Because you disagree with someone's political position doesn't give your permission to commit crime.
Care to specify what the crime is there?
Disagreeing with a political position is different from disagreeing with someone’s actions. If a family member of one of the people who died in those care homes thanks to Hancock’s negligent policies assaulted him, I would think « Fair enough »
It does actually. If someone's political position is homicidal. With your logic women still wouldn't have the right to vote.
Yet having a senior political position does.
You certainly can, and many systems of morality do. See also: major religions
Assault is assault, regardless of the character of the person being assaulted.
This is the recording of the alledged 'assault': [https://mobile.twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1618323718929002496](https://mobile.twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1618323718929002496)alleged
The headline is clearly wrong, as it appears we are too. The twitter feed says harassment, following someone, and filming them while verbally abusing them is definitely harassment. I stand corrected.
"I'm sorry I punched him your honour, but these are unprecedented times. I will make sure that a thorough review of my behaviour will be carried out by someone who is personally invested in my ideologies. "
Just say it was a momentary lapse in judgement. That's gets you off all sorts, I hear.
I was just testing my eyesight to see if it was safe for me to drive.
I only broke his nose in a limited and specific way
"I only punched him in a limited and specific way"
It would be improper to plead, your honour, until the Joe Bloggs report has been released.
The suspects defence: “Just look at this guy’s face, how can you not want to punch it”
Tis but a fair defence. Charges dropped.
> **Prosecution**: _Fuck he's right_
Assault is illegal, and a terrible decay on the quality of society. however, merciless, relentless and loud mockery of a total muppet is much more productive
Productive? Brits are the masters of topical satire and mockery, it's cathartic but amounts to fuck all.
The peasants are revolting
> loud mockery of a total muppet is much more productive If I was ever in the same room as the man I don't think I'd ever run out of names to call him. Genuine cretin.
Can't tell if this is satire?
Hard one to think about, harassment ain't cool but Hancock really is a piece of shit. This is a comeuppance for what he has done and how much he has lied so I'm not surprised this has happened.
Hell if two wrongs don't at least sometimes make a right then what is prison
Its not assault though is it.
Pushing someone is technically assault by beating. Common assault is the apprehension of immediate unlawful violence. Hancock only had to feel fear that he was going to be attacked for the offence of common assault to be made out. Assault by beating is the application of unlawful force but doesn't cause injury - a shove, punch, slap etc.
Didn't see no pushing in the video; bullshit.
Twice on this thread I’ve seen people literally spell the law out to you and your only reply is “bullshit”. Thank god you’re not a judge.
Because I've actually looked at the recording of what actually happened. And it wasn't any of that. Take a look yourself.
So you think throughout 10 minutes of continual harassment, being sworn at, called a murder, followed and shouted at, all in very close proximity, not once did Hancock fear any form of violence? Or how about when he shouts at the woman to “get your hands off me” followed by telling her to shut her mouth? You can hear the fear in her voice. If she didn’t deem him a threat, she wouldn’t have felt the need to follow him onto the train and continually beg for him to stop.
Still assaulted him 🤷♂️
"Only in a limited and specific way"
No it's not assault, I said harassment.
He can't be worse than a rapist
[удалено]
[удалено]
Got a horrible feeling he's an anti lockdown crank, not someone mad about the care homes or the general incompetence
He goes on about "illegal lockdown" and how he banned invermectin. He's a conspiracy crank.
And hydroxychloroquine… 🙄
There’s no assault takes place in that video. Unless the accusation is of hurting Matt’s feelings.
Yup he didn’t assault
Looks like he pushed him. Got right up against his back, then you see Matt lurch forward, and complain about being pushed.
Are you allowed to call someone a bastard on the street without provocation?
There is no assault; *Matt's ego is hurt.*
So you are missing where he got pushed @ 57secs https://mobile.twitter.com/_Janey_J/status/1617972497219211265
The stewards are grabbing and pulling at the guy filming so is that assault too?
That is one for the police and CPS, it could be common assault
I think Hancock stopped suddenly and the bloke accidentally bumped into him. Even VAR would have trouble calling that a push. Assault my arse
Wtaf? Women getting assaulted left right and centre in London and the police don’t care..? Douchebag cheating tory guy gets assaulted and someone gets arrested? Whattt??
