Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036485)

Ok so let me break it down for you.

I stated -

"Self isolating doesn't mean not having contact with any other household, it means not having contact with anyone. Surely the best bet would be isolating as much as possible from the wife in the same house and hoping that the virus didn't hit him bad, not travelling 250 miles and potentially spreading it in a garage and to the other household. With the position he holds, I'm sure some emergency care could have been arranged if he did get the virus bad."

In reply to -

"They were still self-isolating, in that they didn't have contact with any other household. That is the underlying criteria."

You stated -

"That’s just plain wrong. We’ve been at this over two months now."

You stated the above but didn't quote the full post which explained the context of the self isolating issue.

To help you with the above. I stated -

"Surely the best bet would be isolating as much as possible from the wife in the same house"

Which answers the quote which you missed the important bit out and just put this.

"Self isolating doesn't mean not having contact with any other household, it means not having contact with anyone."

I then stated -

"Whats wrong about it?"

You stated -

"Self isolation within a family Unit is perfectly correct."

Which is what I stated originally if you had bothered to either read or quote correctly.

I stated -

"In the context it was written it was quite clear what was written."

Which I've explained above.

You then stated -

"What was written."

I could go on but I'm sure you understand anyway. You clearly knew you were in the wrong so just started acting funny for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36036490)

Not for key workers*, they haven’t...

(and Cummings counts as a key worker).

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036492)

I’m not reading all that.

God you can make a boring subject even more unbearable.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036496)

Also known as, I can't admit to being wrong so will just be ignorant and try to be funny.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36036489)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36036499)

You don't protect a child by locking them in a small confined space with two people who had the virus, for several hours. (which you avoid acknowledging)

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036498)

No, it was just boring, and I don’t have to try to be funny.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36036500)

Good Grief, what a lot of excitement of nothing ....

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036503)

F.me you can say that again.

A lot of people getting very excited over nothing.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036502)

It's only boring because you can't read and quote properly. If you don't want to participate in a conversation then don't start one.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36036505)

Yet every newspaper is running with it, in the middle of a pandemic.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36036505)

Mind you, you thought Coronavirus was 'just a bit of flu' and a lot of fuss over nothing....

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036506)

No you’re just boring, there are more interesting people on here to converse with

but just to shut You up. I’ll read it and respond.



Actually, no I just read it, several times, and had Just glazed over every time I got to the end.

In fact I’m going to read this to my kids At bedtime, nailed on for a peaceful night.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36036505)

Yet every newspaper is running with it,

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036508)

Well let's just make this even easier for your kids. Daddy made a fool of himself by not reading and posting a full quote. Daddy then tried to act clever to get around being wrong. The end.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036501)

No, you don’t.

You ensure you have a network around you that are there to look after the child if you become incapacitated. You also ensure that there is a network around you that can deliver food and other essentials (as you cannot leave the house) soeven if you are ill you can still feed the child and wipe it’s backside.

And if the network to give you peace of mind is 250 miles away, so be it. I’d do it.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36036511)

[/COLOR]
I'm sure you would. But I'm guessing you're not the policy adviser who helped form the rules that said you can't do this

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036509)

God the bless the British free press.



I didn’t say it was a “bit” of flu, I said was “a” flu.

But then early on you dismissed the deaths of the elderly as business as usual?

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=165

---------- Post added at 23:41 ---------- Previous post was at 23:37 ----------


Nope daddy just couldn’t be arsed.



Look, I’ve read your response several times, and I’m still non the wiser.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036495)

No he doesn’t.

Just an advisor, and not medical or scientific, I wouldn’t count him as “essential”

Know her do you? Intimate with the Cummings friends are you?

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036516)

If you couldn't be arsed then why start a conversation about it.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36036511)

[/COLOR]
I'm sure you would. But I'm guessing you're not the policy adviser who helped form the rules that said you can't do this...although to avoid any confusion, they were amended two weeks after Cummings' trip to Durham.
And I'm sure someone of Cummings' standing and contacts would have no issues in warming up his local London support network, paid and unpaid, to come to his family's aid if required.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036522)

FFS


This is fundamentally incorrect.

If you are self isolating at home, and there are other family members, you will have contact with them, direct or indirect.

[quite]Surely the best bet would be isolating as much as possible from the wife in the same house and hoping that the virus didn't hit him bad, not travelling 250 miles

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36036520)

I fail to see the relevance of whether or not Dominic Cummings is a key worker.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36036524)

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036525)

Well he was in the house and car, what difference does it make, he was still only with her and the kid.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036526)

F.me

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=200[/url]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36036527)

I doubt it - what makes you come to such a strong conclusion?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36036549)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36036550)

Can you expand?

