Published On: Sat, Jun 26th, 2021

The Hancock embracing story and reality weren’t less than two meters apart, they were in completely different bubbles

As a controversy involving Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, threatens to continue to cause a stir in Westminster, and amongst commentators in corporate and alternative media, it is with some serendipity that the reader of FBEL has recently been treated with a study of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four for the lessons it can teach about media content, and how it is in fact a sealed environment totally within the control of government, inside of which fabricated nonsense is bounced around, amplified, rearranged in a context of being true or not, and used in some way or another to generate some real world reaction. In relation to this new story regarding Matt Hancock embracing an aide in supposed contravention of rules to facilitate an economic blockade, the reader is asked to take especial notice of the detail in a description of the facilities available to the Ministry of Truth, as it is called in Nineteen Eighty Four, but is actually wartime Mi7, or as we would call its modern equivalent, corporate and alternative media:

There were the huge printing-shops with their sub-editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs. There was the tele-programmes section with its engineers, its producers, and its teams of actors specially chosen for their skill in imitating voices.

Bear this extract in mind, reader, when presently we look at the story, as exclusively presented by The Sun, and discover that there is no way to understand that it bears any resemblance to a factual reality. Before that, a quick word must be shared in respect of the motive that corporate-media (or indeed, its military intelligence liaison functionaries/overseers) could possibly have for inventing, fully or in any part, this Matt Hancock scandal.

Nineteen Eighty Four tells us that high-ranking officials might fall out of favour with no explanation given – what is important, it seems, is the media activity that it generates. These may have further ramifications, with different applications required per seperate contexts for Oceania (wartime Britain) and any later version of the country since then that one finds oneself living in.

Contemporarily speaking, as has been discussed in these pages before, UK Government is at the moment trying to make the Labour party look good for the office of the executive, so the Hancock development could be an extension of the attritional psychological bombardment of the public, which is at this time being confronted with endless little bits about Tory sleaze and corruption. In any case, in very recent years the author has noted a couple of incidents of the falling from grace by high officials, and so by looking at them the reader will get a better flavour beyond what there is a requirement for in this essay: For The Simple Sake Of Disruption And Discombobulation: The Gavin Williamson Sacking (link), and Priti Patel And The Philosophers Of Fire; British Establishment Sorcery At Its Best (link).

The Sun’s story appeared on Friday morning, and however it goes on to interpret the kernel of the event, the following extract contains all the information we need concern ourselves with:

Mr Hancock was pictured embracing his aide. The image was from just after 3pm on May 6 — as the rest of Westminster was engrossed by the local elections…

He is seen in his distinctive ninth-floor office inside the sprawling Department of Health building, which is a stone’s throw from the Houses of Parliament.

During the pandemic, the office has provided the backdrop to his Zoom appearances on TV — including the Andrew Marr Show.

Mr Hancock is seen checking the corridor is clear before closing the door and then leaning on it to ensure he cannot be disturbed.

Ms Coladangelo then walks towards him and the pair begin their passionate embrace.

According to a whistleblower, who used to work at the department, the pair have regularly been caught in clinches together.

The source said: “They have tried to keep it a secret but everyone knows what goes on inside a building like that.

Note that The Sun has two sources of information. The first is humint in nature, presented to us as being anonymously produced – which is a standard feature of stories one should be suspicious of. This information can be dismissed. The second is technological and substantial; i.e. a video taken from a camera inside Hancock’s office, and a limited number of stills from it that The Sun has published.

So, the actual important story in respect of this incident, and the feature that should be causing a frenzy of outrage, head-scratching and far reaching question-asking, should be why it is that The Sun could get hold of video taken from a camera situated inside Hancock’s office. Corporate-media has studiously avoided the issue (and the reader might want to notice if and where the same applies with alternative media). To the author’s knowledge, one publication has asked the question, “How did The Sun get hold of CCTV from a UK Government ministerial office?” The Scotsman, in the body of its piece, reports ideas about it from someone whose organisation “is currently focused primarily on supporting global democracy in the face of threats from China and Russia” (from Wikipedia), so has his own hay to make irrespective of what he might know or suspect that is quite different from what he is saying:

Alan Mendoza, executive director of the think-tank [The Henry Jackson Society], warned they could have resulted from a “bug” being placed inside the building, raising national security concerns.

