Dominic Cummings has resigned

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Then read what I wrote properly. I never defended him. I was in "cast the first stone" mode, obviously. Then you concocted a whole load of diatribe as to what you surmised I supported in Cummings' behaviour.



I refer you to Matthew 7.


Don't you see that those who are judging him are having a feast?

if your defence on defending Cummings is saying you didn’t defend him, when you actually said "he didn’t do anything that most of us haven’t done", when most of us haven’t driven 250 miles against the guidance of the time, it’s not the defence you think it is, because in real life, the scale and magnitude of an offence makes a difference - if you drive at twice the speed limit, your punishment is more than if you drive five miles over the limit. Also, U.K. sentencing guidelines state set out different levels of sentence based on how blameworthy the offender is (referred to in the guidelines as ‘culpability’).

Good grief, who the hell cares if he made a comment or not.

I dare anyone anywhere to state they have never made a flippent comment at one time or another or said they will do something they clearly wont really do ("I'll kill you if you do that" is a common one). No such policy was implemented, bodies did not pile high, we had 3 lockdowns.

Its just more mud slinging for the sake of mud slinging.

[1andrew1]

Tory donor who paid for PM’s Downing Street refurb won lucrative public contracts worth up to £120m

LONDON (Bywire News) - The Conservative Party donor who paid £58,000 so Boris Johnson could refurbish his Downing Street flat is the founder of a company who may have benefitted from lucrative public contracts worth up to a staggering £120m, it can be revealed....

According to the government’s official public contract finder website, on May the 3rd, 2017 Huntswood CTC were awarded a public contract alongside 36 other firms as part of a framework agreement worth between £60-£120m in total...

There is no suggestion that Huntswood CTC acted illegally or improperly in order to win the public contracts nor is there any suggestion that Lord Brownlow has acted illegally or improperly in donating to the Conservative Party or founding a company that has won government contracts. This article is merely drawing attention to our readers of a potential conflict of interest which is clearly in the public interest and may be of value to any future investigations into public contractual procurement and political donations.
https://bywire.news/articles/tory-do...p-to-pound120m

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Sorry, Andrew. Yours is a vacuous statement.

You think the bodies look nice?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

https://americanlibrariesmagazine.or...ence-book-deal

---------- Post added at 22:52 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------


You think the bodies look nice?

It was vacuous at the time. If my remark sent you scurrying off to find the dirt, then my remark served its purpose.

---------- Post added at 23:38 ---------- Previous post was at 23:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

if your defence on defending Cummings is saying you didn’t defend him, when you actually said "he didn’t do anything that most of us haven’t done", when most of us haven’t driven 250 miles against the guidance of the time, it’s not the defence you think it is, because in real life, the scale and magnitude of an offence makes a difference - if you drive at twice the speed limit, your punishment is more than if you drive five miles over the limit. Also, U.K. sentencing guidelines state set out different levels of sentence based on how blameworthy the offender is (referred to in the guidelines as ‘culpability’).

You're losing the argument. We've moved from his Barnard Castle 'sin' to the 250 miles from London 'sin'.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It was vacuous at the time. If my remark sent you scurrying off to find the dirt, then my remark served its purpose.

The dirt's been there well before BoJo was PM. The very public falling-out between Cummings and BoJo is bringing the recent stuff to the surface. Michael Gove's favourite tabloid is serving it up daily.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It was vacuous at the time. If my remark sent you scurrying off to find the dirt, then my remark served its purpose.

---------- Post added at 23:38 ---------- Previous post was at 23:35 ----------



You're losing the argument. We've moved from his Barnard Castle 'sin' to the 250 miles from London 'sin'.

He’s capable of more than one sin, and, to be fair, they were parallel, not serial...

And as I mentioned both previously at the same time...

Originally Posted by Hugh

Pretty sure most of us didn't take a test drive with our families to check our eyesight, or drive over 250 miles to self-isolate...

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Then there is Matthew 7:

If I wasn’t in the middle of finishing my final assignment for my theology degree, I’d take some time here to explain all the ways you’re doing it wrong. But I am in the middle of finishing my theology degree, so I won’t. Plus, we’re veering off the topic.

