Esker-pades
Established Member
I've pointed out facts and you're getting annoyed. Why?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Dominic Cummings alleged breach of lockdown rules discussion
- Thread starter Mag_seven
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
At the time this happened we were not allowed to drive 30 miles each way for exercise.
There was no restriction in England about the length of time you could drive at the time. 4 days after the journey the police published guidelines for officers in how to deal with people, which clarified the situation that driving was allowed, but this did not change the law.
Because they fancied the idea of a day out in a pretty location. The whole "test my driving thing" was the best excuse he could come up with, and has convinced very few people, because it is a lie.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No, he took the kid as well. The woods came into discussion because the kid needed to stop for a wee (allegedly).
Cummings is currently being thoroughly kebabed on the comments sections of the relevant stories on Mail Online, and the Telegraph, arenas that few would accuse of being "anti conservative". We are now at the point first made famous after Watergate - "It's not the crime, it's the cover up", which goes to the heart of trust in Boris Johnson. You are entitled to your view, but you seem to be in a fairly small minority, and this forum does not strike me as being particularly partisan.
Really? He hadn’t driven for a maximum of a fortnight. I can go that length of time and longer without driving and don’t need a practise drive after that length of time.
I also make sure my eyesight is fine for any length of drive before I even pick the car keys up as I wouldn’t want to put myself or anyone else at risk. My driving test was 30 years ago and the eyesight test was reading a number plate of a car at a specified distance, NOT going for a 30 mile jaunt to a local beauty spot to check it out. I suppose it could’ve changed in that time but I suspect not.
David Allen Green wrote this thread of posts, where he analyses the text of the Cummings statement.
TL;DR: He writes that the statement that has been "lawyered". "This is how you write witness statements No normal person writes like this, only lawyers in preparing witness statements - and it is very different from Cummings' usual rambling blogging style"
TL;DR: He writes that the statement that has been "lawyered". "This is how you write witness statements No normal person writes like this, only lawyers in preparing witness statements - and it is very different from Cummings' usual rambling blogging style"
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,353
What will the Tories level of support be after all this. I can’t see it being high. Even before this week, the Tory party popularity was falling. The UK having a the highest coronavirus death toll in Europe probably was a large factor in this.
This Cummings saga will further weaken Tory support. Reading various newspaper comments yesterday, both left and right, I see very little support for the government handing of this affair. I reckon it will be on a par to Black Wednesday in 1992, in which the Tory party lost their reputation for economic competence and became deeply unpopular for the next 18 years. After 1992, what ever John Major did, he was doomed to a massive defeat in 1997. From 1992 until 2010, the Tories lost pretty much every election. After this pandemic and the Cummings saga, many voters will see the Tory party as arrogant, incompetent and uncaring. Even if Boris Johnson does an amazing job at governing after this his party will remain unpopular for many years.
And you would do better, in front of television cameras and baying journalists? He is not a politician and is not used to such things. You do need notes, if for nothing else, to avoid self incrimination. I challenge you to give an account of your actions over 14 days and answer questions on your motivation for every part of it, in front of the nation, and get it all right without any notes!!!
David Allen Green wrote this thread of posts, where he analyses the text of the Cummings statement.
TL;DR: He writes that the statement that has been "lawyered". "This is how you write witness statements No normal person writes like this, only lawyers in preparing witness statements - and it is very different from Cummings' usual rambling blogging style"
Of course it has been. Would you do anything else if you are going to be quizzed by top journalists of the land. I'm sure I would.
I would happily accept that invitation . Problem is that the TV people probably won't give me the airtime. The fact I won't be lying means I wouldn't need note's. I could go back longer than 14 day's too.
But were not single parents given a 'concession' (and concession it was, because I do no think there was any real scientific evidence) very early on that children could be transferred back and forth between separated parents?
Besides , you would only self incriminate if you were lying. Self incrimination means implicating your guilt. If you are innocent , then you would have nothing to worry about.
jumble
Member
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 1,114
I do think that the press are displaying disgraceful hypocrisy by swarming outside his house showing no respect for the 2 meter rule whatever also showing there is one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
Perhaps they should ask themselves "Who is more likely to spread the virus ?"
www.aljazeera.com
I also think Professor Stephen Reicher who is proclaiming lockdown is trashed because of what DC did is not being very clever.
All he has achieved is to encourage other stupid people people to break the rules.
As my mum who was a teacher would say
Don't tell a toddler not to go in the road but instead tell them to stay on the pavement .
Perhaps they should ask themselves "Who is more likely to spread the virus ?"
The Cummings scandal and political outrage as a diversion
The outrage over Dominic Cummings’s latest scandal takes attention away from the real problem with UK’s political elite.
