Jump to content

Coronavirus


whelk
 Share

Recommended Posts

His motivation or instincts are entirely irrelevant. When lockdown was announced we weren't told to use our common sense - we were issued a directive that we were to adhere to and failure would result in criminal charges or a fine. He broke his (or at least the govt) rules. Failure to sack him undermines the government position and any further directives they might issue.

 

It's odd really. On the one hand you state that everyone should adhere to the 'directives' or face criminal charges or a fine. It's pretty clear the Cummings DID NOT follow those directives. I believe there was one other option available to police at the time (we had a reasonably heated discussion on this very thread at the time), which meant they could also give appropriate advice to anyone who is/was in contravention of the 'directives'.

 

Why is it then, that you (and indeed many, many otheres) have decided that given the three options; advice, fine, criminal charges, that he (or anyone else for that matter) should be 'sacked'? On what grounds would a 'sacking' in this instance likely stand up in a tribunal - I imagine he has a fairly standard contract when it comes to gross misconduct, potentially it could be claimed that he 'brought the company into disrepute', but then there is the statement from Durham Constabulary which seems to suggest that the 'advice' option was deemed appropriate at the time :

 

This is the statement I read. 8366e3647c40f19011f5de50345c9370.jpg

 

 

If you are happy for Cummings to be fired for ignoring the 'directives', where do you draw the line? Do you go back through all the CCTV with people in parks, on beaches etc during the lockdown who have clearly also ignored the 'directives' and go and hound their employers campainging for them to also be sacked?

 

Yes, the man (and his family) have clearly not followed the 'directives' but shouldn't the 'punishment' for this follow the prescribed guidelines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all Cummings did was sit on a deckchair on his parents driveway for the time it took to drink a cup of tea the story would have been over by Saturday lunchtime.

 

As opposed to what he has claimed he was doing (no evidence yet to suggest otherwise, but happy to be corrected), which was to stay indoors with his family, 'isolating' and retrieve food deliveries left outside the door?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As opposed to what he has claimed he was doing (no evidence yet to suggest otherwise, but happy to be corrected), which was to stay indoors with his family, 'isolating' and retrieve food deliveries left outside the door?
Missing out the whole "don't travel to a second home" thing then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missing out the whole "don't travel to a second home" thing then.

 

Missing out the whole 'unless exceptional circumstances' thing then - I get that the circumstances are up for debate, no denying that!

 

You're also missing out the whole 'do not travel out of your local area' directive that the Welsh Government had (still have?) in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missing out the whole "don't travel to a second home" thing then.

 

... and missing out trips of 30 miles to Barnard Castle. Was that where he admired the bluebells or was that another trip out I lose track.

 

.. and missing out the fact that he is not a normal person with a normal job but is the Prime Minister's chief political advisor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missing out the whole "don't travel to a second home" thing then.

 

Also missing out the whole 'you can meet with ONE other person from another household' thing then - but then that only came into effect in May for England, but (I think?) still not in effect for Wales. Definitely wasn't available in either country in March.

 

EUOQ2jgXsAErTBs?format=jpg&name=small

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

.. and missing out the fact that he is not a normal person with a normal job but is the Prime Minister's chief political advisor.

 

Also missing out the fact that the laws of the land apply to everyone, equally and there are not different rules for 'non normal peole' with jobs in politics.

 

Absolutely, the man was an idiot and broke the rules, as did Kinnock. Both of them have been investigated by the police for their actions and have had what the police deemed 'appropriate action' taken.

 

It certainly seems odd that everyone is up in arms that he broke the rules - he did, there's no defence of that - but the same people are clamouring for whole new levels of punishment be invented as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's odd really. On the one hand you state that everyone should adhere to the 'directives' or face criminal charges or a fine. It's pretty clear the Cummings DID NOT follow those directives. I believe there was one other option available to police at the time (we had a reasonably heated discussion on this very thread at the time), which meant they could also give appropriate advice to anyone who is/was in contravention of the 'directives'.

 

Why is it then, that you (and indeed many, many otheres) have decided that given the three options; advice, fine, criminal charges, that he (or anyone else for that matter) should be 'sacked'? On what grounds would a 'sacking' in this instance likely stand up in a tribunal - I imagine he has a fairly standard contract when it comes to gross misconduct, potentially it could be claimed that he 'brought the company into disrepute', but then there is the statement from Durham Constabulary which seems to suggest that the 'advice' option was deemed appropriate at the time :

 

 

 

 

If you are happy for Cummings to be fired for ignoring the 'directives', where do you draw the line? Do you go back through all the CCTV with people in parks, on beaches etc during the lockdown who have clearly also ignored the 'directives' and go and hound their employers campainging for them to also be sacked?