In other news:

- Five brave Conservative MPs call for Cummings to resign.
- Andrew Marr notes that you can either keep the lockdown poicy intact or you can keep Cummings, but you can't keep both.
- Piers Morgan suggests a less obvious person who might actually want Cummings to stay "if I were Keir Starmer, I’d probably prefer Cummings to cling on at this stage. He’d be a permanent No10 symbol of ‘one rule for us, another for you plebs’ which is incredibly damaging to any Govt, especially when lives are at stake."

I'll revisit this thread in the evening. Until then, stay safe.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36036550)

Can you expand?

<SNIP>

I'll revisit this thread in the evening. Until then, stay safe.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36036552)

Sorry Andrew its 8 brave Conservative MP's who have stuck their head above the parapet this morning and have stated that Dominic Cummimgs should resign.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36036550)

<SNIP>

In other news:
<SNIP>

- Piers Morgan suggests a less obvious person who might actually want Cummings to stay "if I were Keir Starmer, I’d probably prefer Cummings to cling on at this stage. He’d be a permanent No10 symbol of ‘one rule for us, another for you plebs’ which is incredibly damaging to any Govt, especially when lives are at stake."

I'll revisit this thread in the evening. Until then, stay safe.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36036552)

Sorry Andrew its 8 brave Conservative MP's who have stuck their head above the parapet this morning and have stated that Dominic Cummimgs should resign.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036556)

Link?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36036557)

Proof enough.

https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1264489476555976704

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036495)

No he doesn’t.


Just an advisor, and not medical or scientific, I wouldn’t count him as “essential”


Know her do you? Intimate with the Cummings friends are you?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036556)

Link?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036528)

You’re reinforcing my point? Exactly he was only with his family so what difference does it make?
clearly you are on the the pop as that makes no sense.


1. You don’t know if he refuelled the vehicle
2. He didn’t break down

I’m going to Ed i suggest you should too

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036563)

If mr cummings employer insists he has done nothing wrong what grounds would there be to legally sack him ?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036563)

If mr cummings employer insists he has done nothing wrong what grounds would there be to legally sack him ?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36036566)

l think the simple fact is that his employer the PM knows if he does not sack him there is a strong likelihood of considerable damage to the Government as there has already has been some damage in these last 24 hours to it.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036568)

I was under the impression we had laws protecting employees and if his employer insists he has done no wrong on what grounds would he be sacked.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36036569)

Very true, and every minister that goes on TV in the foreseeable future will just be asked about Cummings. Interesting isn't it? Shaps didn't get a word about Transport out this morning in his TV interview.

He must be made to resign, but does he have some dirt/his memoirs to come out ? The Boris insurance plan ;)

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36036572)

TBH if he's sacked so should ever member of the public be sacked from their jobs how broke the rules.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36036399)

Just to clarify matters - there were no separate sections for people's household status at the time that Dominic Cummings drove to Durham. Rules is rules, especially if you helped write them!

Yes, he may well have got them added two weeks later after the press asked about his relocation to Durham.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36036581)

How many people have access to guest houses or annexes? How would you write that into the rules in a simple manner? There are other examples where subsequent clarification and adjustment of the rules were made, eg maintenance of allotments counting as exercise, self-isolating and going into your garden. Technically even moving into an annex or guest house on the SAME property would be breaking the "rules" as it would still be another address. That is obviously absurd.

There was NO CONTACT with other people. The underlying principle behind the rules is to self-isolate the household from ALL others. They maintained that principle. For the vast majority of people that would involve staying at home.

Although only a few instances have been exposed, from the number of positive tests from football players, they've been breaking lockdown on a large scale, having parties etc. After this amount of time in lockdown, they shouldn't be getting it.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036597)

Tory MEP: One of the ‘witnesses’ alleging they saw Cummings - the claimed second sighting reported in Guardian - looked up his number plate. Isn’t that illegal?.

Local people saying main witness was a known Labour activist.

Hmm... :scratch: :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036602)

Police at our Dom’s door but he’s at Number 10. I wonder if a Durham resident has made a complaint?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36036569)

Very true, and every minister that goes on TV in the foreseeable future will just be asked about Cummings. Interesting isn't it? Shaps didn't get a word about Transport out this morning in his TV interview.

He must be made to resign, but does he have some dirt/his memoirs to come out ? The Boris insurance plan ;)

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036600)

Depends where he looked up the number plate.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036605)

Well no one is talking about PPE or care homes anymore.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036610)

Well he would either have to:

1. Work for the police
2. The DVLA
3. A parking company.
4. The council

Etc

In any event it would be misuse, and he would be in trouble if proven.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036615)

It’s in the paper. He looked it up on google and found a photo of our Dom getting into an identical made, model and colour of car that had the first five digits matching the one they had seem him with.

That’s not misuse of anything. Although whoever hosted said image should probably have blanked it out. I’m sure the police at his door could ask for the GPS data and straighten it all out for us, though.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036618)

Number plates are fuzzed out on google view .

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036619)

So would his face be presumably, which is why I didn’t say Google Street View. That’s a separate thing.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036620)

So do i just google bullshit and magically i get doms car .

