Dominic Cummings visited parents during lockdown measures

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Seph, politics is political. Any law drafted by politicians around the word "reasonable" by its nature leaves interpretation open to the masses. That's literally how judgements would be made around any law that has the word in it. How would your bog standard average person interpret events.

The fact a majority don't consider his activity reasonable, including the police, demonstrates that his behaviour has been unreasonable. His lack of contrition is fuel to the fire.

---------- Post added at 17:53 ---------- Previous post was at 17:51 ----------



Ah Civil Servants. There to do the Government's bidding.

Hopefully we remember that when it comes to blaming the politicians or the scientists when we have the inevitable Coronavirus inquiry as to how we have the most deaths per capita in the world despite substantial warning.

My friend, these are baying hounds - out only for blood.
BBC, SKY and ITV should be apolitical and not sensationalise stuff like this.

Actually, the newspaper questions were not so tilted.

Interesting point you make about "reasonable". The arbiters of "reasonable" in terms of the law, are the empowered officers. Maybe ultimately a jury of there's a criminal prosecution. But your point is just being argumentative (of course).

[1andrew1]

Full Fact's review of Dominic Cummins Lockdown trips.
https://fullfact.org/health/dominic-...ockdown-rules/

---------- Post added at 18:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

You hope of course.

If he'd apologised from day one and said I was under a lot of pressure, sorry, I made the wrong call, the story would not have had so much traction.

Originally Posted by peanut

So no action because of who he is? Whilst everyone gets fined.

Everyone else doesnt get fined.

The force said it would not be taking retrospective action against Mr Cummings since this would amount to "treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public."

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Paul

Everyone else doesnt get fined.

I believe that's reserved for repeat offenders. I suspect most just apologise and head home.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

My friend, these are baying hounds - out only for blood.
BBC, SKY and ITV should be apolitical and not sensationalise stuff like this.

Actually, the newspaper questions were not so tilted.

Interesting point you make about "reasonable". The arbiters of "reasonable" in terms of the law, are the empowered officers. Maybe ultimately a jury of there's a criminal prosecution. But your point is just being argumentative (of course).

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it. An officer can only determine what they think is reasonable at the time, yes. However upon appeal, and in front of that jury, they would be asked to consider reasonable in the context that I put earlier in the thread. What an average person would expect to do.

This is established in Case Law. So for example in HMRC penalties cannot be avoided because someone claimed to be ignorant of VAT - that's not considered reasonable. A person of average intelligence would be aware of VAT.

However could someone avoid a penalty, or receive a different type, on the basis of being unaware of intricate parts of the law - so long as they took reasonable steps.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If he'd apologised from day one and said I was under a lot of pressure, sorry, I made the wrong call, the story would not have had so much traction.

I don't think you actually believe that!

The people still going on about this, in the main, are those who just want to take him down. Had he admitted wrongdoing, that would have been used against him, for heaven's sake!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it. An officer can only determine what they think is reasonable at the time, yes. However upon appeal, and in front of that jury, they would be asked to consider reasonable in the context that I put earlier in the thread. What an average person would expect to do.

This is established in Case Law. So for example in HMRC penalties cannot be avoided because someone claimed to be ignorant of VAT - that's not considered reasonable. A person of average intelligence would be aware of VAT.

However could someone avoid a penalty, or receive a different type, on the basis of being unaware of intricate parts of the law - so long as they took reasonable steps.

Which is what Cummings did (I would judge).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Which is what Cummings did (I would judge).

I do accept that you believe that, and that's the issue with the word reasonable in law. It permits people to disagree, often without an arbiter (e.g. the penalty most often being 'look mate, go home') - someone given a nod from the Constabulary to reconsider their 'reasonableness' will often decide that it's not worth disputing especially against the backdrop of a public health emergency.

This is why I suggested the other day he admit to an error of judgement. I think such an admission would have satisfied the majority of the 52% of leave voters and 46% of Conservative voters who say he should go - creating a distinction between those politically motivated and just don't like him and those who believe he was in the wrong.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I thought so too!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'll admit it has happened in other threads.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't think you actually believe that!

The people still going on about this, in the main, are those who just want to take him down. Had he admitted wrongdoing, that would have been used against him, for heaven's sake!

That's the trouble these days - leading politicians and their advisers are less than honest so everyone starts disbelieving each other.
The story has continued because it has not been killed by an apology or resignation. I've been consistent on this since my first post in this thread.
Cummins has continued to develop the story himself with the ridiculous eye test story on Sunday which I doubt you believe and by rewriting a blog post to make him look like the sage of CV-19. Conservative MPs have continued it by condemning him in emails to constituents.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That's the trouble these days - leading politicians and their advisers are less than honest so everyone starts disbelieving each other.
The story has continued because it has not been killed by an apology or resignation. I've been consistent on this since my first post in this thread.
Cummins has continued to develop the story himself with the ridiculous eye test story on Sunday which I doubt you believe and by rewriting a blog post to make him look like the sage of CV-19. Conservative MPs have continued it by condemning him in emails to constituents.

You're really coming across as reasonable!

First, as you more or less observe, senior politicians are especially adept at truth minus or even downright lying. But I don't see why that should extend to their advisors because they keep in the background, mainly.

Second, yep - the eye test story is ridiculous. But, nevertheless, a minor infringement!

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Th
The story has continued because it has not been killed by an apology or resignation. I've been consistent on this since my first post in this thread.
Cummins has continued to develop the story himself with the ridiculous eye test story on Sunday which I doubt you believe and by rewriting a blog post to make him look like the sage of CV-19. Conservative MPs have continued it by condemning him in emails to constituents.

There is nothing he needs to apologise for, he owes you nothing, he owes me nothing. The only reason this story has carried on is because of the media obsession, nothing else. But you knew that already.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You're really coming across as reasonable!

First, as you more or less observe, senior politicians are especially adept at truth minus or even downright lying. But I don't see why that should extend to their advisors because they keep in the background, mainly.

Second, yep - the eye test story is ridiculous. But, nevertheless, a minor infringement!

You are plainly content that politicians and advisors you support can mislead the country without censure. However, the point was made that if this was a Labour administration, the current Tory supporters would the first in line to condemn, a point you chose not to address. Tribal support at the expense of objective reality.

Step back for a moment: the man in question is an advisor. An unelected employee of the Government. That's all. An objective assessment of this event would conclude that the message to the country, in the midst of a once in a century national health emergency was the priority here. No ifs or buts, the country would come first and any event that risked or compromised that message would handled accordingly. The real reason Cummings is still in place is what he holds over Johnson, Gove et. al. All this "nothing to see here", "media ****", etc. is just a smokescreen.

I do think that the Tories have miscalculated here and this will be an advantage to Starmer in the long run. The public mood, so at odds with you and the tribal Tories, is clear.