Suffice it to say that the Bible is not a rule book. It does present a rule for life, but that’s not the same thing, and living by it can’t be achieved by quoting individual verses out of context. The Sermon on the Mount, from which you are quoting, is a great example of that, because if you try to follow it like a list of rules it’s impossible to achieve.

If you did try to do it that way, then a fully Christianised culture of the sort you have argued we are, would have reacted to Matthew 5:38-40 by closing down its courts: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” Yet no country in Christendom ever did so, and quite rightly because despite first appearances, judicial process is not what’s in view here.

Jesus’ rule of live is brilliant, the absolute best, and I’m delighted you’re attentive to it, but a rule of life, and a list of rules, are not the same thing. The Sermon on the Mount is the former.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

If I wasn’t in the middle of finishing my final assignment for my theology degree, I’d take some time here to explain all the ways you’re doing it wrong.

The Tim Vine joke about crime in multi-story car parks probably sums it up!

PMQs today should be interesting.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

PMQs today should be interesting.

Why . . . is Sephiroth attending?

Originally Posted by Carth

Why . . . is Sephiroth attending?

In spirit...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

If I wasn’t in the middle of finishing my final assignment for my theology degree, I’d take some time here to explain all the ways you’re doing it wrong. But I am in the middle of finishing my theology degree, so I won’t. Plus, we’re veering off the topic.

Suffice it to say that the Bible is not a rule book. It does present a rule for life, but that’s not the same thing, and living by it can’t be achieved by quoting individual verses out of context. The Sermon on the Mount, from which you are quoting, is a great example of that, because if you try to follow it like a list of rules it’s impossible to achieve.

If you did try to do it that way, then a fully Christianised culture of the sort you have argued we are, would have reacted to Matthew 5:38-40 by closing down its courts: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” Yet no country in Christendom ever did so, and quite rightly because despite first appearances, judicial process is not what’s in view here.

Jesus’ rule of live is brilliant, the absolute best, and I’m delighted you’re attentive to it, but a rule of life, and a list of rules, are not the same thing. The Sermon on the Mount is the former.

First, I hope you sail through your theology degree.
As regards whether or not Cummings should be held to a higher standard than the public at large, I think you've failed to prove your case.

Earlier, you prayed the bible in aid to make the case for Judeo-Christian culture holding the likes of Cummings to greater account than ordinary people. Where the bible supports this notion is in relation to "teachers", who were Rabbis seeking directly to preach/influence the people. That is not relevant to a civil servant in the UK.

In your latest response, you appear to row back and say that the bible is not a rule book. Then why did you try and make the case against Cummings in the first place?

By contrast, Matthew 7 covers my point exactly in nearly plain English. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged".


---------- Post added at 11:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Why . . . is Sephiroth attending?

Bless you!

---------- Post added at 11:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

In spirit...

To quote from your signature:

There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

Good grief, who the hell cares if he made a comment or not.

I dare anyone anywhere to state they have never made a flippent comment at one time or another or said they will do something they clearly wont really do ("I'll kill you if you do that" is a common one). No such policy was implemented, bodies did not pile high, we had 3 lockdowns.

Its just more mud slinging for the sake of mud slinging.

I would suggest that the majority of people outside of Westminster really couldn't give a toss, and after the last 14 months, is this what our elected representatives think we want them to spending time on!

[1andrew1]

No wonder BoJo was rattled in PMQs and avoided the question.

Watchdog to investigate PM's flat renovations

The watchdog has been in contact with the Conservative Party since March over works the PM carried out to No 11.

But it has now announced it is "satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56915307

[Mr K]

Boris Johnson will have the final say on whether he breached the ministerial code over the Downing Street flat, Number 10 has revealed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ies-flat-pmqs/
Now there's a surprise !

What beats me is why he needs a loan of a few quid for a bit of painting ; His net worth is estimated at £3million. Maybe thats his escape fund for when he needs to flee the authorities/country?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ies-flat-pmqs/
Now there's a surprise !

What beats me is why he needs a loan of a few quid for a bit of painting ; His net worth is estimated at £3million. Maybe thats his escape fund for when he needs to flee the authorities/country?

It's a lot of fuss over a lick of paint and a few rolls of wallpaper, but he should resign if the wallpaper clashes with the cushions.