 

Yes, the man (and his family) have clearly not followed the 'directives' but shouldn't the 'punishment' for this follow the prescribed guidelines?

 

Astounding how many things you don’t seem to grasp. Which is fair enough but normally those people stay quiet not try and debate and embarrass themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. Point me in the right direction then....

 

You can’t distinguish between a key role in public office and a sportsman so not much hope I’m afraid. You don’t understand how politics works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can’t distinguish between a key role in public office and a sportsman so not much hope I’m afraid. You don’t understand how politics works.

 

I don't need to know how politics works. My argument is that the law applies equally to everyone as do the remedies laid out in said law. Perhaps you didn't understand the point and got a little confused so are trying to deflect with this comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also missing out the whole 'you can meet with ONE other person from another household' thing then - but then that only came into effect in May for England, but (I think?) still not in effect for Wales. Definitely wasn't available in either country in March.

 

EUOQ2jgXsAErTBs?format=jpg&name=small

Jesus wept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been following the posts on this thread, but I've yet to see one from the lefties that expressed the degree of pearl clutching horror to Dominic Cummings trip up t'north, when the below story broke:

 

EUOQ2jgXsAErTBs?format=jpg&name=small

 

South Wales Police | #StayHomeSaveLives @swpolice

Replying to @SKinnock

 

I can’t stand the Kinnocks but they did nothing wrong, If Kinnock Jnr thinks his fathers well being is better served by him popping round on his birthday, that’s for him & his family to decide. Exactly as it’s Dom & his family to decide what’s best for their offspring. The Taffy Taliban should **** off and concentrate on real crimes, instead of this pony.

 

Of course hypocrisy has been replaced in the dictionary with whataboutary, so there’s not really any point in pointing out lefties inconsistencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t stand the Kinnocks but they did nothing wrong, If Kinnock Jnr thinks his fathers well being is better served by him popping round on his birthday, that’s for him & his family to decide. Exactly as it’s Dom & his family to decide what’s best for their offspring. The Taffy Taliban should **** off and concentrate on real crimes, instead of this pony.

 

Of course hypocrisy has been replaced in the dictionary with whataboutary, so there’s not really any point in pointing out lefties inconsistencies.

For one it is Guided and Westie going on and on about Kinnock. Joined of course by the various outriders in the media, that posh little Guido-child was on ITV this morning spinning the same line.

 

I've already said if Cummings had just turned up in his parents drive for an hour the story would have been dead by lunch time on Saturday.

 

The only hypocrisy is pretending things that are completely different are the same for the political convenience. That's the dictionary definition of "Whataboutery".

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Starbucks coffee, and I said that on social media. Nothing happened. My mate also posted he doesn't like it and got sacked!!! FFs what is wrong with people?? Starbucks said he shouldn't have done that because he is their Head of Marketing but its a

FREE world! Treat us like adults. You cant single one person out!!

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also missing out the fact that the laws of the land apply to everyone, equally and there are not different rules for 'non normal peole' with jobs in politics.

 

Absolutely, the man was an idiot and broke the rules, as did Kinnock. Both of them have been investigated by the police for their actions and have had what the police deemed 'appropriate action' taken.

 

It certainly seems odd that everyone is up in arms that he broke the rules - he did, there's no defence of that - but the same people are clamouring for whole new levels of punishment be invented as a result.

You’re missing the point. This is nothing to do with the law but is everything to do with politics. Those who make the rules have to abide by them and be squeaky clean. What chance is there of ordinary people making sacrifices and abiding by the rules/guidelines/laws now that this selfish hypocrite has decided that they don’t apply to him?

 

Now wait for all those who have been issued fines to ask for their money back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some common sense at last. Red wall MP’s & I suspect they’re more in tune with their constituents than the howling lefties.

 

588ab4f1440080fa8e79245d50d7c51a.jpg

 

 

2067da17158509d3ea00a4a5bf589690.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Conservative MP support Conservative Prime Minister. Yes, this is an earth shattering breakthrough.