“The government must urgently explain how such a glaring security-breach occurred and MI5 must immediately probe the circumstances,” he said in a statement.

He called on the security service to sweep all other ministerial offices “to see what other listening and recording devices are snooping on ministers”.

“Steps should also be taken to determine if this incident was conducted by a disgruntled civil servant or – given its sophistication and seriousness – agents of a hostile state,” Mr Mendoza added.

No one should doubt that Alan Mendoza is not naïve, no matter how much he comes across as being so. If there is a bug in Hancock’s office, then it will be UK military intelligence that will be the number one suspect – agents, indeed, of a hostile state.

But let us, reader, take this one step at a time. The source could be a security camera that Hancock knows all about in the understanding that the building in which his office is situated is leak proof. If the material this produces is then somehow leaked to The Sun, and as there is no such thing as a leak from UK Government, Hancock may have been involved in the decision making. If the camera is secret surveillance equipment, then the author does not countenance that it was installed by a foreign power – which then made its blackmail material available to a British newspaper. No, indeed. On the contrary, for its own nefarious purposes,  it would be UK military intelligence that gathered this material and passed it to The Sun, as we might suppose it regularly does, and if people want to take this bugging explanation at face value, it shows that military intelligence really are a law unto themselves, and sitting above elected politicians in the hierarchy. It’s been said here before, politicians are as cat litter to them.

In fact, if the image is indeed of Hancock – and the primary mistake to make is to assume that it is – then the author supposes that the minister will have been informed ahead of the release of the story, told that there will be a stink, but that it will blow over (which it may or may not, depending on the intention of those who control these things). Hancock would have taken his orders as usual.

As it happens, the author does not even trust that the image is one of Hancock, and feels that there is a good chance that it has been fabricated. This does not mean to say that Matt Hancock has never pursued an extra-marital affair at work, or is not involved in one with his current aide. After all, he seems to have “admitted breaking social distancing guidance”† in apparent relation to his conduct at work – and this means that there would be little point denying that he is shown in a photograph that is obviously being used as the story’s selling point (wherever it came from). Which brings us neatly to this: the only issue that needs to be speculated on, as far as the author can see, is to what extent is Hancock complicit in this psyop.

Whatever the case may be, the lesson to be learnt is not that one should start from a position of disbelief in every case whenever one is confronted with news that is demanding its recipient to fly off the handle in reaction one way or another, but that there should not be automatic confidence in the information. A little bit of critical thought can then lead the way to appreciating to what degree any nonsense story deserves serious notice. After that, one can find oneself in a fantastic position to see the abovementioned sealed media echo chamber environment in action, where the reaction, whatever is claimed in respect of its purpose, serves to support the supposed truth of the story.

On the contrary, at FBEL, reader, in respect of this story, you are being told that there’s no compelling evidence by which one needs to suppose that the particular incident being claimed in The Sun has any resemblance to any reality. In fact, one could go further than that, putting it another way: there is no need to suppose a breach of social distancing rules, because this incident and what is real didn’t come anywhere near each other, let alone within two meters (or whatever it is). In fact, reality and this incident were in totally different “support bubbles”.


† However, Hancock has evidently not apologised for, nor therefore admitted anything in respect of the specific incident supposedly captured on video. In the piece linked to, the BBC cunningly tries to make it look like he does. The actual transcript of a statement made by Hancock is hard to track down, but the most complete version he could find was in reporting at the Huddersfield Examiner, of all places, which nevertheless also tries to make it seem as if Hancock is sorry for a specific incident. In the following (which could even constitute the full statement), what circumstances, actually, is Hancock talking about? Is it those shown in the images, or those in general terms of conduct in the work place, as is perhaps actually implied?:

I accept that I breached the social distancing guidance in these circumstances.