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036620)

So do i just google bullshit and magically i get doms car .

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036622)

There is the whiff of BS in the air.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036600)

Depends where he looked up the number plate.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36036610)

Well he would either have to:

1. Work for the police
2. The DVLA
3. A parking company.
4. The council

Etc

In any event it would be misuse, and he would be in trouble if proven.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036628)

Not really. A Number plate does not tell you who the vehicle belongs to.

Unless......You work for the police. DVLA or other vehicle motoring agency, for this information to be obtained and crucially, misuse the information provided would be a serious breach of GDPR.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036628)

Not really. A Number plate does not tell you who the vehicle belongs to.

Unless......You work for the police. DVLA or other vehicle motoring agency, for this information to be obtained and crucially, misuse the information provided would be a serious breach of GDPR.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036632)

The quote you posted doesn't say he looked up the number plate to see who it belonged to. Just that they looked it up.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036634)

Boris doubling down calling some allegations “palpably false”.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036634)

Boris doubling down calling some allegations “palpably false”.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036635)

It doesn't matter what was said in the quote, I was replying to a point you raised, stop arguing everything down to the nitty gritty. It's getting boring. :zzz:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036637)

Good. Because they are.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036620)

So do i just google bullshit and magically i get doms car .

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036638)

Hang on a minute. I was responding to the quote that said isn't that illegal which you had put on. It either is or isn't illegal which depends on where the number plate was looked up. I'm not arguing anything I'm having a direct debate with a post you made.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36036639)

Great, post the evidence that supports this and that’s the matter sorted.

Had this been an advisor from any other political party I suspect their would be an outpouring of cries for them to resign. (Not necessarily from you).

BTW who is lying ? Durham police or the transport secretary?

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036642)

No, you hang on a minute, stop trying to ALWAYS have the last argument with me, it is not a debate when you are just arguing the finer points. You made a point, I responded to it, it matters absolutely not what was said in the quote-end of that discussion.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036637)

Good. Because they are.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 36036645)

So I'm not allowed to debate with you?

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036647)

As I said, it's not a debate when it turns into an argument.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36036640)

If one Googles "Dominic Cummings car", and click on "images", this is the fourth (at this time) image that is displayed.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036644)

No, actually, you post the evidence, can I just ask what the hell happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country, or are you like the rest of the sheep, following the trial by media?

It's not how it works!!!

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036651)

But there are no REG plate details.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036654)

Here’s him with a full number plate.

https://images.app.goo.gl/f7bVygxZ12guQXM67

Note there’s no indication this is his car. However, that’s not relevant either.

The point is an individual found a picture of him with a car that was a partial match (presumably not all visible in the photo) to one they seem him with in Durham. With the full plate digits/letters any half decent journo could walk past his flat in Islington and see it’s his car. The police could also check if he’s the registered owner.

The question is was his car in Durham or not. The rest, and any allegations of accessing databases illegally or even who the witness voted for, is a compete deflection.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36036650)

There's an interesting van appeared outside Dom's house.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1264545745413292034

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036651)

But there are no REG plate details.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36036655)

note he drives a range rover and that is relevant here.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36036652)

Show me where I said he’s categorically guilty ?

Let’s deal with the facts.

A city of eight million people and he was unable to get childcare ? Did he NEED to travel to get childcare? I highly doubt it

He then drives 260 miles across the country to stay at a residence (which he openly admits he then didn’t use)

He’s then allegedly spotted travelling between London and Durham on a further two occasions. (Of course we need evidence to prove him guilty) but you cannot dismiss eyewitness accounts out of hand surely they require investigation?

We have the police who are saying that they did speak to the family regarding his stay in Durham, the transport secretary says the police didn’t. Someone is lying and I doubt it’s Durham police.

There’s more than a whiff of a cover up and it requires further investigation to confirm or deny the supporting (or lack thereof) evidence

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36036658)

Can’t you see the first two letters and the two numbers of the back number plate?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36036654)

The question is was his car in Durham or not. The rest, and any allegations of accessing databases illegally or even who the witness voted for, is a compete deflection.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036660)

First part of your point, yes he clearly did, it is irrelevant how many people live in one city like London, if you have kids you don't just entrust them to anybody. What he did, that is not against the law. Safeguarding of a young child took priority.

All the other points you raise are conjecture. Allegedly this, one witness saw that, where are the photos, where is the video evidence?

I can say I saw Elton John walking down my road yesterday, saying it and proving it, are two different things.

They saw sweet FA because it's bullshit.

I am still waiting for you to prove his guilt, not spin the media mantra which is most certainly not evidence of any guilt whatsoever!

As I said innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason. We do not do trial by media in this country and it's utterly sad how people follow the news like lost sheep.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36036665)

You just come back to this topic after 24 hours, I can deflect you out of it again, for longer. Nothing was deflected, you cannot just ignore laws on a whim and then attack Cummings for breaking another law.