 

Also, Lee Anderson is absolutely bats hit. Right up your street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee Anderson is an oddball. Lifelong Labour member and councillor. Didn't get selected as the Labour candidate for the general election because of a string of comments he had made about women, so went off and became the Tory candidate instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They’re not even fully defending him like Boris did, they’re both saying that there should be an investigation. So at odds with the message being put out by the PM.

 

Exactly.

 

I can’t quite see what anything they wrote could be portrayed as backing the PM. Maybe people are more concerned with rushing out their clever responses, than reading what was actually written.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd actually be happy with some sort of investigation to find out the actual facts before he's hounded out. If he was just out and about then I think everyone woild think he should be fired.

 

What are you on about. The mob clearly know what’s best for his son, clearly know all the facts, & clearly are impartial & consistent over lockdown breaches. He has to go...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd actually be happy with some sort of investigation to find out the actual facts before he's hounded out. If he was just out and about then I think everyone woild think he should be fired.
What are you on about. The mob clearly know what’s best for his son, clearly know all the facts, & clearly are impartial & consistent over lockdown breaches. He has to go...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Prime Minister could have very easily announced that at 5pm last night. That's actually the point.

 

He didn't, and Duckie, who likes to accuse others of "howling" was howling about "the lockdown Taliban" after that, rather than asking for an investigation.

 

But loony Joe Anderson says it the following day and now hes all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Labour have only called for an investigation is telling. They know the longer he clings on, the worse it looks. Boris playing a blinder.

 

Looks like we’ll have a press conference from Cummings to look forward to later today. Expect he’ll announce he’s sacked BJ.

Edited by LGTL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re missing the point. This is nothing to do with the law but is everything to do with politics. Those who make the rules have to abide by them and be squeaky clean. What chance is there of ordinary people making sacrifices and abiding by the rules/guidelines/laws now that this selfish hypocrite has decided that they don’t apply to him?

 

Now wait for all those who have been issued fines to ask for their money back.

 

I agree, 100%, they should be squeaky clean.

 

However, I fear you may be missing the point. As an 'advisor' - and from what I can make out, he is a limited company contractor - Cummings is NOT someone who 'makes the rules', as he is not an elected member of parliament, nor is he a member of the House of Lords (yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What what is already know he should be sacked.

 

It’s important for people at that level of government to set an example, they cannot even appear to be breaking the rules.

Besides, the childcare excuse is clearly bull****e the instructions to stay at home were clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What what is already know he should be sacked.

 

It’s important for people at that level of government to set an example, they cannot even appear to be breaking the rules.

Besides, the childcare excuse is clearly bull****e the instructions to stay at home were clear.

 

???

 

1. As a limited company contractor he cannot be 'sacked', nor can he 'resign' in the traditional sense.

2. He is not a member of Her Majesty's Government, merely an 'advisor'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boris tellingly didn’t answer the visiting the castle question which would have been a clear fck you ‘the mob’ have got it wrong if he knew he hadn’t.

Suckers on here probably think he hasn’t had time to ask him that one. Weston probably thinks Cummings clocks off a 430 on Friday in his standard civil servant role

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astounding how many things you don’t seem to grasp. Which is fair enough but normally those people stay quiet not try and debate and embarrass themselves

 

Boris tellingly didn’t answer the visiting the castle question which would have been a clear fck you ‘the mob’ have got it wrong if he knew he hadn’t.

Suckers on here probably think he hasn’t had time to ask him that one. Weston probably thinks Cummings clocks off a 430 on Friday in his standard civil servant role

 

Any update yet on pointing me in the direction of where I went wrong? Thought not ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boris tellingly didn’t answer the visiting the castle question which would have been a clear fck you ‘the mob’ have got it wrong if he knew he hadn’t.

Suckers on here probably think he hasn’t had time to ask him that one. Weston probably thinks Cummings clocks off a 430 on Friday in his standard civil servant role

 

PMSL - you know the National Trust shut all castles don't you?

 

Oh, right, you think the town is a castle, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if one of the kids has Asperger’s or was Autistic, would this change your view . If there’s only a select few people the kid is comfortable with, only one or two that won’t cause him distress, is it acceptable to drive further. Or is it a case of **** him, he can stay with anyone. All hypothetical of course.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

He should have done what me and my wife did with our Autistic 4yr old daughter when we were both displaying symptoms - follow the Government guidelines by staying in and deal with it. Wasn't easy but we had to just get on with it.