I have let people down and am very sorry.

I remain focused on working to get the country out of this pandemic, and would be grateful for privacy for my family on this personal matter.


Update; 27/06/21:

Hancock resigned yesterday some time after this article was published, but that’s not the reason for this update.

The Mail on Sunday has found that there is a need to tell the story of how the video footage was obtained, and in a piece published at 10pm on the same date as the issue of this article, it tells of how there is a security camera in the ceiling of the room that used to be the office of the now ex-Health Secretary. While people vaguely identified as “Hancock’s allies” had had no idea that a camera was installed, and had “wanted to know why it had been put there without Mr Hancock’s permission” – or so the piece claims – a hard fact of the case is that the camera is “clearly visible on the ceiling of his office” because it is seen in a picture of the office, taken in September 2017, before Hancock had the use of the room – and sticks out like a sore thumb. Moreover, “it is trained on the area by the doorway where the couple embraced.”

So, the idea is that the images were taken off the routine security system. The culprit is anonymous, although the claim is that this person is department staff.  “After allowing a month to elapse” says this Mail on Sunday piece “the whistleblower approached lockdown sceptics and asked them to help sell the incendiary footage to the media.” It goes on:

The Mail on Sunday was not one of the outlets approached. It is not known if The Sun obtained the video from the whistleblower or from another source entirely.

This is a doozy. It turns out that the Mail on Sunday cannot connect two items of information to prove a fact. As it happens, the Mail on Sunday – but let’s just use the name of the agent who wrote the piece, Glen Owen, because the ridiculousness needs to be owned by a named writer – only saw a “series of Instagram messages” (sent to an anonymous recipient) which made cryptic reference to the content of CCTV footage, and in no manner by which one could be certain that it meant video of Hancock, nor indeed if this was being offered. The piece admits, as the extract above shows, that it is unknown if there was any development from this Instagram communication.

Moreover, the Mail on Sunday must have only seen copies of these messages after the fact, given that there was no approach to it. As things stand, the Instagram account on which the original messages were posted, so we must take Glen Owen’s word for it that they existed. And although “the whistleblower said they could be contacted on an encrypted Protonmail email account”, this doesn’t help us find evidence that can corroborate Owen’s story. The author would suggest that it doesn’t matter whether these messages were real or not if they had no bearing on whether or not The Sun had the footage (which is what Owen’s piece admits).

Having dealt with the red herring, the useful new information that can be taken from Owen’s story would appear to give weight to the idea of Hancock being an accomplice in the production of the video, where the complicity is with military intelligence in the execution of a psyop. At the same time, notice that the information works to cause a retreat from the possibility of there having been total fabrication (which Hancock must play along with when it is revealed to him – as was said above, this is ultimately a question of how much Hancock was complicit). The problem with Owen’s story is that it is so stupid in how it asks one to believe that Hancock would indulge in conduct unbecoming underneath an obvious camera. Perhaps, then, it is his objective to cause retreat from the concept that people would be most appalled by.

To end, the reader is asked to notice something. On the date of the publication of this FBEL article, the Hancock thing was in its second day, and corporate-media had been devoid of any attempt to understand the central mystery of the case (the one that is printed in bold in the body of this work). Evidently it was going to be something not to be addressed by corporate-media in any volume, if barely at all; evidently, there was a plan based on the expectation that the Muggles just wouldn’t notice, and just wouldn’t think – maybe they would be in London throwing tennis balls at police (as corporate-media would inevitably portray it).

Then, there is this rush to publish something that sells itself as being a revelation of the entire method just in time for Marr, as if the sight line of delivery of a psyop, involving Friday emergence, Saturday development, and Sunday morning interpretation was disrupted by the sudden realisation that the fatal flaw in the story was not going to be, and more importantly had not been overlooked.


It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.