Are the Matt Hancock ‘revelations’ just a limited hang-out?

The decline and fall of Matt Hancock, until recently Britain’s Health Secretary, continues apace. And it’s hard to name anyone more deserving than this conniving little toad who used the Covid scamdemic to wreak havoc on Britain over the last few years. The latest salvo arrived in the form of “The Lockdown Files”, a treasure trove of Hancock’s Whatsapp messages released by journalist Isabel Oakshott after she was commissioned to ghost-write Pandemic Diaries, his Covid memoirs. Whether Oakshott’s action in releasing those messages to The Telegraph was an act of gross treachery, as Hancock claims, or, as she counters, a brave act of public service is largely irrelevant.

Everyone admits that the revelations are not flattering to him. (You can get a summary here.) However, for anyone looking for a smoking gun to prove the whole scamdemic to be a globalist/WEF/WHO plot to facilitate their broader agenda will not find it in these messages. Even the seemingly damning threat to “release the new strain of the virus” is in reality very far from what it seems. Quote: Mr Hancock says: “We frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain.” The adviser responds: “Yep, that’s what will get proper behaviour change.” The minister then asks: “When do we deploy the new variant.” Mr Hancock announced the new variant the following day.

Yes, Hancock comes out of it poorly. Almost everyone does as far as I can ascertain. Bullying, indecision, manipulation of police and media, incompetence. But….the argument can be made that everyone, albeit in his or her own particular way, worked to prevent a deadly virus from cutting a swathe through the British people. If however you’re like me looking for evidence that ‘they were all in on it’ you won’t find it among these messages.

So does this mean that we conspiracy theorists were wrong about connivance at the highest levels? Of course not. The tsunami of evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. How can we explain it then? You could argue that the messages were from the beginning orchestrated and fabricated to provide a cover story but, come on, that’s over the top. However it might just represent a textbook case of a limited hang-out, the objective being to focus attention on Hancock’s chicanery and incompetence and thus gaslight attention away from the real agenda.

Any other suggestions?