Not drive half way up the country under some ridiculous premise that there was literally no alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any update yet on pointing me in the direction of where I went wrong? Thought not ;)

 

Mate you arwrite loads and loads and can’t grasp basics. Like discussing with SOG.

I recall you didn’t understand why testing was needed. You clearly don’t have a modicum of understanding of advisory roles. Suggest you Amy start watching The Thick of It and see if you really concentrate you might be able to see a parallel with Malcolm Tucker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???

 

1. As a limited company contractor he cannot be 'sacked', nor can he 'resign' in the traditional sense.

2. He is not a member of Her Majesty's Government, merely an 'advisor'.

 

Fair play with sticking to not having a clue. Politics isn’t for everyone sweetie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnard Castle is a town (albeit named after the castle that is houses). Thus I’d expect that the defence to be, if there is to be one, that he was shopping for essential supplies.

 

But ultimately it is Barnard who looks after the castle right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate you arwrite loads and loads and can’t grasp basics. Like discussing with SOG.

I recall you didn’t understand why testing was needed. You clearly don’t have a modicum of understanding of advisory roles. Suggest you Amy start watching The Thick of It and see if you really concentrate you might be able to see a parallel with Malcolm Tucker.

 

Lol, didn't understand most of that; 'you arwrite loads and loads' - your head needs a wobble pal.

 

Fascinated by your recollection of me not understanding why testing was needed - love for you to find ANY post of mine where that was the case. I'm sure it'll be too much trouble for you though - much easier to make stuff up and pretend someone said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's utterly laughable that even with many of the government's own scientific advisors lambasting them and Cummings, that there are some on here that stll say that more needs to be known. Madness.

 

 

For those that still don't get it, Stephen Reicher says it all:

 

 

Stephen Reicher

@ReicherStephen

Be open and honest, we said. Trashed.

Respect the public, we said. Trashed

Ensure equity, so everyone is treated the same, we said. Trashed.

Be consistent we said. Trashed.

Make clear 'we are all in it together'. Trashed.

Edited by egg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's utterly laughable that even with many of the government's own scientific advisors lambasting them and Cummings, that there are some on here that stll say that more needs to be known. Madness.

 

 

For those that still don't get it, Stephen Reicher says it all:

 

 

Stephen Reicher

@ReicherStephen

Be open and honest, we said. Trashed.

Respect the public, we said. Trashed

Ensure equity, so everyone is treated the same, we said. Trashed.

Be consistent we said. Trashed.

Make clear 'we are all in it together'. Trashed.

 

A few on here have found a new love of defending unelected bureaucrats it seems. Quite the reversal from the Brexit days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few on here have found a new love of defending unelected bureaucrats it seems. Quite the reversal from the Brexit days.

Seems that way. Hard to see how people can focus on the "crime", rather than the inevitable public perception and its likely impact on the remnants of the lockdown. I know of people who have met up for a group social distance walk today citing Cummings as setting the precedent for doing what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnard Castle is a town (albeit named after the castle that is houses). Thus I’d expect that the defence to be, if there is to be one, that he was shopping for essential supplies.

 

Apparently the witness saw him walking by the river outside the town. Maybe he was filling essential water bottles or fishing for dinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, didn't understand most of that; 'you arwrite loads and loads' - your head needs a wobble pal.

 

Fascinated by your recollection of me not understanding why testing was needed - love for you to find ANY post of mine where that was the case. I'm sure it'll be too much trouble for you though - much easier to make stuff up and pretend someone said it.

 

I love so many get forensic over their posts. ‘Show me show me’

I couldn’t give much of a fck if I was wrong and was a different poster but yes I am definitely not trawling through the thread to find.

 

It is not made up and patently clear that you cannot understand Cummings’ role. Don’t worry Wes agrees he is a mere advisor too.

 

Daily Mail must be getting too excitable too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that way. Hard to see how people can focus on the "crime", rather than the inevitable public perception and its likely impact on the remnants of the lockdown. I know of people who have met up for a group social distance walk today citing Cummings as setting the precedent for doing what you want.
Wow what a bunch of brain dead f*cktards you know. Imagine basing your actions during all this on what one government advisor decides to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lighthouse changed the title to Coronavirus

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})