Dominic Cummings visited parents during lockdown measures

[pip08456]

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

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

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

But there are no REG plate details.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

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!!!

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

But there are no REG plate details.

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.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

Originally Posted by pip08456

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

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

Not really a fan of that to be honest.

At this point Johnson has decided to take the hit for this story so he might as well keep him. What's the point of taking all this flack, including from some within his party, if Cummings ends up going anyway?

Originally Posted by papa smurf

But there are no REG plate details.

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

I’m not spending half my afternoon trying to find the same image. Indeed, it could now be removed. The witness claims they have it in their search history at that time - this is easily verifiable by them and the police can confirm if it’s his car.

Although, those who will defend him at all costs will just say some remoaner sent the number plate to his pal in Durham in the off chance a scandal came up. So we aren’t any further forward - only the police can adequately verify what the witness said by corroborating against where Cummings said he was on the same date.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

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

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.

Someone just posted this on the Official Civil Service Twitter account...

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

I see a blurred image, i can't make out what the REG is.

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

To counter your points.

Just because Dominic says something, & Boris agrees with him doesn't make it the gospel truth. I'm less concerned about him taking his family to Durham than I am of the two alleged times he was spotted.


Your 2nd statement is absolutely correct, and in fact in a very rare condition we agree with each other witnesses should be interviewed and their statements decided to be true or false based on the availability of any evidence. Just because we don't have it yet doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist (of course it doesn't mean to say it does either!!) thats the point of witness statements, until they're backed up with hard evidence they are as you say speculation and conjecture and only an investigation will reveal ultimately what did or did not happen. You therefore cannot say 'They saw sweet FA because it's bullshit' any more than i can say 'Sack him' because neither of us KNOW for sure.

Completely agree that this shouldn't be trial by media, BUT, due to it's severity. it shouldn't be swept under the carpet either. There should be a formal investigation and the results acted on accordingly.

I don't like Dominic Cummings one little bit, BUT in this instance if it can be proven that the 'eyewitnesses' are lying then i would have no problem with him suing them off the face of the planet.

Finally, I'd love to get the view of an old friend and colleague of mine (ex ACC at Durham) I get the feeling he wont be talking about it

BTW With the licence plate, Sky News have spoken to the witness and confirmed he got the right number plate (they obviously know it)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

It’s in the news story that the witness used a search engine to find an image of Dominic Cummings and a car (presumably his). I’m trying to save pages and pages of discussion of points that nobody actually made.

There’s no indication from their statement that any law was broken. What would the accusation be? That the witness looked up the number plate of Dominic Cummings car the went to the press claiming they seen it in Durham? Considering the witness is named in the paper I’m sure if their employer knows they have access to such records an appropriate audit trace can be done in the morning. A very easy way to get the sack and referred to the police.