All he has achieved is to encourage other stupid people people to break the rules.
As my mum who was a teacher would say
Don't tell a toddler not to go in the road but instead tell them to stay on the pavement .
Last edited:
You may not be lying, but may easily miss something out which later would be suggested that you were concealing something.
David Allen Green wrote this thread of posts, where he analyses the text of the Cummings statement.
TL;DR: He writes that the statement that has been "lawyered". "This is how you write witness statements No normal person writes like this, only lawyers in preparing witness statements - and it is very different from Cummings' usual rambling blogging style"
Although I'd be intrigued which kind of lawyer sees "going for a drive to check my eyesight" and doesn't at least raise an eyebrow...
nlogax
Established Member
I think we're missing the bigger picture here. Regardless of what Cummings did or didn't do at whatever time or date, he's not going to apologise, he's not going to quit and he's not going to be fired.
He also continues to display resentment to media pile-ons, both traditional and social. By not apologising and by stating his lack of regret, he's winding up social commentators from all sides. And my guess is that he actually enjoys doing so..from the responses to yesterday's Rose Garden shambles he's probably getting just what he wants.
That said, I think he's at the last chance saloon now. One more screw-up and things will move against him. Think Malcolm Tucker's last days..
He also continues to display resentment to media pile-ons, both traditional and social. By not apologising and by stating his lack of regret, he's winding up social commentators from all sides. And my guess is that he actually enjoys doing so..from the responses to yesterday's Rose Garden shambles he's probably getting just what he wants.
That said, I think he's at the last chance saloon now. One more screw-up and things will move against him. Think Malcolm Tucker's last days..
I don't agree with that. You could self incriminate by missing out something which later would be suggested that you were concealing.
But yet here we are with him reading note's that didn't change that. The day trip to test his eyes is way out there , especially on his wife's birthday. Maybe the rest would be possibly reasonable , but is almost certainly not true.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Single parents, yes. You basically merged the two households - if one person got it in one household both would have to isolate. I suspect the reason this wasn't allowed more widely was that it would mostly end up being parents and grandparents, with the latter being more at risk.
And Mr Cummings and his wife are not separated , so wouldn't apply.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed, it was only allowed to protect children from becoming a pawn in an argument between the two sets of parents.
I'd say that the most likely people to spread the virus are people who have the virus, and that its particularly unhelpful to go from a virus hotspot, to somewhere with a lower incidence, and then hang out in an ambulance and hospital overnight.
Wrong. It was that children could move between split parents to make legal contact with both. No merger that were for couple who dont live together to see each other.
Vespa
Established Member
I'm faintly amused by all this social media guff over Cummings activities when compared the behavior of thousand people who have done much worse flocking to beaches, NO social distancing, parking everywhere including farmers fields, crapping in peoples garden, it must be a slow news day for it to dominate the media, while he did a silly thing, it's not worth nailing him to a cross for it.
It only took a life of its own because his political enemies who have been sharpening knives for this moment have gone in for the kill.
It also amusing and hypocritical to see the paparazzi outside his house crowded together no social distancing at all, glass houses and stones.
It'll be wrapping chips next week.
It only took a life of its own because his political enemies who have been sharpening knives for this moment have gone in for the kill.
It also amusing and hypocritical to see the paparazzi outside his house crowded together no social distancing at all, glass houses and stones.
It'll be wrapping chips next week.
Enthusiast
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,132
The full text (Regulation 6(j):
"in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;"
That’s interesting. I didn’t realise that.
I do think it’s strange that this story took so long to be made public. I wondered if the media were concerned about undermining lockdown but then they were happy to print the stories about Stephen Kinnock, Tahir Ali and Robert Jenrick’s lockdown transgressions. Why was Cummins not outed at the time unless his travel to his family estate wasn’t seen as newsworthy enough at the time, maybe the later report of him being seen at Barnard Castle added weight to the story.
If I was one of the ministers that suggested the Barnard Castle trip was untrue I would be very annoyed. Cummins should have come clean the moment the story broke with details of the mitigating circumstances which may have reduced the fallout somewhat. More contrition would have been in order although he clearly doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong.
Bantamzen
Established Member
It is not about members of the public, this is about senior advisers to the government ignoring it's own instructions, then going on to say it was fine for them. Don't be distracted by thinking that because some of the public had done similar that this makes this unimportant. This is about how the government acts, and how it remains consistent with it's own mandate. If they tell the public one thing, then do another themselves, this becomes a serious problem for reasons that by now should be obvious.
And it seems the political fallout has begun:
- Status