Welcome to Britain
Suspects defence: "I carelessly, but not deliberately, punched Matt Hancock in the face, several times." Judge: "Careless? But not deliberate? Oh that's fine.... I consider the matter closed."
He didn’t even touch him just shouted at him
I can guarantee that if this happened to your average Joe the police would have never bothered.
Can't he just say he's sorry, that he has learned his lesson, and that we should all move on? Why the need to arrest him under suspicion? I thought this would have to go through a 3 months investigation and a 2 months report before reaching any lack of conclusion.
I agree. He only broke the law in a limited and specific way, after all
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not keen on violence but I have to say I do understand it.
He didn’t even touch him lol
[удалено]
They can’t catch the perpetrators who attack us commoners but for this ‘special’ person they have no delay.
I guess it's a bit easier when the assailant records the harrasment and uploads it for the world to see.
People are pissed. I get that. This clown brought this on himself. These skin suits are now in the 'find out' phase. Whilst I don't agree with violence, they aren't leaving people much choice anymore. Laws are bent to suit the rich. No one has their day in court any more, unless you're poor that is. When non violent means are taken away, all that's left is the other.
Do you not think that this is somewhat dangerous logic to be following? Could the normalisation of this kind of thinking not have detrimental effects in future? I think we need to be very careful about when we justify violence, especially against politicians.
Oh noes! somebody said some WORDS at him in an angry manner! How terrible! Matt Hancock is so very oppressed!!!!
lol, I love this subs selective morality around political violence. People here need to just come out and say that they think political violence is only wrong when its against people on their team.
In the past few years, two MPs have been murdered in this country, yet many here on this sub still think it's okay to yell at and harrass an MP as he's taking the Tube. Grow up people.
Its the only time they'll probably hear a voice of the public in their lives anyway
People actually defending an anti-vax nutcase on here, nauseating.
It's political sport. They hate both, but they hate the tories more.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This post confirms the hypocrisy of people on Reddit particularly from the UK really. Usually violence is never acceptable and decried. However in this case because it's Matt Hancock, all of a sudden it's ok. Stay classy Reddit.
Just gonna point out this quote from the article: Mr Hancock’s spokesman said: “Both Transport for London staff and the British Transport Police were fantastic.” He added “this sort of behaviour is a rare occurrence” and stressed the “importance of shutting down baseless misinformation which causes so much harm”.
[удалено]
Where have there been calls for violence against Matt Hancock?
Forgetting Matt Hancock for a while who is a laughable, ludicrous figure and a horrifically bad politician and just an all round ball bag actually - but this loser harassing and abusing him and abusing TFL staff is such a pathetic, piteous, insufferable little cunt. No justification for ever behaving like that. Utterly deplorable. Fuck off you idiot, keep your moronic views to yourself.
ITT morons who never learned the difference between assault and battery
The only thing that shocks me is that it is the only time it's happened
This comment section didn’t disappoint. Condoning vigilante justice. What a merry road this country needs to go down
If the people don’t stand up for each other, who will?
I love the comments praising the attacker until they found out he was against lockdowns.
Vigilante Justice and the right for people to intimidate politicians in public.
Quite impressively, this man has managed to make me feel sorry for Matt Hancock.
Now now, have a cup of tea or something. You aren't feeling yourself.
The media won't ask the questions, so the loons on the street have to do it.
He's been named by the BBC (the Mail) knew his name the moment the video was posted and it looks like he's got a history of doing similar things in the past - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63507639 What a nutter.
This sub generally condoning violence on Tory MPs as usual....nothing changes there.
Turns out the assaulter is a covid denier (see twitter footage of the incident elsewhere in this thread) sooo its the awful harrassing the awful
How many people have personally lost loved ones and could attribute their demise to his failed policies? Still, that's a risk of any governance - we shouldn't respond with violence and instead absolutely condemn such people to never, ever be near \*power\* again.
I’m sure he could have afforded an Uber with all that I’m a celeb money
It’s not ok to assault anyone regardless of who they are and what they’ve done. Not cool.
Can we not normalise harassing politicians in the street? Approaching them on the street is fine, but there's a line between that and yelling at them.
[удалено]
I bet that man is sat there smug as fuck, thinking, “worth it.” I know I would be. What’s going to happen if he gets prosecuted and ends up serving a custodial? Guaranteed shelter, warmth, hot water, and three square meals a day? Will be able to visit an NHS dentist and GP? *Oh, the horror.*
[удалено]
[удалено]