Dominic Cummings visited parents during lockdown measures

Closed for the night, you may resume tomorrow.

Thread re-opened.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy

It's about what sells the newspaper.I think that the Daily Mail knows it's target audience very well.

Those with an IQ lower than their shoe size

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Those with an IQ lower than their shoe size

Who still get to vote.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

My feeling is that no more detail is needed on this as far as the public mood is concerned, as it has already made up its mind. It feels let down with differing standards being applied. Cummings may well stay but the Government will suffer for it in the future.

Yes, well we mustn't let the facts get in the way of our feelings, must we?

Paragraph 6(2)b of the regulations gave DC the right to do what he did. The newspapers, who I thought had a duty to inform, should be making that clear rather than joining in with the tittle-tattle.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

More likely his wife has - she worked with Boris for quite a long time when he was at the Spectator.

Perhaps she know how many children bozo really has...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, well we mustn't let the facts get in the way of our feelings, must we?

Paragraph 6(2)b of the regulations gave DC the right to do what he did. The newspapers, who I thought had a duty to inform, should be making that clear rather than joining in with the tittle-tattle.

Where does it say put your child in an enclosed space for a minimum of four hours with your virus ridden partner? Apparently this was a responsible and understandable thing to do to, I've gone from being milding irritated about this to quite annoyed at the government's response to this, I'll be miffed next at this rate

---------- Post added at 09:08 ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Gone now, but I doubt that was hacked.

Hopefully someone gets fired for that.

It was the instinctive and understandable thing to do...

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It was the instinctive and understandable thing to do...

It was no such thing. For some leftie Pratt in the UK CS. Whoever it was, brought what is suppose to be a neutral element of government in to disrepute. The UK Civil Service acts on the Governments instructions and implements them. Not the other way round.

[jfman]

I don't think anyone genuinely believes it compromises the neutrality of the UK Civil Service. It's clearly one disgruntled, probably junior member of staff from a Comms team whose job is to operate the Twitter account on the weekend.

It won't be anyone meaningfully involved in policy development or implementation. They'll also easily be identifiable and disciplined. Mountain out of a molehill.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, well we mustn't let the facts get in the way of our feelings, must we?

Paragraph 6(2)b of the regulations gave DC the right to do what he did. The newspapers, who I thought had a duty to inform, should be making that clear rather than joining in with the tittle-tattle.

And since it was allegedly on the 19th April, and he had been in London from the 14th April, it was OK for him to drive 260 miles to have this exercise?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, well we mustn't let the facts get in the way of our feelings, must we?

I think as far as the public goes, it's now made up his mind on this matter. The irony is that Cummings knows exactly how public sentiment works and understands this more than most. If it were anyone else but himself, Cummings would be advising Johnson to ask the adviser to resign or be sacked.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Paragraph 6(2)b of the regulations gave DC the right to do what he did. The newspapers, who I thought had a duty to inform, should be making that clear rather than joining in with the tittle-tattle.

If Boris Johnson had been able to link to the rules in place at the time that Cummings drove to Barnard Castle and Durham permitting these trips then this entire matter would be history.
He couldn't, and I don't think anyone else can or they would have done so by now.

Sky News is compelled by Ofcom to be accurate and impartial. It would have checked carefully with its legal advisors before stating that

Whether the PM wins or loses for supporting his top aide after he broke lockdown rules, he is paying the price, Beth Rigby writes.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...mings-11994163

I can understand why fans of Dominic Cummings want him to keep him position at all costs - he's sharp, brings a new perspective and delivered Brexit and Boris to power. But at the heart of the matter is that the debacle Cummings generated threatens the success of the lockdown, according to Professor Stephen Reicher. He's a member of the government’s advisory group on behavioural science and told Good Morning Britain:

If you look at the research it shows the reason why people observed lockdown was not for themselves, it wasn’t because they were personally at risk, they did it for the community, they did it because of a sense of ‘we’re all in this together’.
If you give the impression there’s one rule for them and one rule for us you fatally undermine that sense of ‘we’re all in this together’ and you undermine adherence to the forms of behaviour which have got us through this crisis.

---------- Post added at 10:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

And since it was allegedly on the 19th April, and he had been in London from the 14th April, it was OK for him to drive 260 miles to have this exercise?

To clarify the sighted trips made in addition to Durham:
12th April Barnard Castle. Not denied.
19th April Houghall Woods. Denied.

---------- Post added at 10:16 ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

It was no such thing. For some leftie Pratt in the UK CS. Whoever it was, brought what is suppose to be a neutral element of government in to disrepute. The UK Civil Service acts on the Governments instructions and implements them. Not the other way round.

I think The Daddy was just bringing some much-needed humour to the thread.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by jfman

Mountain out of a molehill.

Best sentence in the thread.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Perhaps she know how many children bozo really has...



Where does it say put your child in an enclosed space for a minimum of four hours with your virus ridden partner? Apparently this was a responsible and understandable thing to do to, I've gone from being milding irritated about this to quite annoyed at the government's response to this, I'll be miffed next at this rate[COLOR="Silver"]

Maybe if you actually read what the regulation says, you would understand that he did nothing wrong. That, I believe, is also the conclusion of the police.

However, if there is any truth in the two other allegations about breaking the lockdown, there should be consequences. However, he denies it and the police are investigating. So let's leave that to the police, shall we, or are you a 'string him up first and ask questions later' sort of person?

---------- Post added at 11:20 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

And since it was allegedly on the 19th April, and he had been in London from the 14th April, it was OK for him to drive 260 miles to have this exercise?

No, it wasn't but that isn't what was being discussed. If those two further allegations prove to be correct, that is a completely separate issue.

However, I am sure you have noted that he has not admitted this, whereas he was quick to acknowledge that he took his family to Durham in the first place. The police are investigating, which of course is the right thing to do.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Maybe if you actually read what the regulation says, you would understand that he did nothing wrong. That, I believe, is also the conclusion of the police.

However, if there is any truth in the two other allegations about breaking the lockdown, there should be consequences. However, he denies it and the police are investigating. So let's leave that to the police, shall we, or are you a 'string him up first and ask questions later' sort of person?

Which examples are you saying he did nothing wrong and quote the relevant sections of the legislation. If he drove a distance where does the regulation describe that as “reasonable”?

The Tories who've broken ranks to call for his head are going to be looking over their shoulders if he doesn't...

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

Which examples are you saying he did nothing wrong and quote the relevant sections of the legislation. If he drove a distance where does the regulation describe that as “reasonable”?

Here is a QC with her thoughts on whether Dominic Cummings acted "Responsibly and Legally"?.

https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk...ly-and-legally